House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
We are supporting Scotland through the North sea transition deal, contracts for difference for renewable energy, and more than £80 million of net zero innovation portfolio funding.
Ian Blackford
I thank the Secretary of State for that response, particularly in relation to CfDs. Will he commit today to a clear pathway for the true commercial-scale development of tidal stream energy? A ringfence in the CfD auction is welcome, but it is only scratching the surface of what the industry can deliver. Investors in projects are stalling, as they need long-term visibility. The industry—and, indeed, all of us—needs this technology to succeed. Let us unlock this predictable, renewable power and create an industry and sector that we can be proud of and that can be made on these islands. We need a commitment today that the ringfenced budget will increase, to allow costs to fall and true-scale projects to be delivered. If we want energy security, here is the pathway.
Grant Shapps
Fortunately, the answer is pretty straightforward. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, we are doing tidal power in this CfD round. That is to be welcomed and we look forward to this industry expanding in the future, as some of the technicalities and technical difficulties are resolved. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has visited recently to see this in action.
Dr Whitford
Energy storage is vital to managing demand as we switch to renewable electricity. Pumped storage hydro is the most efficient large-scale storage method. UK capacity could be more than doubled by six projects across Scotland that have been shovel ready for more than five years. They take a long time to build, so why are the UK Government not supporting investment in infrastructure that is critical for our future energy security?
Grant Shapps
I have discussed this matter with SSE in relation to that particular hydro storage project, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met MSPs yesterday to discuss the subject as well. We are keen to have this kind of hydro storage, which is why our plans allow for it to be taken forward. However, I have to say to Opposition Members—all of them—that it is no good just having one kind of storage or one kind of tidal power; we also need to protect the Scottish economy with oil and gas to make sure we are not subjected to Putin or any other dictator holding us to ransom over our energy security.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is good to hear that the Secretary of State is supporting the economy in Scotland, but my question is: how are the UK Government investing in grid capacity in Wales? In Wales, such investment is crucial if we are to support energy transition projects such as the Holyhead hydrogen hub, Minesto, Morlais, BP Mona, Lightsource BP and, of course, new nuclear at Wylfa.
Grant Shapps
Grid capacity in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland is at the top of our list. The Winser review has done a lot of work to look at how we can speed up the delivery of that capacity, given the big transition that is going on and this country’s big lead in renewables, which makes that necessary.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On pumped storage hydro, it is as though the Secretary of State just does not get it. It increases energy resilience and would reduce the £4.2 billion balancing costs that are getting paid out at the moment. The 1.5 GW Coire Glas scheme can be delivered in seven years, and it would power 3 million homes for a 24-hour period. The Government have found £700 million for Sizewell C and they have implemented cap and floor mechanisms for interconnectors, so why is he not having proper discussions with SSE about a cap and floor mechanism?
Grant Shapps
The Secretary of State does in fact get it, because we support the idea of having things such as hydro power. Again, I have to say that there is a choice where taxpayers’ money is spent. It has to be done competitively in the round. To be talking merely about storage and not the generation, including nuclear power, which is a key part of this country’s energy security future, simply means that the overall view that the SNP has is unbalanced when it comes to how we power our nations.
Alan Brown
The Secretary of State has proved he still does not get it—he is not having proper discussions with SSE. If we move to carbon capture and storage, the Climate Change Committee’s progress report identified “risks” and “significant risks” associated with industrial clusters and carbon dioxide storage, which proves it is nonsensical to have Acorn as a reserve. When will the Government announce the track 2 clusters and provide parity for Acorn? When does he envisage Acorn starting construction? That is vital to meet the 2030 targets.
Grant Shapps
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already pumped £40 million into Acorn. It is on the reserve list. He asks when; the answer is this year for track 2 and track 1 expansion. So I say it again: the Secretary of State does get it.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The Government are investing billions to support the development and deployment of carbon capture, utilisation and storage, hydrogen and other decarbonisation technologies, and have a range of policies supporting industrial decarbonisation, such as the industrial energy transformation fund and local industrial decarbonisation plans.
Bill Esterson
There are 23 clean steel projects across Europe, but none in the UK. Meanwhile, the UK is the only country in the G20 where steel production is falling. Other countries recognise the importance of their domestic steel industries, and they recognise the importance of investing in low-carbon steel. Why do this Government not support our steel?
Graham Stuart
As the hon. Gentleman knows well, this Government do support the UK steel industry. On his broader point, which he mentioned in his original question, UK industrial emissions have fallen 65% since 1990, and we are making significant investments in industrial decarbonisation, not least the £20 billion announced at the end of March, which will contribute to decarbonisation through CCUS and help the steel industry.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Do Ministers agree that the Government’s competition for small modular nuclear reactors will help provide the volume of energy we need for energy-intensive domestic industries and, over the long term, at a lower cost than previous nuclear power stations?
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. There is enormous enthusiasm on the Government side of the House for the potential of nuclear, including small modular reactors. We are determined to see that go forward as quickly as possible, which is why the new organisation, Great British Nuclear, is doing a rapid down selection of technologies this year, precisely in order to unlock the benefits that my right hon. Friend so correctly highlights.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
On decarbonisation, many organisations, such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, are asking about the Government’s net zero growth plan, which said:
“The public will play a key role in the transition and therefore we will set out further detail on how Government will increase public engagement on net zero.”
Can the Minister clarify when that detail will be published?
Graham Stuart
I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. He is right that as well as top-down Government policy, we must unlock the huge public desire of people to play their part and make sure we have the right information in place. That will be provided and produced as soon as possible.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister will welcome measures that many businesses are already undertaking simply because they are the right thing to do, including traditionally carbon-intensive industries, such as cement manufacturing. Cemex in my constituency is investing to use decarbonised raw material and trialling the use of hydrogen in the combustion process, which will significantly reduce the amount of CO2 generated by every tonne of cement manufactured in Rugby?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is right, and he is right to champion those industries that are working so hard to decarbonise already. As my hon. Friend says, we have the net zero hydrogen fund, which will provide up to £240 million by 2025 to support the development and construction of new low-carbon hydrogen production plants, which will be able to assist in cement as well as other industries.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
It is a priority for this Government that all net zero energy infrastructure is built, operated and maintained in an appropriate and safe way. My officials work closely with the industry-led electricity storage health and safety governance group to ensure an appropriate, robust and future-proofed health and safety framework is sustained as storage deployment increases.
Dame Maria Miller
We need to increase power storage, but the potential fire risks associated with lithium-ion battery storage facilities are now becoming widely acknowledged. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure those facilities are not built in inappropriate locations, such as Basing Fenn in my constituency, which is a site sandwiched between a rare north-flowing, salmonid chalk stream and a hospital?
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and her tireless campaigning on this important issue. As I discussed in that very positive meeting that I had with her yesterday, I have been working with colleagues across Government to establish the appropriate treatment of these facilities in planning and environmental regulation. Every site should be considered on its own merits and is a decision for our local authorities.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will this Government stop chuntering on about batteries and battery storage all the time? Will they get down to JCB and see its innovative new hydrogen fuel car and heavy goods vehicle? Is it not about time that we realised that hydrogen is the future and that this Government should be building a pipeline of hydrogen throughout the country?
Andrew Bowie
I will not be drawn on chuntering on by the hon. Gentleman, but let me just say that it was this Government who allowed JCB to proceed with that technology and to develop it at commercial scale. I am pleased to tell him that the Secretary of State will be visiting imminently.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
The Government are committed to placing the UK at the forefront of the floating wind sector. I am delighted to announce that the Crown estate will be providing an update to industry this morning on a 4 GW leasing round in the Celtic sea and has already commissioned the survey work required to support it.
Stephen Kinnock
The development of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for my Aberavon constituency, for Wales and for the entire United Kingdom. Last week, the Climate Change Committee rightly blasted the Government for failing to deliver on their net zero commitment. I am profoundly concerned that floating offshore wind will be squandered due to the lack of grip and direction that the committee described. When will the Minister be bringing forward an industrial strategy for floating offshore wind, which will ensure that Welsh manufacturing and Welsh jobs are placed at the heart of turbine and substructure fabrication, starting with the vital seabed licensing process.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are the world leader in floating offshore wind and we are determined to stay there in order to realise the industrial benefits, which he rightly champions, and the opportunities in Wales. The floating wind demonstration programme—[Interruption.] The Labour Front-Bench team really do not like to hear this, do they? The fact that we have cut our emissions more than any other major economy on earth under this Government is what leads those on the Labour Front Bench to sense their own inadequacy, because they know what they left behind. That floating wind demonstration programme is supporting innovation with £31 million of Government funding matched by £30 million from industry.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Floating offshore wind and all these exciting generation technologies are wonderful, but all of them will come to nought unless we can increase the speed and capacity of the grid connections to get the electricity onshore and to the users who need it. What is the Minister doing to sort out the national grid and to speed up the way in which grid connections are made, because, without this, we will go nowhere?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend puts it so well. It is so true: whatever the generation, if we cannot get the electrons where they need to go, we are frustrated. That is why we are determined to speed up the connections. That is why, from the Pick report on offshore wind to the Nick Winser review, this Government, led by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)—this is the first time that this country has had a networks Minister—are absolutely focused, in a laser-like way, on making sure that we speed up and get the delivery of the infrastructure that we need to deliver the green transition.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The Government want communities to participate in and benefit from onshore wind proposed in their local area. On 11 May, the Government issued a consultation for onshore wind partnerships in England, proposing improvements to the current system of community engagement and benefits.
Alexander Stafford
Some energy firms give discounts to those who live near onshore wind farms when the wind blows. Unfortunately, though, that is not the case everywhere. Will the Minister look again at this policy nationally so that my constituents, such as those who live in Ulley near Penny Hill wind farm, and even myself—I live in Harthill near Loscar wind farm—will see the benefits of clean, green wind power reflected in their energy bills?
Andrew Bowie
The consultation on onshore wind partnerships proposed that the Government work with RenewableUK to update the industry-wide community benefits protocol for onshore wind in England. An updated protocol would seek to encourage more innovative approaches, for example through developers supporting local energy bill discounts. The consultation closes on 7 July.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I am not sure there is much point in community engagement when there is no onshore wind. We do not have any onshore wind. Last week, we heard the Climate Change Committee’s devastating report on this country’s commitment to net zero. When will this Government unlock the barriers to onshore wind?
Andrew Bowie
I completely refute the suggestion that we have no onshore wind. Onshore wind contributes 14 GW of power to the UK’s national grid as we speak, and of course we support the deployment of onshore wind with communities.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister is sort of right that there have been some onshore wind turbines built just recently—two since February 2022, so there is not much chance of community engagement there, to be honest. In December, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities promised that the onshore wind ban would be completely lifted by the end of April this year. Why have the Government broken that promise?
Andrew Bowie
I will take no lectures from the Labour party on developing renewable electricity. When Labour left office in 2010—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear this, but when Labour left office in 2010, less than 7% of the grid was accounted for by renewables. Now it is 43%.
Dr Whitehead
I think maybe the Government should take lessons from Labour. It is now generally understood that the Government consultation is likely to lead to only minimal relaxation of planning rules and that onshore wind will effectively remain banned. Tory peer Lord Deben, chairman of the Climate Change Committee, said of the consultation on Saturday that it is simply unacceptable that the Government are still discussing whether they are in favour of onshore wind or not when it is widely recognised as one of the cheapest forms of energy generation. He is right, is he not?
Andrew Bowie
I really wish the Labour party would stop talking down what we are doing on renewable electricity. I remind the House that the consultation on onshore wind finishes on 7 July.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
Wholesale energy prices have fallen significantly since the peak of the energy crisis, so the energy bill discount scheme strikes a balance between providing support and certainty to business and limiting the impact on public finances.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for a proper Derbyshire answer. Can she give more information on how the Government are working to help wedding venues and hospitality in general with extreme costs for electricity and gas, particularly where businesses have signed long-term contracts in the face of falling world prices?
Amanda Solloway
I thank my hon. Friend from South Derbyshire—it is a great county to live in, with great hospitality—for her question. Businesses, including the hospitality sector, have already benefited from the energy bill relief scheme, which ended on 31 March and provided £7.4 billion of support. We are mindful of the fixed-term contracts, which are a supplier issue, and we are constantly engaging with stakeholders and suppliers on that.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Last week I attended the opening of the first phase of a new solar farm at Newcastle airport. It was 50% funded by the regional development fund, which post Brexit we no longer have access to. The further three phases are vital to ensure that the airport meets its net zero target and the Government meet their solar target, so what are the Government doing to ensure that those further three phases will be supported in some way by the Government?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Lady for that information. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take that question away and find out more details.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The director general of UK Steel said this week:
“There are huge question marks over if government really wants to sustain steel, the backbone of British manufacturing, or just leave it to shrink and rely on other nations’ supply.”
He is right to say that. It is four years since the Government promised the green steel fund, but not a penny has been paid. Why are the Government failing our steel communities so comprehensively?
Amanda Solloway
That is absolutely not true; we are legislating for that at the moment. It is incredibly important to the Government that we combat that and support the energy and trade-intensive industries.
Kerry McCarthy
The Committee on Climate Change said last week that
“the Government has high ambitions for decarbonisation but no policy to deliver it”.
We have been slow to react to the US Inflation Reduction Act and to the EU’s proposed green deal industrial plan. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who, for the benefit of the Minister, is not from the Labour Benches, said:
“Where the UK once led, we are now falling behind.”
When will Ministers snap out of their appalling complacency and come up with the strategy and timeline that we need to support the UK in the global race for green jobs and investment?
Amanda Solloway
We have met all our carbon targets and will continue to do so. The Government have made the commitment to continue hitting and progressing on those targets.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
My Department has been working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on delivering the proposals in the published action plan for reforming and speeding up the nationally significant infrastructure project planning process. An important part of those reforms involves updating and strengthening the national policy statements for energy.
Clive Efford
Last weekend, James Robottom, the head of onshore wind at RenewableUK, said that he does not expect much from the Government’s consultation on planning. He said that obstacles to new onshore wind development would
“severely hinder investment in the onshore wind industry and its supply chain due to the high level of risk and uncertainty they create. We are being denied the opportunity for thousands of new jobs and billions in private investment”.
In the meantime, that is costing English families £180 per year. It means damage to the economy, damage to the environment, and higher bills for families. Is it not time that we got this useless Government out of the way so that we can sort it out?
Andrew Bowie
This useless Government who have delivered 43% renewables on to the grid! I would much rather take our record on renewables than the Labour party’s any day of the week. The consultation on national policy statements closed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on 23 June, and the Government remain on track to present them to Parliament and bring them into effect by the end of 2023.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Local authorities have a presumption in favour of solar, and quite right, too, but should they not also consider the cumulative effect of solar farms? Wiltshire is the second largest county in England for solar farms. If the new Red Barn project at Kington St Michael is added, it will be one of the largest solar farms in Britain. We are covering our good agricultural land with solar farms in counties such as Wiltshire. When the forthcoming planning policy guidance is reconsidered, will the Minister undertake to include a presumption against solar farms on grade 3a and 3b agricultural land?
Andrew Bowie
Food security is incredibly important, and we will, of course, prioritise less productive land for the deployment of solar farms. Our reforms aim to ensure that infrastructure developers consider, at the outset of their programmes, how projects can address the legitimate concerns of affected communities, engaging regularly with them throughout the pre-application phase and beyond. Engaging with statutory consultees early during the pre-application stage will also benefit local communities and farmers through high-quality applications.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
Ending Russian imports in April 2022 has shown that Russian gas belongs in the past. Our system was well supplied last winter by North sea gas and reliable imports—a far cry from Labour’s energy surrender plan, sponsored by Just Stop Oil, which would put us back at square one and in the hands of despots such as Putin and his tyrannical regime.
Mr Mohindra
I welcome the Secretary of State’s answer. Could he explain what steps his Department is taking to ensure that no country will ever be able to hold the UK to ransom through our energy supply?
Grant Shapps
It is about having a balanced energy supply, which means renewables, nuclear power, and yes, where necessary, oil and gas licences—to do without them puts the security of every single person in this country at risk and means that household bills will go up. Sadly, that is exactly the policy of His Majesty’s official Opposition.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
A recent report by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit shows that, regardless of Ministers’ plans to expand domestic oil and gas production, imports of gas will continue to rise significantly unless we tackle demand. New oil and gas licences simply will not deliver energy security as the oil and gas is sold at global prices on international markets. They will cost the taxpayer dearly while being a disaster for the climate. Will the Government finally do what is needed by ruling out new licences and committing instead to measures that will genuinely make the UK energy secure, including a nationwide street-by-street home insulation programme, unblocking onshore wind, and installing new solar on every roof?
Grant Shapps
We have gone from 14% of our homes being insulated under the previous Government to nearly 50%—it will be 50% this year—and we have set up an energy taskforce to reduce the usage of energy and make it more efficient. However, the policy of the hon. Lady’s party, and that of the official Opposition, of importing all the oil and gas that we require and not providing new licences is simply insane. It means that every single family in Britain will be subject to the next tyrant like Putin, and that the carbon used will be double what is taken from the North sea. It is bonkers policy.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
Population growth is taken into account when setting our decarbonisation goals. Specifically, it is accounted for in our baseline emissions projections, which help determine the effort required to meet our carbon targets.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does my right hon. Friend accept that in 2050, on present Government policies, we will have 25 million more people in this country than there were in 1990, the base date for carbon dioxide emissions? He obviously accepts that a higher population leads to higher global emissions, but can he also say that when it comes to climate change, it would be a good idea for this Government to concentrate on a net migration policy, rather than net zero?
Graham Stuart
As my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister is absolutely determined to bring net migration down to sustainable levels. I would also point out to him that the UK does not set decarbonisation targets per capita, because all countries need to reduce emissions in absolute terms. We are determined to play our part in doing that—to move to net zero, but in a pro-growth, pro-business manner.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is not simply about empowering future generations, but those that exist. That is why the roll-out of smart metering is important. The latest quarterly statistics claim that 57% of UK households have smart meters, but that masks the fact that only four out of 32 Scottish local authorities are above 50% in the roll-out of smart metering, five are below 30%, and three island councils are below 10%. All those are also the areas with the highest fuel poverty. As we approach March 2024, when radio teleswitching will go off, how will we ensure that people have access to smart metering, enabling them to get off-peak tariffs?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right, both to enthuse about the importance of smart metering and the benefits it can bring—even more so as we move forward in the coming years—and to highlight the importance of ensuring, as ever, that something so important is equitably distributed. I, or colleagues, would be happy to meet him to discuss how we make sure that the issues he has rightly raised are addressed.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
The Government are supporting the installation of rooftop solar in numerous different ways: financial incentives, performance standards and the solar taskforce.
Mr Robertson
For years now, I have been trying to persuade Governments of all colours to change building regulations to require all new buildings to be fitted with solar panels. That would have the benefit of securing supply, reducing household bills considerably and helping us towards net zero, so why do we not do it?
Grant Shapps
I assure my hon. Friend that I am a great enthusiast for solar panels—I have had them on my home for the past 12 years, and they perform very well. I want to see more people do that. In fact, over that period, we have gone from virtually no renewables in our system—6.9%—to 43% in the last quarter. I am very keen for that expansion to go further and faster. We need to ensure that it is part of the building code, but we also want to make sure that other forms of renewables can be installed, so it is a balance between not being too prescriptive and making sure that we make speedy progress, particularly on all the commercial rooftops in this country.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting an innovative housing project in Rumney in my constituency, which had solar panels in nearly all the new buildings but also ground source heat pumps, electric vehicle charging points and battery technology in the houses, bringing down bills for the residents while contributing to net zero. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising Cardiff’s Labour council and the Welsh Labour Government for the work they have done on this issue, and will he explain what we are doing to ensure greater manufacture of those technologies in this country?
Grant Shapps
Of course, I am delighted that the Barnett formula stretches so far in providing some of the excellent additions to those buildings. I just want to repeat that no Government have gone further and faster in the G7 than this one in introducing renewables and ensuring that they now power a very significant part of our grid. We want to go further and faster still, and we will make sure that things such as building codes help with that plan.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
We recognise that having the right skills within the workforce is critical, which is why we established the green jobs delivery group.
Stephen Farry
The Climate Change Committee has expressed concern that the UK is falling behind on a range of net zero commitments, including on skills. A skilled workforce, alongside new green jobs, is a key component of the green new deal, but the workforce plan is not due until 2024. In the light of the urgency of addressing climate change, will the Government commit to bring that forward to some time later this year?
Amanda Solloway
We are working as quickly as we can on ensuring this. The new skills that will be required are really beneficial for the UK economy, so we are keen to work with the green jobs delivery group and the Department for Education in looking at apprenticeships and how we can push this forward as quickly as possible.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
Our “Powering up Britain” plan seizes opportunities from the transition to a decarbonised energy system. Our policies, backed by billions of pounds of Government funding—but more importantly, leveraging in about £100 billion of private investment—will support up to 480,000 jobs in 2030.
Nicola Richards
Enfinium is building a new energy-from-waste facility in my constituency, which will process nearly 400,000 tonnes of waste to generate electricity for more than 95,000 homes and businesses each year. Will the Minister join me in welcoming this investment in renewable energy, and outline how the Government are supporting energy-from-waste facilities across the country?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am delighted to join her in welcoming this new investment, which will be a huge asset to her community as well as having positive national implications. Energy from waste with combined heat and power is supported through pot 1 of the contracts for difference scheme—our auction system. We expect to announce the results of the latest round in early September, and I hope the House will watch that announcement with great interest.
Dr Mullan
What assessment has the Minister made of the role of a tariff support mechanism to encourage short-term private sector investment in deep geothermal to support levelling up?
Graham Stuart
There is no greater champion than—or anyone in this House with half the knowledge of this, as far as I can tell—my hon. Friend in supporting the potential of deep geothermal. When the Prime Minister responded to his report, I know he thanked my hon. Friend for all the work that went into it. I can confirm that geothermal technologies that generate electricity are eligible for the contracts for difference scheme. We are also supporting and encouraging the development of geothermal heating projects through the green heat network fund, which supports the development of low-carbon heat networks. Under the leadership of my hon. Friend, I am confident that geothermal has a positive future.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Private sector businesses in the Humber are ready and willing to invest £15 billion in carbon capture, storage and decarbonisation projects. However, this is being put at risk because, of the eight track 1 carbon capture and storage projects selected, not a single project was approved for the Humber, despite the Humber being the largest carbon emitter in the country and the fact that 80% of the UK’s licensed CO2 storage capacity is accessible from the Humber. When will these businesses get the clarity they need? When the track 1 expansion process is launched, will both Humber pipelines be approved?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and she is right to be frustrated because of the enormous potential both to decarbonise and to unlock industrial benefits for the area. We are moving as quickly as possible. I have already said that the Viking project and the Scottish cluster are in the favoured position, and the team is moving as quickly as possible this year to provide more certainty and unlock further investment.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Private sector investment in clean energy is vital, but does the Minister agree that one reason that the United Kingdom, despite having the highest tidal range on planet Earth after Canada, still uses so little of it, is a lack of public sector leadership? Areas such as Morecambe Bay, which could contribute to tidal energy, bringing down people’s bills and protecting us against Putin, are something that we could move forward. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other MPs around the bay, so that we can bring forward plans to get the most out of our tidal energy?
Graham Stuart
I am not an expert in the hon. Gentleman’s history on this topic, but I hope it has been consistently in favour of tidal energy, and therefore different from so many other areas of policy. I share his enthusiasm for the potential of tidal energy. That is why we are the world’s leading nation in the deployment of tidal range, and why tidal power is eligible for the contracts for difference scheme. Notwithstanding so many issues, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
The Government are supporting local authorities and community energy groups to work together to develop projects within UK growth funding schemes, such as the UK shared prosperity fund. Ofgem also welcomes funding applications from the sector to the industry voluntary redress scheme.
Mr Bradshaw
Why did the Government remove amendments from the Energy Bill last week that would have supported community energy and local energy trading?
Andrew Bowie
As we have outlined previously, the Government do not support the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, and believe that the issues raised should be considered as part of wider market reform. However, we are proactively working with parliamentarians and the community energy sector to discuss whether further support from the Government for the sector is needed, and if so, what might be feasible.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The Government have provided support to customers on traditional prepayment meters through the energy bills support scheme and energy price guarantee.
Anna Firth
I very much welcome the measures that the Government have announced to support those on traditional prepayment meters, but many residents in Southend West, such as those living in Trafford House in Leigh-on-Sea, are on communal heat networks. They are still facing higher prices and have no control whatsoever over their heating. What are the Government doing to encourage heat suppliers to apply for the energy bill discount scheme ahead of the deadline at the end of this month, which will benefit my constituents who have no control over their energy bills?
Amanda Solloway
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for all her constituents, and she will be interested to hear that the Government are committed to supporting domestic heat network customers with their bills. That is why we introduced the energy bills discount scheme heat network support, which aims to ensure that heat network customers do not face disappointingly higher bills compared with customers in equivalent households.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Can the Minister tell us the value of prepayment meter vouchers not cashed by the 30 June deadline? What can the Government do to ensure that support reaches those people who are eligible to get it?
Amanda Solloway
All hon. Members will know how abhorrent we found the use of forced entry to people’s houses over prepayment meters. However, we have worked hard and consistently to ensure that all those on prepayment meters are treated fairly and given support.
Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
I am pleased, and indeed proud, to say that Great British Nuclear will be holding a competition for small modular reactors, because we want to attract the best designs from both domestic and international vendors. The Government’s ambition is to select the leading technologies by autumn, providing co-funding to any viable new technology. Our commitment to a nuclear programme and to Great British Nuclear will enable the UK to be on a path to achieve its ambition to become a global leader in nuclear energy and small modular reactors.
Mr Roberts
As members of the Welsh Affairs Committee heard during a visit to the United States in January, small modular reactors should play a significant role in transition, alongside large-scale nuclear projects. Does the Minister agree that while north-west Wales has excellent scope for large-scale projects, parts of north-east Wales would be outstanding prospects for an SMR site, as well as capitalising on the region’s amazing manufacturing and engineering capabilities to drive that part of the energy mix forward?
Andrew Bowie
The Government recognise the support for nuclear power across north Wales. Great British Nuclear will work with the Government on access to potential sites for new nuclear projects to achieve our long-term ambition. As a first step towards the development of the new national policy statement for nuclear, we will consult later this year on a proposed way forward for determining how new nuclear developments, including SMRs, might be located.
John Spellar
The Minister will know that this country has been producing small nuclear reactors for our submarines for more than 50 years. Does the Minister understand that while he is dithering around with his time-wasting international competition, those international competitors are out there in the market getting the orders and selling, backed to the hilt by their own Governments? Is this going to be yet another great British development created by our scientists, engineers and skilled trades, but allowed to slip away by blinkered civil servants and weak Ministers who cannot make a decision?
Andrew Bowie
Rolls-Royce is a great British company, which is why we previously made up to £210 million available from the advanced nuclear fund to Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd to support the development of its small modular reactor design. Great British Nuclear will launch the first-stage selection process for small modular reactors, which is expected to attract the best designs from domestic and international vendors, which will be great for this country. By the way, we are going three times faster than any comparable country on this project.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The Government are committed to cheap energy for all. Last winter, we covered half a typical energy bill through the combined support of the energy price guarantee and the energy bill support scheme since October, with a typical household saving around £1,500 by the end of June.
Hannah Bardell
There is a huge gulf between the reality and the practice of the Government. The Public Accounts Committee has warned this Tory Government about their lack of planning on support for consumers with the cost of energy this winter. Lack of preparedness seems a serious ailment within this Government. Given that Sense research has found that more than 30% of disabled people are cutting back on their use of medical equipment, when will we get a proper plan from this Government, instead of the profiteering off the backs of the most vulnerable, as we see from so many energy companies?
Amanda Solloway
We are of course making plans, and I do not accept that we are not planning. We are also talking to stakeholders and ensuring that we are giving the best support we can to all those who will be vulnerable in winter 2023-24.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Grant Shapps)
Next week will mark the 500-day anniversary since Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine and began trying to blackmail the world on energy. As ever, Britain stood strong in the face of tyranny, and I am pleased to report that from Saturday just past, energy bills are falling by an average of 17% for households. We are committed to powering Britain from Britain, despite some alarming energy surrender plans coming from the Opposition.
Ruth Cadbury
The Climate Change Committee’s report published last week found that of the policies and consultations that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State’s Department, no less than 33 are overdue. He cannot blame anyone else. Will he now own up to the Government’s appalling failure?
Grant Shapps
The actual data argues the opposite way. We have met all our carbon budgets to date. The Climate Change Committee last week said that the chances of reaching carbon budget 4 are “slightly increased”. We are confident of meeting it, and we have set out our plans for carbon budgets 5 and 6. I have to say that given that this country has the best record in the world among developed nations for getting carbon under control, it is surprising to hear the Opposition’s view.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
Since day one, the skills challenges that we face have been a top priority for me, which is why my Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence, the DFE and the sector to tackle them. With the employer-led Nuclear Skills Strategy Group, we have deployed a joint plan of skills actions to support the civil and defence programmes, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Six days ago, the Climate Change Committee delivered its most scathing assessment in its history on the Government’s record, saying that they were off track on 41 out of 50 key targets. It said that we have gone “markedly” backwards in the past year, on the Secretary of State’s watch. Who does he blame for this failure?
Grant Shapps
As has been discussed more than once in these questions and answers, we have taken this country from having only 7% renewable energy to over 40%. We have decarbonised faster than any other G7 nation and we are on track for carbon budget 4, having already overdelivered on carbon budgets 1, 2 and 3. Based on our record to date, we are doing a pretty good job.
Edward Miliband
That answer is total complacency from a Secretary of State who has just been proven to be failing on every major aspect of his agenda. That is why Lord Goldsmith resigned. Lord Deben has said he is failing, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has said that we are losing the global race. Is not the truth now that even the Tories do not trust the Tories on the climate crisis?
Grant Shapps
This is one of the problems with not being prepared to follow the data, which shows us overdelivering on the commitments of carbon budgets 1, 2 and 3, and that we are more likely to meet carbon budget 4 than we were a year ago. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ignore all that and still roll out his pre-written question, that is how we get to his conclusions. The truth is that the Government are delivering on the issues of climate change while protecting every single household in the country from Putin’s tyranny. I am afraid that has already been surrendered by the right hon. Gentleman, who subscribes to the Just Stop Oil approach.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just ask the Secretary of State to please not take advantage? This is topicals. Please tell me if you want to pick a Member who you do not want to be able to ask their question.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
We estimate that the net cost excluding air quality and emissions-saving benefits will be equivalent to about 1% to 2% of GDP in 2050. As my hon. Friend knows, emissions are global, and we all need to play our part. The UK has a part to play in tandem with others, and that is why I will be working with other Ministers at the conference of the parties in Dubai.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right to be frustrated about progress. But as the Secretary of State said, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who is chuntering on the Front Bench, was in power, just 14% of homes were decently insulated; by the end of the year, it will be more than 50%. We have set up the energy efficiency taskforce because we want to go further and faster. We are determined to do more. We are spending £12.6 billion over this Parliament and the next, and—
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that the Government provided more than £7.4 billion of support to businesses—more than £35 million a day—through the energy bill relief scheme last winter.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Graham Stuart
I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm. We are taking steps to support this technology, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss it further.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Graham Stuart
Unfortunately, we do not have public data by constituency and do not yet have the full data for 2022. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that in 2021, north Northamptonshire generated a total of 362 GWh of renewable electricity. The people of Kettering, like their representative, want Kettering to be one of the greenest constituencies in the country.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Grant Shapps
The whole House will welcome the hydrogen economy as an important way to store power. It is becoming increasingly apparent that that power is most likely to be used in heavy industry as well as heavy transport. This Government are committed to hydrogen power, but we are also keen to ensure that it does not impact on people’s energy bills, just as those bills are starting to fall thanks to the support that we provided families with this past winter.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Graham Stuart
I could only just hear my hon. Friend’s question, as the shadow Secretary of State made it quite hard to hear. The Government recently completed a call for evidence on this very subject, looking at the introduction of non-price factors in the contracts for difference scheme so that it values things other than just cost deployment. My hon. Friend, like all Members on the Government Front Bench, wants the maximum number of jobs created and retained in this country.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Andrew Bowie
It was this Prime Minister who created the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and it is this Government who have delivered more than 43% renewable electricity on to the grid. We will take no lectures from the Labour party on combating climate change.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend please outline what his Department is doing to look at the import of green hydrogen feedstock into the UK, to increase the scale and speed of the UK industry and help us achieve our 10 GW capacity by 2020?
Graham Stuart
I am aware of proposals on the shipping and possible piping of hydrogen and the important part that must play. If we are to decarbonise all of British industry, we will need shipping as well as piping. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what further we can do.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the recent progress on developing carbon capture, usage and storage on Teesside. I hope we will see the final confirmation that it will happen and the work will start. That said, local industrialists and investors are concerned that the Department is not now asking BP to build the CO2 collection pipework as originally planned, meaning that it will not go to CF Fertilisers or Kellas or pass by the Alfanar site. Could the Minister provide an update, please?
Graham Stuart
We are moving at top speed to drive forward CCUS. We are in a world-leading position. The opportunity is enormous in the Tees, the Humber and areas in the north-west as we seek to get that right and embed those industries in this country.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
The unique geology of Cornwall means that there is huge potential for geothermal energy. There are a number of projects bidding for the current allocation round. Geothermal energy has a competitive strike price, has lithium as a by-product and makes use of mature technology. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those benefits are properly factored into any assessments?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the opportunities of geothermal. He will be pleased to know that it just received a potential allocation through the contracts for difference round. As he and other hon. Friends have pointed out, geothermal has great potential in this country, and we look forward to supporting it.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Communities in Padanaram, Forfar, Aberlemno and Stracathro in my constituency have been on the receiving end of an extraordinarily flawed consultation by SSEN—Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks—on taking a 400 kV line from Tealing to Kintore. I welcome the investment, but can the Minister advise on the minimum standards for consultations on capital infrastructure of this nature, and why will Ofgem not mandate that there is a community benefit?
Grant Shapps
I will, with the hon. Gentleman’s permission, arrange to write back to him in a more detailed structure, given that the development is actually in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie).
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Unlocking access to the grid will unlock significant private sector capital ready to come in for microgeneration of battery storage projects. Can my hon. Friend give me an update on the timing for the Winser review and the Government’s response to it?
Andrew Bowie
The Government have received Nick Winser’s review and it will be published imminently.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Following a debate in Westminster Hall on making heritage buildings more sustainable, will the Secretary of State undertake to meet his colleague the Minister with responsibility for culture to push for the urgent revision of guidelines to allow greater flexibility in the siting of solar panels and other renewable installations on heritage buildings, in order to make them more environmentally sustainable and economically viable?
Amanda Solloway
Speaking for myself, I would be delighted to have a meeting on that subject.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
At a time when the cost of generating electricity is falling thanks to the increasing use of renewables, my constituents do not understand why the price of electricity remains linked to the price of gas. I know that the Government are undertaking a review of electricity market arrangements. When might they expect to see a change?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is quite right to ask that question. We would all like to see gas setting the price of electricity more frequently. That is why we are accelerating the take-up of renewables, which were so pitifully low in quantity when Labour was in power. We need a Conservative Government to keep up progress and lower bills right across the country.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State outlined the progress being made on small modular nuclear reactors. Can he provide an estimate of how many there might be within 10 years?
Andrew Bowie
Great British Nuclear will be launched later in July. We will also be launching the draw-down selection process for which technologies we will invest in and support. I would be delighted to speak to the hon. Gentleman in more detail about that progress moving forward.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I think my constituents, not least those who are part of the Glasgow Community Energy co-operative, will be disappointed with the Minister’s answer to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). The Minister is extremely familiar with the clauses that form part of the proposed community energy Bill. They are not acceptable as amendments to the Energy Bill before this House. Will the Government bring forward their own amendments, so that community energy groups can have the confidence they need to take forward their projects?
Andrew Bowie
As I said, we are working with the sector and parliamentarians to find a way forward to further support community energy projects. As part of that, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.
Violence in the West Bank
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the violence in the west bank.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The accelerating cycle of violence in the west bank risks another round of bloodshed and the Government are doing everything possible to urge the de-escalation of the situation. The latest operation by the Israel Defence Forces in the Jenin refugee camp in the northern west bank on Monday is the latest episode in a conflict that has become more worrying as the year has progressed. While the UK firmly supports Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens against terrorism, we urge the Israel Defence Forces to demonstrate restraint, adhere to the principles of international humanitarian law and prioritise the protection of civilians.
While the security situation today remains fragile, the UK welcomed Israeli and Palestinian engagement at meetings in Aqaba on 26 February and Sharm El Sheik on 19 March. We are clear-eyed that those meetings have not been a silver bullet, but they are an open, meaningful channel of communication between senior Israelis and Palestinians. At times of strife, this is important in assisting de-escalation and reducing violence. We have consistently engaged with both the Israelis and the Palestinians to urge them to de-escalate tensions and to support efforts towards renewed negotiations.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Eli Cohen, on 26 June—when they discussed the security situation in the west bank—having spoken to the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, on 16 June. I can confirm that the Minister for the Middle East, Lord Ahmad, will be discussing the evolving situation with the Israeli ambassador later today, further to discussions in recent days. He also spoke to the Palestinian Foreign Minister, Riyad al-Maliki, on 5 May. Our ambassadors in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem regularly speak to both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to urge de-escalation and to make clear our expectation that all sides avoid unilateral steps that move the parties further away from dialogue.
Let me finally draw the House’s attention to the statement that the Foreign Secretary made jointly with his Canadian and Australian counterparts last Friday. The UK opposes Israel’s announced proposal to expand settlements across the west bank, and we ask Israel to halt and reverse its policy of supporting settlement expansion. Settlements are not the only obstacle to peace, but they are an important one, and our concerns about these recent steps are clear. The lives lost in this wider conflict are tragic. There is an urgent need for all parties to avoid further escalation in the west bank and Gaza, now and in the days ahead.
Beth Winter
The past 24 hours have seen a horrifying military assault by the Israel Defence Forces on the overcrowded refugee camp in Jenin. The UN Refugee Agency says that about 15,000 people live in less than half a square kilometre in the camp, yet we have all witnessed on our screens the Israel Defence Forces launching air attacks, including attacks from drones, and they have sent in hundreds, if not thousands, of ground troops in the largest military action in the west bank for 20 years. News agencies are reporting 10 deaths of Palestinians, including three children, and 100 Palestinians injured, while the Palestinian Red Crescent says that it has evacuated 3,000 people. The UN’s Vanessa Huguenin has said:
“We are alarmed at the scale of air and ground operations that are taking place in Jenin”.
The World Health Organisation has said:
“First responders have been prevented from entering the refugee camp”.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority leadership has resolved to
“immediately petition the UN Security Council to implement Resolution 2334 and the relevant resolutions on providing international protection to the Palestinian people, stopping unilateral measures, and imposing sanctions on the occupying power.”
The UK currently holds the presidency of the UN Security Council and is therefore responsible for guiding its response to requests made by the Palestinian Authority. May I therefore ask the following questions? What are the UK Government doing in their capacity as President of the UN Security Council? How have they responded at the UN to the Palestinian Authority’s call for international protection? What has the Foreign Office said to its Israeli counterpart about the Israel Defence Forces preventing medical staff from accessing the Jenin refugee camp, or firing tear gas into hospitals sheltering children and elderly residents?
Finally, what steps will the Foreign Secretary take to review whether the IDF have made any use of UK arms sold to Israel in this attack? Will he immediately suspend all arms sales, including surveillance technology, and will he ban collaboration between the UK and Israel’s armed forces and military industries as a result of this horrific attack on civilians?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the urgent question to the House. This is a matter of deep concern to us all. We will continue to urge the Israel Defence Forces to demonstrate restraint in this operation so that all parties can try to avoid further escalation in the west bank and Gaza. As I have said, while the UK will always support Israel’s right to self-defence, the protection of civilians, particularly children, must always be prioritised, and we expect the armed forces’ conduct always to be in line with international humanitarian law. We therefore call on Israel to adhere to those principles of necessity and proportionality while defending its legitimate security interest.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
We stand on the precipice of the Gaza crisis of 2023 and the third intifada. Yesterday, an Israeli military incursion into the Jenin refugee camp resulted in the deaths of more than 10 refugees. Hundreds were injured and, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) says, the ensuing gun battle has prevented civilians from getting the aid and medical care they need. Today, five Israeli civilians were killed in a terrorist car ramming and a stabbing, and we are in an endless cycle of violence. We need a return to the diplomatic table. Jordan and Egypt have been trying to facilitate that and stand ready to continue to do so, but they must see meaningful efforts to stand up for the agreements reached at previous meetings, such as the one in Aqaba.
I therefore call on the Government to try to secure the following. The Israelis must stop the expansion of illegal settlements; we are seeing that continue and it must stop—they agreed to do that at Aqaba. We must see Hamas end its terror attacks on Israel. They are wrong—they are terror attacks—and although we have no influence over Hamas, we must use our voice to make it clear that it must immediately stop. As the UK, can we urge our Israeli friends to show restraint? Can we appoint a middle east peace process envoy who can be tasked with spending their entire time working with our allies around the region to de-escalate the situation? Our voice is unique and will be heard, and we have a role to play in the peace process. Finally, will we use our UN Security Council presidency? Through that role, we can shed light on what is taking place.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her salient and wise comments, as always. May I reiterate that on Friday the Foreign Secretary made a joint statement with the Canadians and Australians to set out very clearly our opposition to Israel’s announcement of the expansion of settlements across the west bank? We are asking Israel to halt and reverse that policy of settlement expansion with immediate effect.
More widely, of course, we recognise the very real security challenges facing Israel and the Palestinian Authority and condemn all terrorist groups planning and carrying out attacks, but we mourn the loss of innocent lives. Indeed, the injuries to civilians and particularly children are deeply concerning. We will continue to speak and our colleagues are speaking to our Israeli teams today about the urgent need for all parties to de-escalate and prevent the further loss of civilian life.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
We must all be extremely concerned about the situation in the refugee camp in the city of Jenin, as well as the ongoing deteriorating situation in the conflict as a whole. Israel has the right to defend itself against militant groups, but that right must be exercised proportionately and in line with international law. I am therefore very concerned that reports suggest there are significant civilian casualties in Jenin. I am also aware that statements from the spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General suggest that this military operation has not been conducted within the parameters of humanitarian law. The Secretary-General is said to be “deeply concerned” about the situation on the ground.
Likewise, I am extremely concerned about the breaking news of a suspected car ramming in Tel Aviv, where latest reports suggest that at least five people are injured. Can the Minister provide an urgent update on the situation? We will always condemn acts of terrorism, which only make peace harder to achieve.
On Jenin, I am concerned about reports that emergency health teams have been prevented from entering Jenin to treat the injured and to help people in general, and that two hospitals have been damaged. The World Health Organisation has reported that three children have recently been killed. I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that it is truly appalling that children—Palestinian and Israeli—continue to be the innocent victims in this conflict. Does the Minister agree that all civilian deaths must be thoroughly and impartially investigated and that there must be meaningful accountability?
Let me be clear that the Opposition will continue to be strong and consistent advocates of justice, human rights and international law in this conflict. We also condemn the unacceptable use of violence against civilians in all circumstances. In our view, there will be a lasting peace only when there is a negotiated diplomatic settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only real solution will be a settlement based on two states: a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and independent Palestinian state. We strongly oppose actions that make this two-state solution harder to achieve. So my fundamental question is: what of substance are the Minister and the Government doing to bring this immediate conflict to an end and to lay the foundations for a two-state solution?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I do not have the latest information on the Tel Aviv attack, but I understand that Hamas are claiming it as one of theirs. We absolutely condemn Hamas’s use of indiscriminate violence and attacks of this nature. There can never be any justification for such acts of violence, and we will continue to call on Hamas and other terrorist groups to permanently end their incitements against Israel. Importantly, Ministers and our ambassadors will continue to work very closely, today and in the days ahead, to urge the de-escalation of the present situation in Jenin.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Understanding that this comes in the context of, for years, Israel building settlements that block the route to a settlement of this dispute, and understanding that Israel is failing to show restraint, failing to follow international humanitarian law and failing to protect civilians, what are the Government actually going to do?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, the statement that the Foreign Secretary put out with his Canadian and Australian counterparts last week set out a clear message to the Israelis about stopping the settlement expansion. We will continue to work with our friends and allies to make that message clearly heard.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Violence on all sides must be condemned. However, contrary to what the Minister said, illegal settlements are a barrier to peace, yet the UK Government continue to fail to take any meaningful action towards preventing that. This violence represents a serious escalation of tensions on the west bank. As we have heard, Palestinians and Israelis have lost their lives. What assessment has been made of the potential chain reaction of violence that this could unleash?
It has been confirmed that thousands of people have been displaced from the camp. What discussions has the Minister had with international colleagues on how to minimise the suffering of those refugees— civilians—who have now been displaced twice? This morning, UN aid agencies voiced alarm at the scale of Israel’s military operation in Jenin, reporting that water and energy supplies have been damaged, so will the UK Government commit to working with partners to provide additional humanitarian funding to restore these vital supplies for people there?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK’s position is clear: settlements are illegal under international law and they call into question Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution. So we have urged Israel to halt that settlement expansion, which is threatening the physical viability of a Palestinian state. To the hon. Gentleman’s point, we are working with our partners the United States, France, Germany and Italy to strongly oppose these unilateral steps.
I am afraid that I do not have the latest information on humanitarian funding, but our teams work very closely through the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and other humanitarian organisations. I would be happy to ask the relevant Minister to update the House later on what the latest commitments are.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, this morning’s car ramming is only the most recent of the terrorist attacks that have emanated from the city of Jenin. So far, Operation House and Garden has resulted in the destruction of three labs, hundreds of improvised explosive devices and thousands of grenades. Underneath the mosque, there were two tunnels with hundreds of weapons, and 120 people have been arrested. Clearly, the terrorist activity is going to be severely limited. Behind all this is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hamas and the Jenin battalions. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that this is a proportionate attempt to reduce terrorism against the state of Israel?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, while the UK remains absolutely resolute in its commitment to Israel’s security, and we condemn absolutely the use of indiscriminate force by Hamas and other terrorist groups, we call on all parties to maintain a proportionate balance, so that we can de-escalate the existing situation and ensure that civilians are not caught up in this any more.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
With water and electricity services in the Jenin refugee camp damaged as a result of the violence, camp residents are unable to move from their homes. Many are in urgent need of food, drinking water and medical support, but the ambulances have been prevented from reaching the wounded. Will the Secretary of State raise with the Israeli authorities the issue of access for ambulances and medical teams to the Jenin camp?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The FCDO Minister for the middle east, Lord Ahmad, will be listening to the debate and will be able to give an update in the other place later today about his ongoing discussions with Israeli counterparts.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Let us be clear: any loss of innocent civilian life is one too many. But let us also be clear that the Palestinian Authority has lost control over Jenin and it has become a safe haven for terrorists. Terror groups have fortified the area with IEDs and last week they fired rockets towards Israel from inside the camp. Iran has also boasted about arming, training and funding the Palestinian terror groups that operate there. Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis that terror groups cease these operations, which only further destabilise the Palestinian Authority and the region, with innocent people dying as a consequence?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We recognise the real security concerns facing Israel and the Palestinian Authority while they try to deal with those terrorist groups, and we condemn absolutely terrorist groups planning and carrying out attacks. To my hon. Friend’s point on the loss of innocent lives, every loss is one too many and there will also be a serious number of injuries to civilians. We continue to be deeply concerned by the cycle of violence in the west bank. The urgent need for all parties to de-escalate to prevent that loss of life remains critical.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Unless and until we acknowledge our own role in this developing tragedy, anything the Minister says at the Dispatch Box is essentially going to be meaningless. The increase in violence by the IDF and the expansion of settlement in the west bank happen because we and other countries in the west do nothing to hold Israel to account. So could the Minister tell us now: will she commit to supporting an International Criminal Court investigation into what is happening there? Will the Government here now set a timetable for the recognition of the Palestinian state?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
This Government and Members on both sides of the House do not waver from the two-state solution that we all wish to see. As I have said, settlements are illegal under international law and we will continue, alongside allies and partners, to make that point clear. As for the ongoing activity today, I hope that Lord Ahmad will be able to pick up on that later today as progress is made with our counterparts in Israel.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
But hasn’t our strategic partnership with Israel, announced in this House, afforded us any leverage over Israeli policy in the west bank?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Our strategic relationship with Israel is a strong and long-standing one. We work with Israel in many areas, from security to trade. It is an important partner. That does not negate the fact that we want to see a de-escalation of the current situation and to ensure that the loss of civilian lives is minimised.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I share the distress of others at the loss of civilian life. Islamic Jihad has already claimed several of the dead as Islamic Jihad fighters and, as we have heard, the Israelis say that the camp was used as a hub for terrorist operations. Does the Minister think any more can be done to prevent terrorists from embedding themselves among civilians, particularly in places such as refugee camps?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We recognise the security challenges that are faced and will continue to be faced, not only by Israel and the Palestinian Authority in this case, but elsewhere in the world, where innocents living in refugee camps are used as a cover for terrorists wishing to cause harm. We all have to continue to tackle that not only in the west bank, but around the world. Importantly, in this situation, we will all continue to urge de-escalation to reduce the risk of any further civilian casualties or loss of life.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
This year has seen more Palestinians killed than in any other year, more settlement starts announced than in any other year, more demolitions in East Jerusalem than in any other year and more violence in general. We are on the precipice of another intifada. At the minute, it looks to me as though Israel is acting with impunity and this is an all-out assault on Palestinian life. So what actions will the Government undertake—not just conversations—to bring this dreadful escalation in violence to an end?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We are absolutely committed to working with all parties on the challenges associated with demolitions so that people remain calm and avoid provocation. But we are clear that in all but the most exceptional of circumstances demolitions and forced evictions are contrary to international humanitarian law. The practice causes unnecessary suffering to Palestinians and is harmful to efforts to promote peace. In particular, we are monitoring developments at Masafer Yatta closely and we have made our views clear to the Israeli Government on that matter.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Constituents have written to me about their grave concerns for the welfare of civilians and health workers in the Jenin camp. They, like me, know that the Israeli army enjoys a climate of impunity because the international community never holds Israel to account for its actions. Israel continues to breach international law, including the fourth Geneva convention. As we have heard already today, settlements are war crimes under the Rome statute. So my question for the Minister is: what specific actions will the Government take to ensure that Israel adheres to international law and that its leaders are held accountable for its war crimes?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, we have been clear on this. My colleague in the other place will speak with the Israeli ambassador later today to ensure that we put forward the UK view that de-escalation is urgently required in this difficult situation and that we continue to tackle the questions associated with illegal settlements, which are contrary to humanitarian law.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
When the Russians have bombed predominantly civilian areas, resulting in the death of civilians, we have rightly condemned it as a war crime. Why have the Government not condemned these actions, which are resulting in the loss of civilian life, as a war crime? Have the Government called in the Israeli ambassador to remind her in the strongest terms possible of the legal responsibility that Israel has to protect civilians?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK supports Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens against terrorist activities, but we are clearly urging the IDF to demonstrate restraint in order to prioritise the protection of civilians. As I say, Lord Ahmad will be speaking with the Israeli ambassador later today.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
We all condemn attacks on civilians, regardless of which community they are from. The actions of the IDF in Jenin are indefensible and have resulted in 2023 being one of the most lethal years for Palestinians. The UK has long claimed to support a two-state solution, endorsed UN Security Council resolution 2334 and recognised that settlements are illegal under international law. So after yesterday’s appalling move to block action by citizens and public bodies to stop illegal occupation and settlements, have UK Government policy changed?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, this Government will continue to stress the importance of the adherence to the principles of necessity and proportionality when Israel defends its legitimate security interests, as well as the importance of continuing to provide appropriate protection to the Palestinian civilian population, particularly children.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
At around 11.30 am yesterday, 17-year-old Majdi Younis Saud Ararawi sustained a gunshot wound to the chest and Nouruddin Husam Yousef Marshoud, who was just 15, was shot in the head by Israeli occupation forces. Their names join a list of more than 30 Palestinian children killed by the Israeli regime since the beginning of 2023. The ultimate cause of those senseless killings is Israel’s brutal and illegal occupation of Palestine, which has gone on for over half a century.
Given that last night the Government voted for legislation banning peaceful means of protesting against this abomination, and given Britain’s humanitarian and historic responsibilities to the Palestinian people, what actions have the Government taken? The Minister has ducked the question so far, but I will give her another chance to answer. What action will the Government take to ensure that Israel adheres to international law and its leaders are held to account?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have said, we are engaging both with the Israelis and the Palestinians to urge them to de-escalate those tensions. Lord Ahmad will be speaking to the Israeli ambassador later, highlighting and demanding that under international law access to medical care and staff is allowed, so that those who are injured in the Jenin refugee camp are able to receive the medical care that they require.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The use of aerial bombardment and armoured assault by thousands of troops in a refugee camp, familiar to the people of Gaza, is now extended to the west bank. Alongside settlement expansion, it is part of the annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories by Israel’s far-right Government. Occupation is the cause and context of these latest war crimes. Will the Government acknowledge that and respond by recognising the state of Palestine?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, across this House we continue our long-standing position of a two-state solution. We will continue to work with partners across the world to find a solution that allows that to happen. In the meantime, we are deeply troubled by the level of violence and we continue to call on Israel, while defending itself and its citizens, to demonstrate the restraint required to ease the situation in Jenin today.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
My thoughts go out to the people affected by the horrific attacks on the Jenin refugee camp. We must be clear that this is a violation of international law and that the occupying forces, in particular, have a responsibility to end the violence. I will give a clear suggestion of a possible action: will the UK Government send a clear message of condemnation by bringing to an end the importation into the UK of goods that are produced in those Israeli settlements that are deemed illegal under international law?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, we will continue to make calls on Israel—[Interruption.] Goods made in the settlements are not allowed to be imported, and that continues to be the case. We continue to grow the work that we do on trade with Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the OPTs, and I know the Department for Business and Trade is focused on that development work.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not think the Minister understands the power of office. Today we have heard comments and some warm words, but we have seen no action. The UK currently has the power of holding the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, so will she call the Security Council together to act now on the atrocities that we have seen in Jenin? What other measures will she take to stop further atrocities occurring?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, we continue to work on the peaceful two-state solution. Later today, Lord Ahmad will provide an update in the other place on our continuing activities.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This year has already been the deadliest for violence in the west bank since 2005. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of rising Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians? I will give her another chance: does she not agree that civilian deaths should lead to investigations and accountability?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, we continue to be deeply troubled by the high number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed and injured, as the hon. Lady highlights. While Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself, it is important that Israeli forces exercise maximum restraint, especially in the use of live fire, when protecting that legitimate security interest.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Peace is a word we often hear in relation to Israel and Palestine, but how can peace be achieved when Palestinians are subjected to systematic and deliberate oppression and discrimination by Israeli authorities? The people in the Jenin refugee camp have already fled their homes, and they have been displaced yet again. Can the Minister set out what is being done by the international community to help those who have now been displaced twice? Will she condemn the denial to access medical care for Palestinians in Jenin? And will she join me in calling out Israel’s behaviour for what it is? As stated in a report by Amnesty International, Israel is committing the crime of “apartheid against Palestinians.”
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, Lord Ahmad will be speaking to the Israeli ambassador later and will be making clear that we want to ensure that medical supplies are able to get into refugee camps to provide the care that is needed to those who are injured as a result of the violence of the past few days.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Reports from Jenin are shocking, particularly reports that medical teams are unable to get access to civilians in need. I support what the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), said about having steps towards a solution and an ending of Israeli settlements. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports there have been at least 570 attacks by settlers against Palestinians in the west bank this year, which is an average of three attacks a day. What is the Minister doing, in discussions with her counterparts, on tackling Israeli settler violence, as well as on the issues faced because of new Palestinian militant groups? Action is needed now to de-escalate the situation, as well as looking again at the international funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is vital to support Palestinian refugees.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I say, we condemn settler violence in the strongest possible terms and we urge the Israeli authorities to do what they can. The Foreign Secretary’s statement, published with Australia and Canada at the end of last week, highlighted the very clear demand that the Government of Israel reverse their decision to approve over 5,700 new settlement units in the west bank and change the settlement approval process. We will continue to work with allies to achieve that.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The escalation of violence in the west bank over the past year and the killing of innocent civilians, including children in recent days, is devastating. The two-state solution, which many of us hope will bring peace and stability to the region, seems further away than ever. What are the Government actively doing to stop the killing of innocent people and to ensure that a two-state settlement is still a diplomatic reality?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have said, we continue to work with partners and allies on the two-state solution. Indeed, we call on all those caught up in the violence today to show restraint and to de-escalate the situation so that the violence can come to a halt and we can ensure that those casualties are able to receive treatment.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
My good and hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) was absolutely correct in her remarks and I thank her for securing this urgent question. I visited the refugee camp at Jenin in 2012 and saw some of the clinics and schools; to say that the conditions were grim is an understatement. What we have seen over the past day or two is an attack by Israeli security forces on a refugee camp, using missiles against children, parents, the elderly and the vulnerable. This is not about Israel defending itself. Even the White House has stated that it is tyranny. When will the UK Government intervene not just with words to condemn those actions, but with something in practical terms to support the Palestinian people undergoing such appalling oppression?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK’s position on the middle east peace process is clear and we will continue to support a negotiated settlement, which leads to a safe and secure Israel living side by side with a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders. In the short term, we are calling very firmly, as are all partners around the world, on Israeli defence forces to show the required level of restraint to ensure that the violence ceases in Jenin refugee camp as soon as possible.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for securing this urgent question. It has been reported that medical teams have been prevented from entering Jenin. Will the Minister condemn that now from the Dispatch Box? Will she express to her counterpart that Palestinians must have medical aid, and can she then return to the House to update MPs on the medical situation?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have said, international humanitarian law requires access to be made available for medical teams to treat those in need of care, so we are urging Israel to allow that as soon as possible. I know that my colleague, the Minister for the middle east, will be raising that particularly urgently with the Israeli ambassador when he speaks to her this afternoon. I will ensure that an update is provided by the Department in due course.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
The last time that we saw tensions rise like this, we experienced a month of hate, with incidents of antisemitism rising to an all-time high, and horror tropes on the streets of London. Does the Minister agree that, while discussions are taking place to de-escalate the situation, we all have a duty to temper our language to make sure that Jewish residents, such as my constituents, do not live in fear of abuse, graffiti, racist convoys and, ultimately, violence. We all have a duty to try to tackle this behaviour on the streets when we see it.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We all have a duty to ensure that antisemitic voices are not allowed to cause distress or violence. We will continue to ensure that those who feel anxious get the support they need. We provide a great deal of support and are very proud of the work that the Home Office does in support of many of our Jewish communities.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
This year, we have seen a record number of settlement units approved. The Israeli Finance Minister has instructed ministries to prepare for an additional 500,000 settlers on the west bank. We have seen 33 Palestinian children killed. While the Government urge restraint and we get the same weak answers time and again from the Dispatch Box, Israel is acting with impunity. I think the Minister said it slightly wrong earlier on, but it seemed that she was saying that trade with illegal settlements is now deemed illegal by the UK Government. Is that the case?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Let me reiterate again that the UK position on settlements is absolutely clear. Those settlements are illegal under international law and, indeed, they call into question that commitment to the two-state solution, to which the UK are committed. We will continue to urge Israel to halt that and ensure that the trade relationships that we have with Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories can progress as they need to.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Many of my Luton South constituents have been in touch to say how distressed and angry they are about the increase in violence on the west bank. Many have set out that the access to supplies, clean water and powdered milk for children is at risk, so, beyond conversations, can the Minister confirm that there will be additional support for healthcare and medical organisations on the ground so that they can help civilians?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Once my noble Friend Lord Ahmad has had discussions with the Israeli ambassador, I will ensure that further information on how we will continue to support UNRWA and other humanitarian groups focuses in particular on this incident. I am afraid that I do not have more information to hand at the moment.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
One eye witness in an interview with CNN has compared the impact of the incursion with a natural disaster in terms of the destruction of infrastructure, such as roads, water systems and electricity. What role can the British Government play in helping reconstruction to reduce further humanitarian suffering? Is it the policy of the British Government that the state of Israel should pay reparations for damage to civilian infrastructure in the occupied territories as a result of military activity?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have said, we have seen the violent activity today on our TVs and we call on the Israeli Defence Forces and the Israeli Government to demonstrate the restraint that is required to prioritise the protection of civilians and ensure that we can see both medical support get into the Jenin camp and de-escalation of the violence as soon as possible.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I wish to pass on my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for raising this issue today. I will give the Minister one more chance before we end this urgent question: can she set out with far, far greater clarity than she has done so far what action the Government will take as president of the UN Security Council to ensure that Israel adheres to international law and that its leaders are held accountable?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I set out earlier this week, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Eli Cohen, on 26 June and to Palestinian Prime Minister Shtayyeh on 16 June. Such conversations are going on day after day. Lord Ahmad will be able to give an update on his conversations later on in the day in the other place.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Israel is clearly in breach of international humanitarian law as well as multiple UN Security Council resolutions. The Minister has ducked the very specific question on the Security Council on multiple occasions. As president of the Security Council, the UK has a particular power to convene the Security Council and, indeed, the responsibility to do so. Can the Minister give us a very clearcut answer: will the UK Government convene the Security Council on this issue—yes or no?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I have said, the Government continue not only to have close discussions with the Israelis to try to ensure a de-escalation of the violence that we are seeing today, but to work closely with our allies and partners to ensure that we continue to support and give the clear direction of international partners on the question of the two-state solution.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister of State for her measured and careful answers to the urgent question. It is important that her interest in this matter is put on the record. Will she outline what discussions have taken place with our Israeli allies to renew peace talks, to allow both states to co-exist beside each other without the tit-for-tat action that has become normalised and yet is truly horrific and heartbreaking for all those who are losing loved ones in this conflict?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right that, when this violence occurs, the great tragedy is that civilians are caught up in it, especially where the Israeli Defence Forces are legitimately trying to defend themselves and, indeed, Palestinians from the terrorist threat. The Foreign Secretary continues to have a strong focus on this and we are working with leaders and our allies around the world to try to find a solution.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned that the Government have urged the Israeli Defence Forces to demonstrate restraint and have urged de-escalation to protect civilians, but actions speak louder than words. Can the Minister say what it will take for the Government to suspend arms sales to Israel until we can be sure that they are not being used to violate international law and perpetrate war crimes and human rights abuses? I would appreciate it if the Minister could give a well-thought-out answer to the question, instead of referring to pre-scripted notes in a folder.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I will continue to state the fact that these violent activities are ongoing and colleagues are in discussions right now with Israeli counterparts. I do not wish to disturb those discussions in any way. I am here to update the House on as much as we know. It is an ongoing situation, but I know that when my colleague Lord Ahmad responds to an urgent question later in the day, he will have more information to share in the other place.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to the Minister, but since 2015 the Government have sold £500 million-worth of arms to Israel, and UK arms have been implicated in previous atrocities against Palestine. Can the Minister say categorically whether any of that military equipment has been used in Israel’s assaults on the Jenin refugee camp? Does not this attack again show why the Government should suspend all arms sales to Israel until it abides by international law?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The Government take our defence export responsibilities seriously and we operate some of the most robust export controls in the world. I reiterate, as colleagues have heard me say before in previous roles, that all applications for export licences are assessed on a case-by-case basis against strict criteria and we will not issue a licence if there is a clear risk that equipment might be used for internal repression. The Government will continue to monitor closely the situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank and, if extant licences are found to be no longer consistent with those criteria, those licences will be revoked.
Points of Order
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My dad, God rest his soul, said to me that there are not many levers to tackle injustices, but boycotting is one of them. That is why I could not vote for the Government’s Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill yesterday, which Ministers and lawyers have said would likely place the United Kingdom in breach of international law obligations. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)—I have informed her that I will be mentioning her—said in an intervention on the Minister:
“The Foreign Office’s own legal advice states that the Bill could breach UNSC 2334. How am I being told repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that that is not the case, when that is what Government lawyers are saying themselves?”
She said,
“please do not repeat that this does not change anything when the Government lawyers themselves say it does.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 656.]
Conservative Members seem to have been informed that the Bill could breach international law, while Government Ministers state the opposite. I am minded to believe the hon. Lady, but could you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what I can do to ensure that the Government place all their legal advice in the Library, so that we can all have a read and discover who is telling the truth?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. No, the Chair does not have the power—nor has it ever in the whole of our constitutional development—to require the Government to place any document in the Library, and certainly not legal advice. The hon. Lady, who is well versed in these matters, has rightly used the opportunity of a point of order to put her opinion on the record, and I am sure that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. As I say, she is well versed in these matters, and she will know it has been the long-standing practice of Governments of every political persuasion not to publish their legal advice. That is the normal course, and I certainly have no power from the Chair to compel the Government to do otherwise.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week in Justice questions, the Justice Secretary conflated the conviction rate and the charging rate for sex offenders and alleged rapists in the UK. Every day 300 women will be raped, and only three of those rapes will end in a charge. What can the House do to emphasise to Ministers that conflating the conviction rate with the charging rate in the courts is a basic error? The Secretary of State should know better and not repeat the sloppy practice of mixing up the two, especially on the very sensitive question of rape convictions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have said many times from this Chair, the interpretation of statistics is not a matter for the Chair. One person looks at statistics and comes to one conclusion, while someone else looks at those statistics and comes to a different conclusion. The hon. Lady has made her point well and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard it.
Republic of Somaliland (Recognition)
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require His Majesty’s Government to recognise formally the Republic of Somaliland; to make provision in connection with the establishing of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Somaliland; and for connected purposes.
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The fourth of July is often known as independence day for a particular country, but I am not here to talk about the United States—I am here to talk about the republic of Somaliland. On 26 June 1960, Britain granted independence to the British protectorate of Somaliland. It was in the euphoria of that moment that Somaliland a few days later entered into a union with the old Italian trust territory of Somaliland, a union that proved deeply unhappy.
While it started in hope and optimism, that union ended in tragedy. It saw the rise of a brutal military dictatorship based in Mogadishu, whose next steps were the persecution and genocide of many Somalilanders. Over the following years, that union saw a genocide unfold with the loss of many lives—I am talking about not just tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of lives. In the capital city of Somaliland, it saw Somali air force jets rising to the skies to drop bombs on the people of Hargeisa. Some 90% of the city was completely destroyed, and there was destruction in many other cities right across Somaliland.
That union also saw many of the nomadic tribes of Somaliland persecuted, with their wells—their only source of life, which provided them vital water—being poisoned. Hundreds of thousands of people died in that genocide and, sadly, much of the world did not notice or pay attention. The impact was not just on the people killed; every single family in Somaliland was touched by that violence and many families either were displaced within the borders of Somaliland or had to flee to neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia and Djibouti.
We in this country should take pride in the fact that we welcomed so many of those Somalilanders to our shores and that they made us their home, as so many Somalilanders had done in the past. It is that connection—a connection that goes back long before independence—that ties our two nations together.
Out of that genocide, out of that civil war, we saw the emergence once again of an independent country. In 1991, Somaliland was able to declare itself free of Somalia. It was able to stand proud and independent, away from the persecution and genocide that it had suffered for so long. Somalilanders have asked the world for recognition for more than 30 years now. They have asked the world to recognise what is there on the horn of Africa. They have listened to countries such as Britain, the United States, France and Germany, which have turned to them and said, “We expect certain things: a democratic process, parliamentary and presidential elections, and a judicial process. We expect you to educate your boys and girls. We expect you to be welcoming and a safe place for people to visit.” And Somaliland has delivered that, yet it still waits for recognition from countries such as Britain, the United States, France, Germany and so many others. That wait is too long.
Somaliland is a country doing everything that it believes people expect a democratic free country to be doing, but it asks for something in return. The people of Somaliland have, over so many decades, been willing to look to Britain as a friend. In fact, when we were in our greatest need during the second world war, the people of Somaliland joined with us in our battle against fascism. They fought side by side with British soldiers. When I was in Hargeisa, I visited the Commonwealth war graves cemetery, where I saw British names and the names of Somalilanders. Blood was spilled by both our nations for those common values and interests. We now need to step up as a nation and do something more than just being there. It is time to recognise Somaliland.
For too long, we have resisted that. We always find excuses for inertia and inaction. Now is the time for us to start being brave and reward the people who are doing the things that we as a nation ask them to do. Somaliland does not live in the easiest of neighbourhoods—it has difficult neighbours—but it is a democratic country that wants to educate its boys and girls and has a fair and robust judicial system. Those are things that we need to reward. We need to put them on a pedestal and say, “This is an example that we want others to follow.”
I say that if the Government will not take the action that is required, let it be the British House of Commons that leads the way. If the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is deaf, let us show the will to recognise what is a nation: a country that has its own judicial process, elections, and every other function that we want in a democratic nation. If the Government are reluctant to take action, let this House do it. Let us ensure that we reward those who are doing what is needed.
As we look at Somaliland, we see a country that is developing and that has investment coming into it. I thank the British Government for the investment in Berbera port and the highway north to Hargeisa, but by the simple act of recognition, we could transform the lives of 5.7 million people, making every single one of them more prosperous and enabling Somaliland—a good ally of this country—to play a bigger role on the world stage and a vital role in supporting the values that we in this House hold dear.
Somaliland may seem a far-off place, and I recognise that a nation of 5.7 million perhaps does not seem significant to Britain, but it is. It plays a pivotal role in Africa. I urge this House to take the action that is required to support the republic of Somaliland and ensure that we deliver for its people, as they have defended what we value so dearly: democracy and freedom.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Gavin Williamson, Mr Clive Betts, Sir Robert Buckland, Dr Lisa Cameron, Alun Cairns, John Spellar, Ian Paisley, Alec Shelbrooke, Paul Blomfield, Alexander Stafford and Kim Johnson present the Bill.
Sir Gavin Williamson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 341).
Estimates Day
Department for Work and Pensions
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee to open the debate.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to have been granted today’s debate about DWP spending.
I will focus in particular on universal credit, whose roll-out started 10 years ago in 2013. The DWP is forecast to have, by some considerable margin, the highest expenditure of any Government Department, at £279.3 billion in this financial year, followed by the Department of Health and Social Care, at £201 billion. DWP spending is the largest by a considerable distance.
Of course, the DWP forecast is uncertain. Almost all its funding counts as annually managed expenditure; it is hard to forecast demand-led spending. DWP’s admin spending—departmental expenditure limits—is 27% lower in real terms this year than in 2010-11. Universal credit spending is forecast to be £50.8 billion this financial year, which is £8.8 billion higher than forecast in these estimates last year, reflecting the recent much-needed uprating and a higher case load. In February, 4.5 million households were receiving universal credit payments.
A key argument in the business case for universal credit was the prospect of reducing fraud and error. Nearly a quarter of the £34 billion net present value gain expected over 10 years from introducing universal credit was due to come from lower fraud and error. In fact, fraud and error have been much worse than they were for legacy benefits. The Department’s statistics show that the universal credit overpayment rate decreased, but from an astronomical 14.7% in May 2021 to 12.8% last year. I know that the Department is setting out to address that problem, and that it has obtained resources from the Treasury to do so. Underpayments were at their highest-ever recorded rate last year, at 1.6%. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us about plans for tackling those problems.
An additional reason that it is so important to get decisions right at the moment is that universal credit is a passport to cost of living support payments. There was a strong case for merging the various benefits into universal credit, and the success of the system in getting urgently needed support out effectively during the pandemic was very important and very impressive. However, there are some big problems—above all, the problem of the five-week wait between applying for the benefit and receiving the first payment. With legacy benefits, the first payment would usually arrive a week and a half or so after applying. With universal credit, having spent hundreds of millions of pounds on what we were always assured was agile technology, the same thing now takes five weeks. That is a fundamental and unnecessary flaw; the security is absent from social security.
In January 2021, the Government rejected the Select Committee’s recommendations to eliminate the wait and instead pay all first-time claimants of universal credit a starter payment equivalent to three weeks of the standard allowance, just to tide people over. The Government response pointed out that claimants can access advances, but of course, those are loans. Repayments reduce the already low monthly awards, and repaying advances is a major driver of the explosive growth in food bank demand that we have seen. Our colleagues in the other place, those on the Lords Economic Affairs Committee—with its Conservative Chair—succinctly highlighted the consequences of the five-week wait in July last year:
“the five-week wait for the first payment…drives many people into rent arrears, reliance on foodbanks and debt.”
As such, I ask the Minister once again whether the Government will reconsider our recommendations, or whether we have to wait for a different Government for that fundamental flaw to be addressed.
I am very pleased to say that one area in which the Government have listened to the Committee is reimbursement of childcare costs for people claiming universal credit. I warmly welcome the lifting of the cap and up-front payments for childcare announced in the Budget, and I hope that our future reports will have comparable levels of success. Those changes will support people to be in work in future.
Last week, the Child Poverty Action Group published a fascinating report called “You reap what you code”, highlighting areas where the universal credit computer system does not deliver what it should. It gave the example that legislation and guidance allow some groups to submit a universal credit claim up to a month in advance, but the system does not allow that, nor is there an adequate workaround outside the digital system. As such, some care leavers and prisoners expecting release can miss out on an entitlement that they are due. For all its success in the pandemic—I am unstinting in my recognition of that success—the rigidity of the digital system is a problem. Can the Minister tell us whether a fix is planned for that problem of early claims, which the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted last week?
Does the level of benefits meet need in the way it is supposed to? Do benefits represent value for the taxpayer? The Committee is conducting an important inquiry into benefit levels in the UK, and will report in the first half of next year. Benefit levels are very low. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust told the Committee that
“the basic rate of Universal Credit—its standard allowance (or equivalents in previous systems)—is now at its lowest level in real terms in almost 40 years (CPI-adjusted) and its lowest ever level as a proportion of average earnings.”
They estimate from pretty careful research that a single adult needs £120 per week to cover essentials: food, utilities, vital household items and travel. That is excluding rent and council tax. Universal credit’s standard allowance is £85 per week for a single adult over 25. That is a shortfall of at least £35 per week, and deductions—for advance payments, for example—often pull actual support well below the headline rate.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust call for an essentials guarantee. They make the point—which has been suggested this week in the press—that we might get a below-inflation uprating of benefits next year, making those problems even worse. I would be grateful if the Minister gave an assurance on that front, because that would be very bad news indeed.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the Government need to resist the temptation to try to plug the gaps with one-off payments? They should actually look at the wider, more structural problems that they have with the social security system, rather than just try to plug gaps when the system is falling apart at the seams.
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I very much value his contribution to the work of the Select Committee. He is quite right, and I hope that we will be able to look at some of those structural issues over the course of the inquiry.
If universal credit did meet basic needs, other demands—including on food banks—would decrease. When the £20 a week uplift to universal credit was introduced, there was a significant drop in food bank use; when that uplift was removed, food bank use went straight back up again. Universal credit was intended to make work pay, but how can it achieve that aim if people do not have the means to pay a bus fare, for example? In evidence to the Committee, the Trussell Trust, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Public Law Project all highlighted not being able to buy public transport tickets as a significant barrier to work. As far as we can tell, the Government have made no assessment at all of whether benefit levels are adequate. If I am wrong about that, I would very much welcome the Minister telling us, but there is certainly no evidence of such an assessment ever having been made. I hope the Department will look very carefully at the findings of our report when they are published in due course.
One other point was highlighted in a briefing for this debate prepared by the charity Barnardo’s. That charity describes the two-child limit as the single biggest policy driver of child poverty in the UK, and says that ending it would be the most cost-effective way of reducing child poverty, lifting a quarter of a million children out of poverty and easing the poverty of a further 850,000 children. The cost of doing so would be £1.3 billion per year. I must say that I am puzzled about the justification for the two-child limit: it presumably reflects a belief that parents should not have more than two children, but as far as I understand it, that is not the Government’s view. Indeed, Government Members are understandably starting to worry about our falling birth rate, so why do we refuse to provide support for children beyond the first two? Is it not time to just scrap that limit, which does not seem to make any sense?
Another reason for higher DWP expenditure this year is the continuation of cost of living support. Expenditure is forecast to increase by just over £2 billion this year, due to higher payments—£900 in this financial year, compared with £650 last year—and higher take-up. Those payments have been crucial, but they do not fully meet need, particularly the £150 disability support payment. Last month, Maddy Rose of Mencap told the Select Committee that the payment is “clearly not commensurate” with the extra costs that those eligible incur, and we have heard other strong evidence to the Committee along those lines. Helen Barnard of the Trussell Trust told us last month that the cost of living payment
“has certainly helped the families that have got it, but of course, it is a flat payment. It is not calibrated for the number of people you are trying to feed, so it has clearly gone less far if you are a family with children than if you are a single person or a couple.”
That is one of the reasons why the Trussell Trust data shows a faster rise in food bank demand among families with children than among families without.
The lump sum nature of the payment is problematic. Citizens Advice, speaking for many, told the Committee that increments to universal credit would be better than one-off payments. Our colleagues on the Treasury Committee called on the Government last December to provide monthly payments over a six-month period to give more households support at the time of their greatest need and reduce the severity of the disincentives to work. The Government rejected that proposal, essentially due to the limitations of the IT system, but as we know from the pandemic, monthly universal credit can be increased overnight.
The need to meet a specific qualifying period for each payment window has led to what evidence to the Committee has described as
“a cliff edge where receiving a nil UC award one month—maybe due to a sanction or a higher salary due to backpay or a bonus—caused recipients to become ineligible for the entire cost of living support payment in that qualification period.”
I am looking forward to discussing cost of living support further with the Minister responsible for social mobility, youth and progression—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies)—at the Committee tomorrow morning.
A very important aim in achieving effective spending is transparency over how the money is being spent and what is being achieved. The Department has had a very poor record in recent years, so I warmly welcome signs of a new commitment to transparency since the appointment of the new Secretary of State. Keeping things hidden, which has been the Department’s practice, has the short-term advantage for Ministers of avoiding having to answer sometimes awkward questions, but over the medium and long term, people depending on the Department form the impression that it is conspiring against them. The result is terrible mistrust, causing the Department very serious problems over time—for example, the very serious lack of confidence in the DWP among disabled people at the moment. It does not have to be like that, but changing things requires deliberate effort on the Department’s behalf.
None of the recently introduced employment support initiatives had regular performance reporting on introduction. I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement of six-monthly performance reports for the restart scheme. That is one of the signs of welcome change in the Department’s approach, but it should be the norm and part of the arrangements built in at the outset, not something that has to be dragged from the Department kicking and screaming subsequently. Greater openness could deliver a wholly different relationship between the Department and the people depending on its services, with the Department seen to be working with those it serves, rather than conspiring against them.
An interesting suggestion in the Child Poverty Action Group report I mentioned earlier, “You reap what you code”, is that the source code for the universal credit computer system should be published. There would no doubt be some security concerns about doing that, but could not a small team—with experts from disability groups, Citizens Advice and software experts—be charged with reviewing that software and proposing improvements, perhaps in an annual report, a little bit along the lines of what the Social Security Advisory Committee does at the moment?
Let me briefly say a word about a different aspect of the Committee’s work. We have been worried by the cuts to the funding of the Health and Safety Executive, and one result has been drastically fewer inspections of workplace asbestos. We published a report on this last year, and called in particular for two things—a target to remove all workplace asbestos within 40 years together with a plan to deliver it, and a central digital register of all workplace asbestos and of its condition. The Government rejected those recommendations, although I do welcome the agreement of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, to meet a group of us, together with three industry groups and the Health and Safety Executive, to discuss further the idea for a register. That meeting will take place later this month.
I very warmly welcome the launch of the campaign by The Sunday Times at the weekend drawing attention to the continuing scale of the tragedy being inflicted by asbestos even now, a quarter of a century after its use was banned. It is still the biggest source of workplace-related deaths. The Sunday Times campaign headlines in particular our two recommendations, and I do hope that Ministers will now recognise the need to act. I welcome the fact that The Sunday Times will be running this campaign on a consistent basis.
I again thank the Backbench Business Committee for recommending today’s debate. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister specifically how Ministers are assessing whether the different cost of living support payments meet needs and whether they are reaching the right people, and also how and when Ministers will decide whether payments along these lines will be needed next year. I look forward to the debate we are about to have.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). This is an opportunity for us to scrutinise the spending of the DWP as a whole, and I think it is important to reflect, as the Chair did, on the amounts of money that we are talking about. Spending on pensioner benefits equates to £134.8 billion and spending on universal credit and equivalent benefits equates to £82.8 billion, and that is before we look at disability and carer benefits, housing benefit, incapacity benefits and the one-off cost of living payments.
We are talking about a significant amount of money, but we are not just talking about it in the whole or in the round. I am sure that all of us here, as constituency MPs, know that casework associated with the DWP takes up a significant proportion of our casework teams’ time. Frankly, that is usually because of errors in the system. We know that every constituent’s circumstances are unique, but the themes are the same and the consequences for people’s day-to-day lives and living circumstances can be significant. I will highlight a survey carried out by the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaign that reports that nearly one in three women who have been impacted by changes to the state pension have fallen into debt in the last six months. That is people’s day-to-day lives. Given the amount of money spent on the DWP, I think we all, on a cross-party basis, would want the money that is spent to be used effectively and efficiently. I want to use my time this afternoon to highlight some of the inefficiencies in the system and seek updates from the Minister on points that I hope he will address in his concluding remarks.
On the state pension, it is important that we recognise that those who are most reliant on the state pension are those who are least able to work for longer. I want to highlight the current LEAP—legal entitlement and administrative practices—correction exercise for underpayments of the state pension, and to ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government are still on track to complete those corrections by the end of 2024. In February 2023, they had paid out only £200 million of the target of £1.5 billion.
I also want to highlight the uptake of pension credit. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has advised that there is a policy proposal on the table looking at combining the housing allowance and pension credit systems. It believes that that would increase uptake of pension credit, which I know the Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—has been working very hard to do. If that is the case, why is it potentially being pushed back to 2028?
Home responsibilities protection errors were discovered last year and mentioned in the DWP’s annual report. When people had accrued HRP under the old state pension, there were errors in converting it to national insurance credits in the move to the new system, and that left people with incomplete records and underpayments. When I say people, it is generally women. We are still waiting for the report to set out the scale of the problem now and how the DWP plans to fix it. I would be grateful if the Minister mentioned when that correction exercise will start. I urge that it starts in parallel with the current correction exercise rather than being delayed until after the current exercise is finished. Again, a lot of these issues tend to be for women. It feels to me that the way systems are set up sometimes means that they do not recognise the situation of women who have been in the workplace, the decisions they make for family and other reasons, and their caring responsibilities.
I want to mention the missing national insurance credits for people who received universal credit. The Minister confirmed to me in a letter in March that the automatic system for updating the records did not work because the format of the UC data sent to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs did not work with its systems, so that was suspended. This has meant that NI records are being manually updated, with errors being made as a result. I think this ties in with the Chair of the Select Committee’s comments about IT and the problems that legacy systems sometimes have. We all remember that the £20 uplift in universal credit was never seen by those on legacy benefits, and the initial reason given for that was that the IT systems could not cope, and that was never addressed. Does the Minister think that all those corrections to NI records will be made by the end of 2023-24, and may we have an update on the number of pensioners who are still missing out on their full entitlement?
If we want work to work, and to work effectively, we must acknowledge that we need to do more on pensions. For me, a startling statistic is the fact that most people are not in work a year before their pension age. For a variety of reasons people are not working, and they are therefore waiting for their state pension. Recent DWP reporting puts the gender pension gap for private pensions at a staggering 35%. Do the Government have an estimate of the gender pay gap if they include people who have no private pension entitlement at all? I suspect that if they have not been included, the gap will be somewhat larger. Will the Government make it a departmental statutory objective to close the gender pension gap?
That brings us back to women, because that changing portfolio of careers that women potentially experience will increasingly be the case for many people. I think about my own background before I came to this place. Increasingly, people do not stay in one organisation for 30-plus years and then draw down their pension from that organisation; they instead do a variety of different jobs in different places. As a result, the pension dashboard that was introduced by the Pension Schemes Act 2021 becomes even more critical so that people can keep track. Again, I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on that roll-out.
Let me return to benefits and the insufficiency of income. A number of us were present at the statement on the disability cost of living payment, and there was a general acknowledgement, certainly on this side of the House, that insufficiency of income is at the root of that. DWP data shows that in 2021 one in six people were in relative poverty, and one in five after accounting for housing costs, while 13% were in absolute poverty and 17% after housing costs. The Resolution Foundation estimates that that figure will rise in 2023-24 to 18.4% after housing costs.
Keeping people in poverty has negative outcomes. When people are financially insecure, they are more likely to have health or mental health problems, and more likely to struggle to get into work—it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I echo the comments of the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee on the uprating of benefits. The previous uprating, which was welcomed, was simply to keep up with inflation. If the problem is insufficiency of income, not committing to do that going forward just makes the problem worse.
I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks, and our “Cash or food?” inquiry deals specifically with how we better support people and ensure a decrease in the use of food banks. In my constituency—indeed, this is something the Scottish Affairs Committee is looking at—the rural poverty premium is real. The Chair of the Committee mentioned transport costs, and going from East Neuk in my constituency to the jobcentre in Levan costs £9 on the bus. When talking about the small amounts of money that constitute universal credit, we can quickly see where that money goes, and that is before someone potentially has to go shopping in premium local shops as opposed to Aldi and Lidl. Money goes very quickly.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Lady made a good point about benefits and the key role that they play in creating a wealthy society. She may or may not know that there is an interesting TED talk called “Where in the world is it easiest to get rich?” The answer is: in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, where they have identified that one of the key aspects of creating a wealthy society is a good benefits system that enables workers to go around with some security, and society and children to have security as well. If we want to have millionaires and billionaires, we need a very good benefits system.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Absolutely; I think we all look to the Scandinavian countries to see how they promote quality of life and support individuals, and we must think about how we can better support that. Indeed, the public generally tend to support that. They are comfortable potentially paying more in tax to have better services, and that debate must continue to be had.
I am pleased that my carer’s leave private Member’s Bill is now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, and it will for the first time give employment rights to unpaid carers. One of the huge challenges when I was engaging with unpaid carers in my constituency—I have said this in the Chamber before—was the number of people who had left work because of their caring responsibilities, and therefore they would not benefit from provisions in the Act. Sadly, it is a fact that too many unpaid carers and the people they care for are living in poverty.
Carers UK estimates that unpaid carers are providing care worth £162 billion a year, and when we contrast that with the costs of the Department through the estimates debate, we can see the comparators. Without unpaid carers, our economy would be severely strained. Some 45% of unpaid carers are estimated to be unable to afford their monthly expenses, and two thirds of those who receive carer’s allowance or the universal credit carer element say that they cannot meet their monthly expenses. The level of carer’s allowance needs to be increased urgently—I have called for that before, and I will continue to do so.
We must also think about how we taper carer’s allowance. Caring never stops, and we should not have people falling off a cliff edge in relation to hours worked. Frankly, that is a disincentive for people going into work, because if they have the choice between working or caring for their loved one, they will choose their loved one every time. For young carers, I am not just concerned about their education; I am also concerned that we will never get them into the workplace if we do not provide them with the support to get there.
I am conscious that some unpaid carers decide to step out of the workplace for some time and then their caring responsibilities end, potentially through the loss of a loved one. What are we doing to support unpaid carers, who might have been out of the workplace for some time, to get back into work? There are similarities with issues such as parental leave and other decisions, and we should be looking at that body of people, who frankly are some of the best multitaskers I know, given their skillsets, and how we can help them into work.
Finally—this is an issue that other Members will be hugely aware of—child benefit thresholds are becoming an increasing problem, particularly given some of our frozen levels of income tax. It is a ticking timebomb. Families do not apply for child benefit if they know that they will not be entitled to it, but because those levels have never changed, that is increasingly an issue for stay-at-home parents—again, those are usually women; there’s a theme—who then miss out on accruing national insurance credits for the state pension. They do not realise that if they do not apply for child benefit payment, even to be told that they do not apply, they cannot pick up the national insurance credits, and that can be a real issue. Will the Minister consider reviewing the scheme for accruing credits for stay-at-home parents, or at the very least doing an awareness-raising campaign, as has been done for pension credits and other things? This is a good opportunity, whether a Member has an interest via the Committee, or otherwise, but as a constituency MP I want, and my casework team want, the DWP to be working as effectively as possible, so that those who need help get it, and those who can get into work are supported to do so.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I find myself resonating with her comments on carers and the lack of support that exists in so many different ways, but particularly through the social security system, and the billions—multiple billions—that are provided in equivalent support to this country that we sadly do not adequately recognise.
I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for all that he does in the plethora of different inquiries that the Committee has held over the past few years. I am particularly pleased about the work that we are doing on the adequacy, or inadequacy, of the social security system, and the important things that will reveal when it is published early next year.
This debate is about DWP spending. Associated with that is what it means for the priorities of the Department and, in particular, the Government’s priorities for social security as a whole. I will focus my remarks on the fall in support for working-age adults. We need to recognise that particular group and the impact that fall is having on so many different families across the country.
We have had two major welfare reform Acts, in 2012 and 2016. I will refer to the latter in a moment, but the cumulative impact of those up to the pandemic was the equivalent of a 17% reduction in working-age support, which in cash terms is about £33 billion. That was only slightly offset by the temporary increase in universal credit during the pandemic. Although I welcome the uprating last year, and I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said about that, it does not at all make up for the last 10 or 11 years of significant cuts. That has had an impact on relative poverty across the UK.
Just under one in three children in the UK are growing up in poverty, and in my constituency the figure is nearly one in two. We also know that just under two thirds of children growing up in poverty live in families where at least one adult is working. The implications of these cuts for those children are not insignificant. We now have the highest ever level of in-work poverty. What on earth does that say about this country? It is shocking.
Many people who know me will know how strongly I feel about the impact of these cuts on disabled people. One in three disabled people are living in poverty, which is twice the rate for non-disabled people. It is totally unacceptable. These are the most vulnerable people in our society, and we are failing to recognise their needs and support them.
I know that the Minister will come back and say, “Actually, poverty has reduced.” The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reflected that in its annual report, which came out at the beginning of the year. Yes, poverty levels have gone down, but that reflected the fact that during the pandemic we saw reductions in overall incomes, and with relative poverty that is the position. Importantly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that it was also about different choices that the Government made at the time. As much as we are talking about now, we must recognise that that £20 a week of additional support made a difference to those poverty levels. Poverty is not inevitable; it is about political choices. Again, I hope we can reflect on that.
When I speak to my constituents in Oldham East and Saddleworth, and indeed people across the country, they tell me that they feel our current system no longer provides the safety net that it was set up to provide in the post-war settlement with the British people, and they are right; it is inadequate. Following on from their first-hand experience during the pandemic, polling shows that two thirds of Britons think that universal credit is too low.
Not only has the adequacy of the UK’s social security system diminished over time—in terms of average weekly incomes, it is approximately half of what was provided after world war two—but it is also lower than most of our European neighbours, with data from 2018 showing that our social security spending as a percentage of GDP was below EU27 and OECD averages.
We must never forget that the post-war Labour Government created the NHS and the welfare state. As we mark the remarkable achievement of our NHS with its 75th anniversary tomorrow, we must reflect on the principles of universality and access for all, which I would like to see reflected in our social security system, too. Like our NHS, our social security system should be there for all of us in our time of need, whether that is a result of illness or disability, of being unable to work anymore because we have reached retirement age, or for any other reason. It should provide basic financial support and should be valued for the safety net it provides. That is not the case now, and that is why I am advocating for a new social contract that defines the future of our social security system. A good starting point would be the essentials guarantee that my right hon. Friend talked about. That has been proposed by the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, but a wide coalition of charities have advocated for it. They found that 90% of low-income households on universal credit are going without essentials such as food, electricity and clothes.
That inadequacy is the main driver of food bank need, with almost 1.3 million food parcels distributed between April and September 2022. That is just unacceptable in the fifth richest country in the world. An essentials guarantee would ensure that the universal credit standard allowance met a level that provided basic security for a family’s need. The charities calculated that at £120 a week for a single person and £200 a week for a couple. The guarantee would bring us in line with our European neighbours and provide a safety net in the same vein as our NHS. It would also reduce the poverty that too many are experiencing and which has a lifelong impact on children.
Some Members will know that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies and have done so for a number of years. In 2020, just before the pandemic, we commissioned a review of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 to analyse the impacts it was having on children and disabled people. Anybody watching or listening is welcome to have a look at that on my website. One of the biggest and most worrying figures that we found was that:
“Each 1% increase in child poverty was significantly associated with an extra 5.8 infant deaths per 100 000 live births…about a third of the increases in infant mortality between 2014 and 2017 can be attributed to rising child poverty”.
That was published in one of the peer-reviewed medical journals. Understanding the impact that that has had on so many families is devastating. It is yet further evidence that far more needs to be done to provide an essentials guarantee.
The flipside of that is that we have one of the highest tax burdens in 40 years, but I was heartened to see members of Patriotic Millionaires—they are all multi-millionaires—come out and say, “We recognise the impact that not having a wealth tax on us is having on the fabric of our society. We do not want our children growing up in a society where there is not the fairness that we grew up with in our country.” It has come up with the proposal of a wealth tax that would fund the essentials guarantee. For me, that group espouses what we as a nation can be.
In contrast—this takes me back to what other hon. Members have said—there has been a rather nasty element in the media. When we look at DWP spending, we must remember that half of it, rightly, goes on the state pension; that is the biggest slice of the spending. The next biggest is on housing benefit. We need to recognise that. Nobody would criticise DWP spending on our pensioners. I urge responsible journalists to recognise that we should not criticise social security spending on people who are disabled or not able to work because of illness. We must be better than that.
As I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I did promise that I would be very brief, I repeat that poverty—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For clarification, I am not putting the hon. Lady under any pressure. As far as I am concerned, she has all the time in the world.
Debbie Abrahams
Well, that is an offer that I definitely will refuse this time. As I said, poverty and inequality are not inevitable—they are political choices—and I believe that, like our NHS, our social security system should be there for all of us in our time of need.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
May I start, as others have, by sending my thanks to the Chair of our Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for securing today’s debate and for setting the scene so well? The debate takes place against the backdrop of an ongoing Westminster-made cost of living crisis that affects the livelihoods and lives of people across Scotland and these islands. The harsh, yet inescapable reality is that people in Scotland can no longer afford to pay the price for the economic mismanagement of a Westminster Government they did not elect. Indeed, we have not voted by majority for the Conservatives since 1955.
In May, CPI was still at 8.7%. Prices are still soaring and the cost of living under Westminster control is still far too high for many families who were already struggling to get by after 13 long, brutal years of Tory cuts, Brexit and economic mismanagement. We know that inflation disproportionately impacts lower-income groups such as single parents, who spend a relatively high proportion of their income on food and fuel. Indeed, new Trussell Trust research shows that families are going hungry as a result of the Westminster-made cost of living crisis, with one in seven people in the UK facing hunger in the last year due to a lack of money. Ministers often tell us that the reasons for food bank usage are complex. It is not complex—it is because people do not have enough money.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s latest cost of living tracker found that 5.7 million low-income households are having to cut down or skip meals because they do not have enough money for food, while the number going without items such as food, heating and basic toiletries has remained at about 7 million for more than a year—all of that in the sixth largest economy in the world.
The average interest rate for a two-year fixed-term mortgage has risen to 6%. The Resolution Foundation has said that average annual mortgage repayments are set to rise by £2,900 for those renewing next year. In short, that is the eye-watering Westminster mortgage premium that Scots are paying for the pleasure of a Tory Government they did not elect.
What is more, analysis by the consumer group Which? shows that the prices of popular family meals have risen by 27% in the last year. The Irish and French Governments have reached agreements with major supermarket retailers to reduce food prices, while the Tory Government are sitting on their hands. It is those low-income families I represent in Parkhead, Shettleston and Baillieston who are paying the price for the sheer intransigence of Conservative Ministers here in London. Even at this late hour in the cost of living crisis, I urge the British Government to use all the powers at their disposal to tackle that crisis on the scale that is required. That does mean that they will have to be bold and radical, and the same is true of the pro-Brexit Labour party.
I turn specifically to universal credit, which is obviously the main focus of the debate. In short, the British Government’s continual refusal to fix the extensive and known-about problems with universal credit is unacceptable, and it is without doubt subjecting some of the most vulnerable people in our communities to additional and unnecessary hardship. With the three main parties in this place now agreeing on the principles of universal credit, there is an opportunity, so we should put our heads together to look at what we can do to fix it.
I will start with the level of universal credit. JRF research shows that support has eroded over decades and that the basic rate of universal credit is now at its lowest level as a proportion of average earnings. Indeed, the JRF’s latest cost of living tracker warns that about nine in 10 low-income households on UC have gone without at least one essential for the third survey in over a year.
For most people referred to food banks in the Trussell Trust network, the design and delivery of the social security system are major contributors to their inability to afford the essentials. The majority of people—indeed, some 89%—referred to food banks in the Trussell Trust network receive a means-tested benefit such as universal credit, but that did not provide them with enough to cover the cost of the essentials. As the right hon. Member for East Ham said, JRF and the Trussell Trust are together calling on Ministers to implement that essentials guarantee to ensure that, at a minimum, the basic rate of universal credit covers life’s essentials and that support can never be pulled below that level.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is not another problem the insane part of the system where people pay back money because of advances and the level of deductions—more than £60 a month is being deducted from my hon. Friend’s constituents’ and my constituents’ universal credit? That envelops that cycle of poverty.
David Linden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point on the record. He was my predecessor on the Select Committee and follows this work well. I will come to debt and deductions, because that is one of the big issues raised in the evidence that the Select Committee receives, certainly by the stakeholders that we meet. He is spot-on to draw attention to the £60 from each of our constituents that is paid back to the Government when it could be spent in our local economies.
New CPAG research finds that the digital aspects of universal credit routinely lead to wrong amounts being awarded to claimants—often those who are most vulnerable—and to breaches of rule of law principles. That is why I have repeatedly called on the Government to reverse their cuts to universal credit and working tax credits. Let us not forget that this was the biggest overnight cut to welfare in 70 years, inflicting hardship on people who were already struggling. To have done that as we came out of the teeth of the pandemic was particularly cruel.
Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up struggling families’ incomes, the DWP should reverse the damaging policies that are impacting on the most vulnerable people. It should reinstate the UC uplift at £25 per week and, of course, extend it to legacy benefits. Let us not forget the 2.5 million disabled people, so ably advocated for by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who were cruelly left behind without that uplift during the pandemic. The Government also need to remove the benefit cap and the two-child limit with its associated rape clause. They also need to halt the punitive sanctions regime so that all households are lifted out of poverty now and in future.
I turn to the benefit cap. As the Poverty Alliance points out, the cap’s design means that those who require the highest level of support from the benefit system are the most likely to be affected. That is simply unjust. Based on the latest departmental figures, 114,000 UK households have had their benefit capped and 86% of those are families with children. The benefit cap disproportionately impacts lone-parent families, the majority of whom are women—a point made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) —as well as larger and ethnic minority families.
The same is true of the two-child limit. Thousands of families with children will be pushed into poverty because Ministers on the Treasury Bench refuse to scrap the two-child limit on child tax credits and universal credit. A new London School of Economics study found that the policy’s impoverishment of larger low-income households has helped few parents get a job. Instead, its main function has been to push families further into poverty and to damage their mental health.
I wonder why Ministers are so furled to the two-child limit. The vast majority of them are actually quite embarrassed by it, and that is before we get to the associated rape clause, or as the Government like to call it, the “non-consensual sex exemption”. When this Government go around lecturing people about the values of global Britain, I am pretty sure they do not tell folk that the state will only support the first two children in the family, but if someone can prove that their child was born as a result of rape, that is okay.
David Linden
The Parliamentary Private Secretary is shaking his head at that, but probably because he is so embarrassed.
The five-week wait for a first payment is needlessly pushing people into hardship. The issue could easily be fixed by implementing the Scottish National party’s proposal to turn advance payment loans into non-repayable grants after the claimant has been deemed eligible. The Trussell Trust, which I referenced earlier, has consistently shown that the five-week wait for universal credit is a key driver in the need for food banks, both during those five weeks and after the payments have started.
I want to draw attention to the young parent penalty in UC, which Ministers must end. It denies single parents under the age of 25 the same level of social security as those above that age, and it pushes those affected into real poverty. Let us not forget that when under-25s go into Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons or whatever supermarket, they do not get a discount on their shopping because they are under 25. I find that Ministers have an obsession with that.
Wendy Chamberlain
The hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this issue, as have I. Does he agree that the response I received from the previous Secretary of State on this point—that under-25s were treated differently because they tended to still be at home with their parents—is a pretty spurious argument and excuse from the Department?
David Linden
That is right. It was not unusual for the previous Secretary of State to say things which, after some scrutiny, might not make sense. The hon. Lady is right. For Ministers to hide behind the housing crisis—caused by this Tory Government—as some kind of justification for ensuring that people under 25 get less support does not stand up to scrutiny. That point was hammered home to me on Friday, when I was in Drumchapel visiting the Christians Against Poverty debt centre, to meet staff and volunteers there, to whom I pay enormous tribute for their sterling work.
According to One Parent Families Scotland, as a result of the young parent penalty, young couple parents are around £100 worse off per month than single parents, and around £65 worse off a month than over-25s. That research found that 55% of children with a mum under 25 are in relative poverty, and 49% are in absolute poverty. Let us never forget that those statistics are the result of the structural inequality put in place by intransigent Ministers. Although I certainly welcome the change whereby people on UC will now be able to claim childcare support upfront, I am afraid that does not change the fundamental issue that the amount of UC that people receive is simply not enough. Families will still be required to make up the 15% shortfall in their overall childcare costs under UC rules.
An issue that continues to come up in evidence at the Select Committee is that far too many households face destitution because of DWP rules that push them into debt through sanctions and reductions—a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Aberlour Children’s Charity produced a report that states that half of families with children in Scotland who receive universal credit are having their incomes reduced by the DWP to cover debts to public bodies. I hope the Select Committee will be able to drill into that a bit more. It is increasingly a problem, and I am sure I am not the only MP who sees people raising it regularly at advice surgeries.
It is well established and on record that the SNP completely opposes the widespread use of sanctions, as there is clear evidence that they do not work. Indeed, evidence from the Department’s report admits that sanctions have a minimal effect on moving people into work. Instead, people who are sanctioned end up earning less than those who have not been sanctioned, or simply become economically inactive.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making such important remarks. Does he agree that the impact of sanctions is detrimental to people’s mental health? We are facing a mental health crisis. If we want to support people getting into work, we need to make sure that they are not struggling on the breadline.
David Linden
The hon. Lady is spot on. Sometimes, Ministers overlook when they take those decisions—yes, they might be driven by focus groups and such things—that the state bears the cost. If somebody hits a period of mental ill health or is made homeless, the health service or the local authority will pick up the pieces. It is not without cost for the state. I would like Ministers to have the wider picture as they pursue sanctions, because the research shows that they do not work.
Margaret Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is being generous. Does he agree that the issue of poverty is so concerning for small children because it impacts on the development of the brain and how well they will be able to learn? If a child has a good five years at the start of their life, that will see them through life. So many children in desperate poverty who do not know whether they will get enough food are also in receipt of the anxiety their parents are in, as they battle those stressful situations.
David Linden
I am proud that the Scottish Government invest in things such as the best start grant, the baby box and free school meals, to ensure that young people get the best possible start in life. My local authority in Glasgow is spending millions of pounds on holiday hunger programmes, to ensure that children who receive free school meals during school term time are still being fed. It is a damning indictment on the state that we have to spend money from local authority budgets feeding children because their parents do not have enough money. That is the situation we are in, in the fifth richest economy in the world.
Remarkably, as I am sure we will hear when the Minister responds to the debate, Ministers are still forcing more people into the sanctions regime, which further demonstrates the fundamental issue with the British Government’s attitude to those on low incomes: preventing vulnerable families from receiving the social security they are entitled to and, most importantly, when they need it the most.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I want to turn to the local housing allowance. The freeze of LHA rates for three consecutive years is placing additional and needless pressure on tenants and housing associations, and is likely to increase poverty and inequality. That is why Ministers should protect household incomes and support renters by restoring LHA rates to the 30th percentile as a minimum. The SNP has long called for the British Government to fix those fundamental flaws in our social security system but, as is so often the case, it falls on deaf ears each and every time, to the extent that every time I take part in one of these debates, it feels like groundhog day.
The blunt truth is that the Scottish Government cannot change those policies while 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to this institution here in London. That includes universal credit. By all means, I am happy to take part in debates and make suggestions about how we repair the social security system, but it is difficult to conclude anything other than Westminster—whether the Tories or the pro-Brexit Labour party—has zero appetite to genuinely step in and sew up a system that is failing some of the most vulnerable people in society. For that reason, the only way genuinely to bring about that compassionate, fair and dignified social security system in Scotland is with the full powers of independence. Frankly, that cannot come soon enough.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
This has been a good, important and timely debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, on bringing the debate to the Floor of the House. He rightly opened it by placing in context the size of the Department and its central place at the heart of economic policy, and discussed the work of his Committee, which has been substantial, on looking into some of the Department’s very significant flaws. Given the economic situation the country now faces, the work of the Committee has never been more important. As he mentioned, it has published very important and significant reviews, and some of the recommendations have been adopted by the Government, so I applaud him for securing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), in her usual way, explained the manner in which poverty harms people not just in their financial life but in every single aspect of their life. The Government would do well to listen to her.
I want to make some brief remarks—with an emphasis on brief—as many good points have already been made and I will not be repeating them all. I want to get to the heart of the points that have been discussed, in particular on universal credit. I have been in this House long enough to remember the country before universal credit, so I am able to compare and contrast the system we had before with the one we have now. I offer this reflection based on that experience.
On its introduction, universal credit was claimed to be a kind of cure-all which would release everyone from the so-called trap of poverty. I did not think that that was going to be true when it was introduced and I do not think it is true now. The Department for Work and Pensions, in its spending and policy choices, has to be far more than just universal credit and social security, important though they are. As much as the pensions side of the Department is a huge part of its spending and very important, it must also be the department for dignity: the dignity of work and the dignity of well-functioning, decent social protection. Those two areas of policy must work hand in hand to ensure that the ups and downs of life do not upend life chances when unfortunate things happen. We should be using good work and social protection to help people to move on and move up in life. The Chair of the Select Committee and other Members have provided a good survey of what is happening in the Department at the moment. I would argue that on both work and social protection it is failing.
On work, to put it simply, we have fewer people in work now than before the pandemic. That cannot be a success. We have businesses crying out for staff, yet, unlike in other countries, our employment rate has not recovered from the pandemic. That is a huge failure. Pay, the money in people’s pockets, has been stagnant for the past decade. We think about the promises made about universal credit and all the Department does, so what questions has the Minister asked about that? What research has he commissioned to get underneath why pay is so stagnant? We have had reviews of in-work progression. The Government have claimed that they want to tackle our productivity crisis. What research and evidence has the DWP actually published to show, despite the claims made about universal credit supporting people to escape the so-called poverty trap that Conservative Members felt previous Governments had created, why we have had such stagnant levels of pay?
It is arguable that the Department’s policy choices might have exacerbated the labour market crisis, so I ask the Minister again: what policies does he have now, today, to help people escape low-paid work? For all the Government have talked about the possibilities of universal credit, why has it delivered so very little in terms of the money in people’s pockets and their chances of getting on? Has universal credit really delivered all that was promised? On all those areas—work incentives, the chances families have to do better, pay progression and supporting employers to get the skilled staff they need—I look at all the Department does and I have many questions about the disappearance of that promised success.
We have had a series of failed employment schemes. Kickstart failed to deliver what it was said it would deliver. We heard from Members about restart and the work and health programme, and all we do not know about what they are doing. Looking at the labour market and everything that the Bank of England has said about the consequences for our economy of the state of the labour market, does the Minister really believe that the DWP is helping, or is it a hindrance? I would love to hear him talk about published evidence that the Department’s policies are actually helping.
Finally on work, one major challenge for our economy is the imbalanced labour market. Businesses in many towns across the country are crying out for staff, yet we have an unemployment challenge. Some towns and cities have areas where unemployment is twice the national average. How can that be right in a country that has such a need for staff? Does the Minister really believe that his Department’s spending and policy choices are helping? Work should be the way that all of us achieve our hopes and ambitions. I just wish the Department was able to live up to those ambitions.
As many people have said, social security should be the backstop that puts a floor beneath families, yet at almost every step over the past decade the Conservative Government have made that harder. At every turn, the political turbulence they have created has had an economic cost for our country as a whole, and for families up and down the country. The inflation we now face makes life harder for everybody, but not equally. If we look at the money families must now find to put food on the table and pay their bills, we know that the choices made by the Tories have made life harder for those who were already finding it tough. Their failings on energy have made life much harder, in particular for people with disabilities who pay significant extra costs. It is a well-evidenced phenomenon that people who face illness or disability have significant challenges with the rising cost of energy. The Conservative Government have never taken their needs into account enough. I agree with comments made by both my colleagues on the Select Committee that the relationship between the Department and people with disabilities is not nearly good enough to achieve what we would wish for them.
The evidence of failure is all around us, whether it is the open doors of food banks or the closed doors of businesses who have been unable to survive this crisis of inflation and staff shortages. On the housing crisis, I would bet anything—I am not a betting woman, but I would none the less bet anything—that almost every Member has seen a rise in their housing case load. Even those with a relatively low case load have seen it rise in relation to the recent housing crisis.
One fact above all shines out of the Department’s accounts: rising ill health, which is having economic consequences for all of us and disastrous consequences for people who are trying to earn money to keep their family housed and fed. Over the past decade or more, the Tories have been not just not up to the challenge; they have actively made it worse.
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
It is an honour once again to present the case on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions in an estimates day debate. I have lost track of the number of times I have done this, but I have certainly done so on numerous occasions during my seven years at the Department.
It is, first of all, my privilege to thank all DWP staff—whom I regard as a massive help and not a hindrance, as some may have suggested—for the fantastic work that they do up and down the country.
Guy Opperman
No.
The Government have never paid more for the pensions that we support in this country, we have never paid more for the benefit support that we provide in this country, we have never paid more for the housing support that we provide in this country, and we have never paid more for the disabled in this country. As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the national health service, let me also put on record my thanks to the NHS. I have had my life saved twice by the NHS, once after I collapsed in Central Lobby in 2011. I got into politics because of my attempts to save my local hospital, and I am proud to have visited Hexham General Hospital this week to see the amazing new maternity suite that has recently been opened.
Much has been said today about a variety of issues, but I want to try to put the debate in context. The Government clearly understand the pressures that households are facing. We are all familiar with the root causes of our higher costs, including the global factors: the illegal war in Ukraine brought about by Vladimir Putin, the aftermath and consequences of the pandemic, and the furlough scheme and the other support that we set out in great detail and the country provided at a time of difficulty. We are committed to delivering on our priority of halving inflation, which will help to ease those pressures for everyone and raise living standards.
Alongside that work, we continue to implement a significant package of cost of living measures to support the most vulnerable during 2023-24. We have increased benefits and state pensions by 10.1%, and raised the benefit cap by the same amount so that more people feel the benefit of uprating. For low-paid workers, we have increased the national living wage by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour; that represents an increase of more than £1,600 in the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage. That increase, and the increases that we made in the national minimum wage in April, have given a pay rise to about 2.9 million workers. To help parents, we are delivering a significant expansion of childcare support, including a 47% increase in the maximum amount of universal credit childcare payments. As I said in the House last week, that is a dramatic increase. In addition, where there are gaps in provision, notwithstanding the above cost of living payments, the £842 million extension of our household support fund into 2023-24 means that councils across England can continue to help families with grocery bills and other essentials.
Margaret Greenwood
Some universal credit claimants can apply to have the housing elements of their universal credit paid directly to the landlord. However, a report by the Child Poverty Action Group on the discovery phase of managed migration identified delays or errors in the setting up of direct payments and poor communication between the DWP, landlords and claimants, leading to people falling into arrears. That is clearly a serious state of affairs for anyone to find themselves in. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do about it?
Guy Opperman
I will ask the Minister who is responsible for that to write to the hon. Lady. However, her intervention brings me to the issue of housing, which was raised by several Members.
In 2022-23, the Government are projected to have spent £30 billion to support renters. That is 1.4% of GDP. Members may have criticised that sum, but they should be aware that it represents the highest spending on household rental support in any country in the OECD. The next highest is 0.9% of GDP. That figure is clearly higher than the figure that obtained when we came to office. Moreover, there are 2 million more homes than there were then, and more homes are meeting decent homes standards. I could go on.
Employment now stands at 30 million. It is up 23,000 on the month and 73,000 on the quarter, and vacancies are down again—35,000 down on the month in May and 79,000 down on the quarter. Today I met representatives of UKHospitality and a host of hospitality providers at the Department to discuss some of the long-term vacancy issues that they wished to raise. I believe we can continue to work with jobcentres throughout the country to try and address that, and to increase the overall employment rate, which was up by 0.1% on the month and 0.2% on the quarter, with unemployment down by 0.1 percentage points on the month as of May. Economic inactivity is down by 0.4 percentage points on the quarter and down by 781,000 since the 2010 general election. It is clear that the pandemic had impacts, and the progress in certain areas is not as quick as one would like, but we have made huge efforts to turn that around, and all the indications from all the labour market statistics released by the Office for National Statistics in May are that the trends are in the right direction.
Guy Opperman
No, I will not. I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
Let me say something about cost of living payments. We are building on, and extending, the one-off cash payments that we provided in 2022-23, when we made more than £30 million worth of cost of living payments, including the £150 disability payment to 6 million people, £650 for more than 8 million households on means-tested benefits, and an additional £300 on top of the winter fuel payment for more than 8 million pensioner households. That put hundreds of pounds directly and quickly into the pockets of millions of people.
Criticism was made of universal credit as a principle. The first—and simple—point that I would make, which I think was acknowledged by the Chair of the Select Committee, is that the legacy system would in no way have been able to provide the degree of support that universal credit provided during covid, and it would in no way be able to provide an ongoing degree of cost of living support. Universal credit, as we see, provides a massive amount of support on an ongoing basis, which is targeted to help those most impacted by rising prices throughout this financial year.
Guy Opperman
There are about a dozen points made by the right hon. Gentleman to which I was going to respond, but I will give way once again.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister. When does he expect to make a decision on whether the cost of living payments will continue for a further year? When, this year, is that decision likely to be made?
Guy Opperman
Because the right hon. Gentleman and I have worked together for many years—and I emphasise “together”—he will know that I have been a humble junior functionary at the Department for Work and Pensions for a very long time, never to rise any higher. Let me also say to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that I have had the privilege of serving under three female Secretaries of State before the present Secretary of State. I think I am now on my seventh Secretary of State.
These matters are monumentally above my pay grade, and, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, having done my job and many other jobs in the Government, they will be decided by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister at some stage over the course of the coming year. [Interruption.] I have much to be modest about, to be honest. As I have said, these matters are above my pay grade and beyond my knowledge, but they will be considered. There will be an autumn statement in November, which will be the obvious time for decisions to be telegraphed, if not made.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points, and I will try to answer some of them in the time that I have. He mentioned prison leavers. The Department recognises the need for prisoners and carers to be able to make advance claims for universal credit, and there is a working process in place to support that. I have met the prisons Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who will welcome any questions that will follow during the justice debate, and the social mobility Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who looks after most aspects of matters relating to prisoners, on several occasions to try to drive forward universal credit take-up. However, it requires the individual to desire to do that, and that is clearly complicated and not easy. It is a work in progress, but it is very much something that we are aware of.
I know that the social mobility Minister is giving evidence to the Select Committee tomorrow, so I will not address in too much detail the issues the right hon. Member for East Ham raised on the Health and Safety Executive, which is one of the few briefs I have not held in the last few years. He rightly raised the issue of transparency, and I would respectfully say that I agree with him. The present Secretary of State has transformed the position in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman knows my strong view that, save where we have to provide data on a monthly basis under labour market statistics, we should have six-monthly provision of the vast plethora of data, linked to the two fiscal events of the year, but that is a work in progress. The Department is definitely reviewing all aspects of those things.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the flexible support fund and particular issues about people taking buses to work. I want to take issue with that, because there is absolutely no doubt that a jobcentre can use the flexible support fund to support bus or other transport fares for agreed work-related activity. If it is for a work-related activity, that support can be provided as it is in other contexts—childcare being the one of which he will be particularly aware. I would certainly very much hope that the individual jobcentre that he referred to would be aware of that.
On fraud and error, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that huge amounts of effort are being made by the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who takes control of that particular part of the portfolio, and by the Secretary of State in a multitude of different ways. We have a large number of extra staff who have been brought in to address fraud and error. According to the latest national statistics, it has fallen to 3.6% from 4%, and overpayments from fraud are down to 2.7% compared with 3% in 2021-22. Universal credit losses have fallen by nearly 2% over a similar period. Bluntly, we are trying to crack down on those who are exploiting the benefit system, and we want to make it very clear that we are coming after those people. We want to ensure that the maximum amount of support goes to the people who need it.
The targeted support includes support for people on means-tested benefits such as universal credit, with up to three cost of living payments totalling up to £900. We have delivered the first £301 payment to 8.3 million households in support worth £2.5 billion. The two further payments of £300 and £299 will be made in the autumn and next spring. To help with additional costs, we have paid the disability cost of living payment to 6 million people as well as paying the winter fuel support payment. A huge amount is being done in jobcentres, whether that is through the in-work progression offer, the support of extra work coaches, the over-50s support, the administrative earnings threshold support or the 37 new district progression leads who are working with key partners, including local government, employers and skilled providers, to identify and develop local opportunities and to overcome barriers that limit progression.
The hon. Member for North East Fife raised a number of pension matters. Clearly, I continue to defend the actions of the Labour Government and the coalition Government on the rise in state pension age. She referred to both the LEAP exercise and what has happened at HMRC, and they are both works in progress. I do not believe there is any fundamental change to that of which she has been previously advised. On pension credit, she will be aware that there has been an increase in excess of, I think, 170% in applications. There is a slight backlog, but that is coming down dramatically. On the gender pensions gap, she will be aware of the changes to the new state pension, which are massively advantageous to women, and of the fact that successive Governments—starting with the Labour Government and the Turner commission, and then the coalition—have brought in automatic enrolment specifically to address that particular issue.
The hon. Lady raised a final point about those who change jobs in later life. I cannot overstate the importance of the project for which I have been pressing for only five and a half years now, which is the mid-life MOT. I am delighted to say it is now being rolled out across the country, whether that is online, in jobcentres up and down the country or, more particularly, in the three private sector bodies that are trialling particular processes. If she is not yet acquainted with that, I would strongly urge her to become so, particularly because in her area of Scotland in North East Fife there are, I know, providers that are offering that process. I can provide her with the details. Aviva and others are doing very good stuff there.
I am conscious that I have been speaking for some time, but the practical reality is that we believe we are removing the barriers that prevent people from working. We believe that we are reducing the number of people who are economically inactive, with a fifth consecutive month when inactivity has declined. I accept that there is more to do, and I am determined to leave no stone unturned in taking the decisive action needed across Government to see that downward trend continue.
In conclusion, I believe that we are tackling inflation to help manage the cost of living. We are providing extra support. The economic trends, as shown by the labour market statistics, are heading in the right direction and, with the Government’s ongoing significant package of cost of living support, that is worth over £94 billion in excess of the rises to state pension and benefits. We are protecting those most in need from the worst impact of rising prices by putting more pounds in people’s pockets, and I commend these estimates to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
To conclude, I call Sir Stephen Timms.
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me reiterate my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to hold the debate, and I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate as well. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) spoke in the debate last year as well, I am pleased to say, and I want to pick up one point she made about the gender pensions gap. I join her in welcoming the fact that the Pensions Minister has now come forward with a definition of that, so that we know what we are talking about. But I also agree with her that we need a target to reduce it, and I hope that we will see that in due course as well.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for all her work on the Committee and her very committed work on behalf of disabled people. This afternoon, she spoke about the scourge of disability poverty and some of the things that we need to do to tackle that.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for combining his work on the Committee with his Front-Bench role. He makes a very valuable contribution to the work of the Committee. Let me endorse his tribute to the work of the organisation Christians Against Poverty, which is very valuable. It is doing a very impressive job all over the country.
I am grateful for the interventions we have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens)—it is good to see him back on this beat—and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).
I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting that we will perhaps hear about the plans for further cost of living payments in the autumn statement. I think they will be needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) was absolutely right to make the point from the Opposition Front Bench that in many respects the security has been removed from social security. That is a lamentable feature of the last few years. The level of benefits is much too low and it has not been properly uprated. I want to renew my appeal. We did have a proper uprating this year, thankfully, but we need that again next year. We are talking about a historically low level of benefits. That is the major reason why food bank demand is still rising. If we do not have a full uprating next year, it will rise further.
I am glad the Minister has confirmed that the Department is reviewing arrangements for transparency. I am grateful to him for that and the confirmation he has given of the direction of travel and the work in progress. I am also interested to hear about the staff being recruited to tackle fraud and error. The Committee would be very interested to follow progress on that and perhaps to table some questions about how many staff there are.
I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to have this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone who has contributed to it.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54)
Ministry of Justice
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to open this important debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this part of the Ministry of Justice estimates. I am glad to see the Minister and the shadow Minister in their places.
I want to raise succinctly, but in some detail, a number of pressing areas that trouble the Select Committee on Justice. Despite the funding increases that have recently been achieved, there is a background that causes real difficulties to the Prison and Probation Service.
I will highlight four areas in particular where the Minister ought to seek to persuade the Government to prioritise and increase their efforts, for the sake of both those who work in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the offenders it is meant to manage and hold safely but humanely, with a view to reform wherever possible.
I will flag up the following issues: prison capacity, the projected prison population and overcrowding; the quality of the prison estate; the prison and probation workforce, and workforce shortages; and the youth custody estate. The Select Committee has looked at these matters on a number of occasions, and we are currently carrying out an inquiry into the prison workforce—I am grateful to everyone who has given evidence so far, and I appreciate the engagement we have had with Ministers.
I will start with one of the most pressing issues facing the Prison Service today. We now have the latest prison population projections and the reasons for their increase. The reality is simply that the prison population has grown substantially over the past 30 years. As of last Friday, there were some 85,851 people in prison. The number has changed a bit even since then.
Despite the Government’s efforts to manage the population, England and Wales has the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe and, of course, it is projected to grow further. We see no sign of the imprisonment rate falling. At the same time as having one of the highest imprisonment rates in western Europe, we also have one of the worst reoffending rates. Successive Governments have failed to address that ironic dichotomy.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman, the Minister and the shadow Minister know my bona fides on matters of law and order. Bad and dangerous people should be in prison to protect the public, but we do not talk often enough about prevention and rehabilitation. It would cost far less to keep people out of prison, and to stop them going back into prison, than to keep them in prison.
Sir Robert Neill
I could not agree more. The current Lord Chancellor has said previously that prison is there for the people of whom we are entitled to be afraid, not for the people with whom we are annoyed or angry. That is an important distinction, because prison is there to deal with those who are a danger to society or who have significantly harmed society; it is not there, in an ideal world, to deal with people who, for any number of reasons, have got their life into a mess. Such people can be a nuisance to society, but there is surely a better way to handle them than incarceration in the closed estate at a cost of some £40,000 a year.
The Justice Committee held an inquiry into the prison population back in 2017. There was about a 15% reduction in the prisons budget between 2015 and 2020, and it was found that had an impact on the safety and decency of the estate, following a reduction in the number of prison officers between 2010 and 2015. In truth, there has been underinvestment in prisons and, I would argue, underinvestment in the whole justice system for decades, under Governments of all complexions. Because the Ministry of Justice is both an unprotected Department, in budgetary terms, and a downstream Department, it often picks up the consequences of things that have gone wrong elsewhere in society and elsewhere in Government. The Ministry of Justice is particularly vulnerable.
In 2017 we saw there had been a 20% increase in the prison population over 15 years, and future projections indicated growth to 2022. There was, at that time, a transformation programme committed to expanding the prison estate by 10,000 places and to closing outdated prisons. Sadly, the truth is that the programme was not fully delivered. The Public Accounts Committee reported that just 206 places were delivered by the programme.
In 2018 the Ministry of Justice decided not to deliver the prison estate transformation in full because of budgetary pressures. Around 6,500 places were removed from the programme, but nothing has been done to reduce demand. Indeed, a number of changes to sentencing policy have, in fact, increased demand in a number of areas.
The 2017 inquiry found clear evidence that the reduction of spending in prisons had had a major destabilising effect. Reducing staff numbers put more pressure on remaining staff, and the way in which facilities management services were outsourced through block contracts meant the operation was very remote and very unresponsive to the day-to-day needs in prisons. It was very frustrating for governors, who were frequently finding that it took months to get basic repairs done. The nature of the contract was seriously at fault. I do not have a problem with contracting out in the right circumstances, but the way it was done was extremely inefficient.
Six years on, the Prison Service faces largely the same issues. The population has continued to increase, there is still an issue with the recruitment and retention of staff, and the estate still has capacity pressures. There was another prison expansion programme in 2019, and the “Prisons Strategy” White Paper said the provision of prison places would make a “more modern and secure” estate.
There was an ambitious target of 20,000 additional prison places as part of that programme, but we now know that planning permission has not been granted for three prisons—either it has been refused or no decision has been made—and the Ministry of Justice is having to appeal those planning decisions. That is hardly joined-up government. Surely the risk of delays in planning should have been foreseen at the outset.
On behalf of the Committee, I wrote to the permanent secretary at the MOJ following the publication of its main estimates, and I am grateful to her for responding yesterday. Disappointingly, only 8,200 new prison places will have been created and made operational by May 2025. We are about 11,800 short of the Government’s target of 20,000 by the mid-2020s. Given that background, is the Minister convinced that the current prison expansion programme is genuinely deliverable? When are we going to get to the 20,000 places? What steps are being taken to speed up a rate of delivery that, so far, will not get us there?
Prisons in England and Wales are reaching breaking point; the growth in the adult male population has forced the Government to use police cells to accommodate prisoners, through Operation Safeguard. The Government have said that would be in place for no longer than is necessary, but how much longer does the Minister anticipate that will be? How frequently is Operation Safeguard being used?
I mentioned the changes to sentencing policy, which have put more pressure on prisons. For example, we have seen changes to magistrates’ sentencing powers; there was an increase to two years and then, suddenly, a temporary reduction back down to one year. That is not good lawmaking, and it is not fair or just sentencing policy to have a lottery whereby when a defendant appears before the court decides whether he is dealt with by the magistrates or committed to the Crown court. As we all know, that move was done not because magistrates sentence more heavily—there was no evidence to suggest that—but because if people are sent to the Crown court for sentence, as the magistrates deem their powers insufficient, it will take longer before they end up in prison. There is a bit of sleight of hand here, as that was done to ease out the demand in the prison system, pushing people’s arrival in prison back down the road a bit, in the hope that somebody else will have left by then and so a bit more space is available.
That is not the right approach and it puts more pressure on another part of the MOJ’s responsibility, the Crown courts, because more cases are then being sent to them when they could have been dealt with more quickly by the magistrates. The Government need to address that situation. What is going to be done to deal with it? How long does the MOJ envisage this reduction in sentencing powers lasting? What is being done to consult the judiciary on whether that is a proper approach to the use of judicial resources and sentencing policy? I know that there has been a temporary response in respect of rapid deployment cells, which may offer some support. It may be of some assistance, but what is the long-term plan? How long do we envisage those cells being in use? What is the plan eventually to integrate them with the rest of the estate?
We have the plans for the 20,000 prison places, but the delay is significant. That means there is significant overcrowding in the estate, which is the second point I want to address. The overcrowding is such that it is difficult for prison staff to carry out rehabilitative work, which is one of the objectives of prison. That feeds into that high rate of recidivism and reoffending that I have referred to. It also creates real challenges on our basic duties of care towards both prisoners and prison officers. When the state removes someone’s liberty for the broader public good, it has the duty to commit to keep them safe and in decent conditions.
Equally, the state has a duty to provide decent, safe and reasonable working environments for those who supervise the prisoners and run the prisons. I fear that in a number of our prisons we are simply not getting there at the moment. We are simply failing in that, and repeated reports from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons have flagged that up. The growth in the number of urgent notifications that have been issued by the inspector to the MOJ is also evidence of that. I appreciate that the Minister has always responded promptly to those urgent notification procedures, and I am grateful to him for that, but it speaks to an underlying problem that needs to be resolved. I suspect that that can be done only through sustained investment and by thinking about whether we are using the alternatives to prison effectively. To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), we need to make sure that we use it for those who are dangerous, where there is no other safe means of dealing with them and we cannot use cheaper and often more effective rehabilitative alternatives.
We still have many Victorian prisons—the “local prisons”, as they are often called—some of which are in a very poor state. They have been described as “not fit for purpose” and “dilapidated”. There has been historical under-investment in maintenance and we have a backlog of maintenance work in the prisons. In March 2021 this was estimated to be about £1 billion-worth. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is regularly taking prison cells out of use because of their state of disrepair. In the decade between 2009-10 and 2019-20, some 1,730 prison cells were permanently out of use for failing to meet the required standards. The lack of money going into basic maintenance therefore adds to the capacity crisis.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Chair of the Justice Committee is making an excellent critique of the system. There is something ironic about prisons being so undermaintained and needing £1 billion spent on them, such that their accommodation is not available, when some £4 billion is being spent on new prisons at the same time. It looks as if we are just forgetting the ones that we have, particularly the remand and the local prisons.
Sir Robert Neill
I have a lot of sympathy with that point. The irony is that the chief inspector of prisons, in his 2021 annual report, describes some of those old prisons as
“cold, dark and shabby cells…often plagued by damp and cockroaches, leaking pipes and toilets, and broken or missing furniture and windows”
but, at the same time, as we have already observed, the new prison building schedule is way behind and, because of the planning situation, so far we have no assurance about when those spaces will be delivered. In any event, they will not replace the dilapidated prisons, as we had originally hoped, but will simply increase capacity, because we have a tap that nobody seems able to find the means of properly turning off, in terms of those coming into the system.
The original plan was to close old prisons as part of the prison estate transformation programme, but that has not happened. In 2019 the Minister’s predecessor said that they would need to be kept open. Well, how long do we expect to keep those prisons open? What is the long-term plan for those prisons? What is the plan to ensure that the risks in relation to planning permissions and restrictive covenants, which plagued the potential redevelopment of Holloway, for example, are recognised and sorted out well in advance of the commitment of the capital?
It is worth observing that we have had an increase in the capital departmental expenditure limits for prisons, which is welcome, but if we are spending only a fraction of it so far—as I recall it is about £4 billion, and we have spent about £1.6 billion so far—clearly we have resource being allocated by the Treasury that we cannot have confidence that the Ministry is able to spend and use to deliver in a timely fashion. What steps is the Minister taking to deal with that? What reassurance can he give us? What is the plan to speed up that programme and get the resource spent where it is needed?
The other issue I want to deal with is the operational workforce—as I said, the Committee is currently running an inquiry on that. I pay tribute to the men and women who work in our prisons. They do a very tough job, which probably no one in this House would want to do. They do it on behalf of society, frequently in difficult and unpleasant conditions—sometimes unacceptable conditions—and at some risk to themselves. They deserve to have the recognition that I do not think they always get. On behalf of the Justice Committee, I recognise and salute them for what they do, but we need more than just recognition and warm words; we need some real support for them.
As part of the inquiry, the Justice Committee undertook a survey of serving prison officers. Some 6,582 staff responded to it, which was a decent number. The responses were striking. We found that half of band 3 to band 5 staff do not feel safe at the prison they work in. Feeling safe at work is surely a basic right for anyone. Half is a frightening statistic. Reports from the inspector and the independent monitoring boards have highlighted the growing number of assaults, both on staff by prisoners and between prisoners. That is a result of the cramped, overcrowded and stressful conditions in which many prisoners are held, so perhaps it is no surprise that the prison officers feel so concerned about that.
Band 3 to band 5 and band 2 are the key operational grades—the frontline people who do jobs on the wings. Only 15% of band 2 operational staff felt they had proper, regular training; 25% of band 3 to band 5 staff said they had regular training. That means the majority of staff do not think that they have such training. Surely training people is a basic part of making sure that we professionalise and keep the workforce up to scratch? We are bringing in various protective equipment for them; they need to be trained to use it.
It is no surprise that morale is low. More than 70% of staff in band 2 and 80% of staff in bands 3 to 5 said that staff morale was not good at the prison in which they worked. If that is the position with the frontline staff, is it any wonder that we have a problem not just with recruitment, but with retention? It is clear that there is a real issue with experienced officers leaving the service. When things get difficult in prison, when those tensions threaten to boil over, and when there is potential dispute or violence on the wings, it is exactly those experienced officers—the old hands, the men and women who have been around the system—who know how to deal with sometimes quite damaged and challenging individuals. Their experience is more necessary than anyone’s to calm things down and to prevent things from escalating. Therefore, unless we have a proper strategy for retention, we are creating a potential powder keg for the future.
Ultimately, we have both to retain and to increase the number of staff. Unless we do that, we will not get the purposeful activity that is necessary to make prisons beneficial; otherwise we end up just warehousing individuals with no benefit at the end of it. That pressure on staffing and overcrowding in prisons is reflected in the concern of the president of the Prison Governors Association, Andrea Albutt, who said that the prison system faces an immediate crisis and could run out of prison places as early as mid-July. What is the Minister’s assessment of that? Does he agree with the president of the Prison Governors Association that, in a few days’ time, we could run out of space? If so, we are in a very grave situation indeed.
What, too, about the observations of the Shannon Trust—I am very grateful for its information—pointing out that statistics from the Office of National Statistics, HM Prison and Probation Service and the voluntary sector suggest that some 62% of all those incarcerated have a literacy level lower than an average 11-year-old? Given that we have some 85,000 people in prison, that potentially equates to about 53,000 people who have real literacy deficits. Without that being put right, what is their hope of getting a job on release? How do we then get them out of that cycle of reoffending? Because it is so difficult to carry out education activities in those cramped and inadequate facilities and to attract staff to do the tough job of education work in prisons, all too frequently, the level of courses is not being delivered in the way that was intended. What will the Minister do to increase the amount of education and purposeful activity that we see in our prisons? We all say that it is the objective, but so far we are not delivering on it in any consistent manner.
Let me look beyond prison to the critical issue of probation, which is sometimes, I fear, regarded as the poor relation of the two. The bulk of the budget goes on prisons because of the very high fixed costs, but probation is essential and we should pay tribute, too, to the probation officers who work so hard. It is essential to give alternatives to prison in the first place and, secondly, to have a proper means of transitioning prisoners back into society when they are released, without the risk of reoffending.
When we carried out our inquiries, we found high staff vacancies, overloaded probation practitioners working overcapacity, poor staff retention and inaccurate risk assessments, all of which were flagged up by the chief inspector of probation, who said that many services are experiencing exceptional staff shortages, with half the positions at key grades in some areas being unfilled. It is no wonder, therefore, that things are being missed. That is a risk not only to prisoners, but, potentially in the worst case, to the public as well. What is being done to deal with staff pressures in the probation service?
We met many probation officers. They want to improve their service, but they need decent and sustained funding to do so. You cannot have it being switched on and off like a light switch. We know that three fifths of the HMPPS’s expenditure is on prisons. We need to concentrate on and not forget the other two fifths of the budget as well.
Conor McGinn
I am sorry to intrude on the hon. Gentleman again. He is making an excellent speech. I think he will agree that the privatisation of the probation service was a disaster and it is right that that is being reversed, but that does not mean that probation cannot work with the private and voluntary sector, particularly around employment. There are some great examples of that, with firms such as Timpson, the voluntary sector and organisations such as the Prison Advice and Care Trust. It is important that the service works collectively with all those groups to ensure that we stop people from reoffending, and help them rebuild, get on and be successful in their lives.
Sir Robert Neill
Yet again the hon. Gentleman is spot on. I join him in paying tribute to Timpson, for example. The work of the Timpson family and their firm has been consistently quite exceptional over a long period; I have constituents who benefited through their endeavours and many others in the House will have similar cases.
The hon. Gentleman’s point is an important one. The Justice Committee was critical of the way the probation service was privatised. As he knows, I do not have an ideological objection to privatising services, in the right circumstances and in the right way, but the simple truth is that the way it was done in probation was absolutely the wrong way to do it, splitting up and dislocating the service, with a mixture of that which was retained nationally and that which was with various outsourced companies. It was wholly unsatisfactory and created some dire results.
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who, when he was Justice Secretary, took the tough but right decision to reverse the process and unify the service once more. That was welcome. None the less, that privatisation is still affecting morale, it has affected retention and it has created considerable dislocation in data sharing between various services. It also broke a number of the local ties that had been developed between the probation service and local authorities and other providers in the area.
Ironically, as the hon. Member for St Helens North says, there is a role for the private sector. The privatisation of probation was intended to have more private sector groups coming in to the provision of probation work and more smaller-scale charities. What happened instead is that it went on bulk contracts to some of the usual big outsourcers and defeated its own object.
We need to work hard now to ensure that we give charities, not-for-profits and small-scale organisations real access to provide services where they can bring a unique perspective. Again, I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on what the Government will do to encourage those providers into the sector, where they can work collaboratively with the new unified service. We currently have 220,000 people on probation and 16,000 staff in probation. The service has been through any amount of upheaval. It now needs stability and support—both practical financial support and recognition for the work that it does.
I have only a couple more points, Mr Deputy Speaker. I turn now to the youth custody estate. Youth custody, it should be said, has been a real success. We imprison far fewer people now than we used to. That is a real win that all sides involved can take credit for. The service does not face the same pressure of numbers and we have seen a steady decline in the number of children in custody.
One is tempted to say, “Why, if we can do that for children, largely because of a more holistic approach and far more early interventions, can we not apply the same philosophy to the adult estate as well?” The principle is not different: it is getting in early when we see the first signs of the problem in someone’s life that is likely to make them more vulnerable to falling into offending. If we can do that successfully for youngsters, why should we not at least do much more of it in the adult estate too?
However, although the numbers are not an issue, safety is a real concern in the youth estate. Staff retention is a problem in the youth estate too, which has an impact on safety. Lack of staff and training is also a matter of concern and recent inspection reports from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons have raised concerns about education in the YOIs.
Safety concerns extend beyond physical harm. If the institutions fail to provide adequate educational programmes, vocational training and rehabilitative regimes, young offenders will not receive the tools they need to reintegrate into society. Instead, they will be all the more vulnerable to being sucked back in to the leadership model of their criminal friends on the outside, whom in many cases they joined up with because of the gaps elsewhere in their life. I wrote to the Minister in May about the woeful findings in relation to His Majesty’s Prison Cookham Wood in the urgent notification procedure there, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, it is pretty disappointing to see yet another urgent notification being issued in relation to a failing prison—particularly one where children are involved. We must see improvements for those children. They have been entrusted to the state’s care, and we have a duty to them to ensure that they are safe and that when they leave those institutions, they are in a better place than when they went in.
I recognise the Government’s attempts to stabilise prisons and probation by injecting funding, but they are trying to make up for the great deal that was taken out earlier. I recognise the Minister’s commitment, and I appreciate the personal courtesy and determination in his words. I recognise in particular the commitment of the new Secretary of State, who understands these issues very well from his own professional background. They will both know that we have a lot of ground to make up to get prisons and probation back to where they should be. The fact that there is some increase in the estimates is good news, as I have demonstrated, but I fear, first, that it may not be enough and, secondly, that we need an assurance that funding will be sustained over a period of years and that the Ministry has the capacity to spend the money wisely and successfully to deliver on all that.
I hope that the Minister will respond on those matters with his usual care and courtesy, but we need not just words but a clear programme of action. Frankly, we need to increase and raise the extent and awareness of public debate about the Prison and Probation Service, as we need to with the whole criminal justice system. It ought to be a decent prisons system and probation system—a means of protecting the public but also of rehabilitating those offenders who can be rehabilitated—and that ought to be as central a mission to any Government as a decent education, health or social care system. It does not get the same level of attention. Perhaps this debate will help, if only in a small way, to flag up some of the issues. We all have a duty to talk about those issues with our constituents, in a measured and calm way, more than perhaps we currently do.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow that forensic speech by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). He took us through many of the problems, particularly those in the Prison Service. I will be rather more selective about the issues I speak about, but I will concentrate in particular on prison conditions.
Three weeks ago, I visited Wormwood Scrubs prison in my constituency. It is a prison that I have visited on and off for the past 30 years as an MP, a councillor and a criminal barrister. Despite meeting many dedicated officers and determined governors, I have never changed my mind about it being an unsuitable institution in the 21st century, particularly for the rehabilitation, or indeed the punishment, of offenders. On my most recent visit, I saw that many of the men were sharing one-person cells with unshielded toilets, making their living conditions cramped and unpleasant with no privacy. In addition, the Scrubs, like many prisons, is still operating a 23-hour lock-up regime, in which some prisoners get only one hour a day outside their cells. Is it any wonder, then, that self-harm and poor mental health are at a high across the prison estate?
I recently asked a series of written questions of the Minister’s Department, mainly on the topic of time out of cell. The MOJ responded that it does not hold those statistics centrally and that it was not practical for it to record the data. How does the MOJ hope to have an overview of the wellbeing of the prison population in its care if it does not know what each prison’s time-out-of-cell regime is? I followed up to inquire about why the MOJ does not collect that data centrally, and I was provided yesterday with a response that said that the MOJ would need to record data for each prisoner individually, based on his or her movements each day, to understand time out of cell for each prison. If I may say so, that is a ridiculous response and the Minister has misunderstood the question—not intentionally, I hope.
To get an understanding of each prison’s time-out-of-cell regime, the MOJ need only ask each prison to report that data to it. As the data is about the time out of cell rather than the individual schedules of prisoners, it will be much simpler to collect than the Ministry pretends. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. I am sure that he will, when he responds, deal with that point in more detail.
A couple of weeks ago at Justice questions, I also asked about the overcrowded conditions in prisons. That data is held and published by the Government, but I do not think it is an accurate representation of what is and is not an overcrowded prison. For example, when I visited Wormwood Scrubs, the governor told me that she had just been asked by the MOJ to increase operational capacity. How will we ever know if a prison is overcrowded if the MOJ keeps moving the goalposts of operational capacity? If the MOJ keeps asking prisons to increase operational capacity, overcrowding will become an even bigger problem, as well as something of a hidden one.
Prisons are overcrowded, single cells are being used to house two people, and most time-out-of-cell regimes are oppressively restrictive. What necessitates much of that is an insufficient number of staff on the wings. Prisons need more staff, but they cannot hire more staff if their budget does not allow it. Prison officers are leaving the profession in their droves, and it is not hard to see why. It is a very dangerous job; prison officers are at very real risk of physical injury. It is also emotionally taxing seeing prisoners at some of the lowest points in their lives, and getting very little assistance by way of productive work, education and other support. The pay does not do the job justice, and is proof that the MOJ has insufficient regard for the profession. It wastes thousands of pounds training new prison officers who then leave within the first two years due to the conditions. It is clear that something is going very wrong, and the Government need to fix the problem.
Conor McGinn
As well as prison officers, will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to prison chaplains, particularly at his local prison of Wormwood Scrubs, where Father Gerry McFlynn was the chaplain for a long time? He is now the director of the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will know him. Father Gerry celebrated his golden jubilee just last week—he is 50 years an ordained priest, and has dedicated his whole life to prisons and prison chaplaincy. I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in sending his regards to Father Gerry, as will all Members.
Andy Slaughter
I am very glad to have taken that intervention. I agree that prison chaplains, prison priests, prison vicars and prison imams—we have an excellent imam at the Scrubs—are in many ways unsung heroes, doing a fantastic job alongside the other staff.
I am afraid that often the problem is the MOJ itself, which is seemingly always one of the first Government Departments to offer itself up as soon as the Chancellor of the day mentions cuts. I think its budget is now 12% lower than it was in 2010. If prisons do not have the staff to unlock the prison safely for a reasonable period of time, do not have the money to provide meaningful activities and do not have the resources to provide good-quality education, mental health declines, and that can have tragic consequences for prisoners and staff.
I will come back to the issue of education in a moment, but I will briefly mention mental wellbeing in prisons. I recently met a lawyer who has been representing four bereaved families of prisoners from Wormwood Scrubs who took their own lives. Between April 2020 and February this year, there have been seven self-inflicted deaths at the Scrubs. The pain for the families must be unimaginable, and I am sure that other prisoners and the staff who found the deceased are also struggling. Any self-harm death in a prison is a potentially preventable one that deserves a rapid response to work out what went wrong and to implement learning for the future, but not one of those cases has yet made it to an inquest. An inquest for one of the families is scheduled for August this year, but that is over three years of waiting for answers.
We rightly talk a lot about the court backlog, but maybe not enough attention is paid to the coroner’s court backlog. According to coroner statistics for 2022, the average time from the date of death to the conclusion of an inquest is 30 weeks, but it is a postcode lottery; I think the worst case was at North Lincolnshire and Grimsby, where the wait was 72 weeks. One of the important outcomes of inquests is often the prevention of future deaths report. If an institution such as Wormwood Scrubs is waiting over three years for an inquest into the death of a prisoner and there is crucial learning that a coroner could uncover, how can that prison be expected to make the necessary changes? When the coroner does provide recommendations in their prevention of future deaths report, how do we know that public bodies will implement them?
I recently spoke on a panel for a campaign launched by the charity Inquest, which is asking the Government to implement a national oversight mechanism. The mechanism would collate recommendations from inquests and prevention of future deaths reports, along with the public body response, in a database. It would then analyse these responses, and produce a report. Finally, the mechanism could allow a follow-up procedure to check on the progress of implementing changes arising from the original recommendations. This sounds like a sensible and not expensive approach, and one that could help to lower the number of preventable deaths, if recommendations became centralised and easy to follow up. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), has offered to meet me and Inquest to discuss this, and I hope to hear from him soon. I realise that deaths in custody and deaths in prison are only one part of the equation, but they are an extremely important part.
I want to finish by coming back to education in prisons, In my recent meeting with the governor at Wormwood Scrubs, she explained that individual prisons have little control over their education services. The MOJ employs education providers in the Prison Service, but the quality of these providers can vary greatly from prison to prison. The governor says that she is unable to change the provider, because it has a contract with the MOJ for a number of prisons. That is only one example, but I think it is typical of the disconnect and neglect that is apparent.
I mentioned local and remand prisons. These are often the oldest, Victorian prisons and those in the worst condition. The Government boast—I am not sure why—that they are on this massive prison expansion programme and putting huge sums of money into new prisons. However, that is not to renew the prison estate, but because of the increase in population. I urge the Minister to look at the way that some of our older prisons are being run. They do a disservice not only to the people who work there and run them, as well as of course to the inmates, but to the wider community, because people are not being rehabilitated and are coming out of prison insufficiently supported and going back into prison very quickly. That is a recipe for disaster not only for the individual but for society as a whole, and it is an indictment of the failure of the prison system under this Government.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who made some really interesting points about the collection of data both in the MOJ and in prisons, and the ability that gives us as parliamentarians to hold to account, scrutinise and understand better what is happening in our prisons and the impact that that is having, as the hon. Gentleman finished by saying, on wider society. I want to pick up on a very specific element of that, which is the impact that it is having on families.
I was very privileged last week to host an event in this place on behalf of my constituent Professor Jane Payler, who has carried out a two-year research project on the impact of prison sentences on the families of offenders. In particular, she highlights the work of Families First, which is a Worcestershire project. One could reasonably question why I was looking at Worcestershire when I very clearly represent Hampshire, but this is in fact an Open University project, led by my constituent, to scrutinise the impact of prison sentences on the children and families of offenders and what we know about that.
The answer comes back, sadly, that we know far too little, because at no point is there any coherent, strategic collection of data that gives us any indication of how many children prisoners may have, and therefore of how many children in wider society may need additional support because they are missing a parent. It is not just that the parent is absent; the children are also coping with the stigma and shame of the fact that their parent—usually their father, although not in every case—is imprisoned. There can be a reluctance on the part of the prisoner to volunteer the information that they have children, because there is a fear that those children will then have an involvement with social services that the mother—I say mother, and I am generalising, but it is usually the mother—may well not want, and there is a fear that that could result in even more adverse outcomes for the children.
I am prepared to concede that in comparison with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, I know little about this subject, and I am not an expert by a long way. What struck me instantly, however, was that today is an opportunity to raise with the Minister the importance of our improving our understanding and discourse around the impact of prison, and understanding what the MOJ, and indeed the Minister, could do to improve the situation, so that there is at least some collection of this data and we know about the numbers. Estimates of the children impacted vary wildly. We can find one estimate back in 2009 of perhaps 90,000 children impacted, and if we extrapolate the numbers for the increase in the prison population we might expect that number to be in the region of 120,000 or 130,000 children now. Some academic research, relying on French data, indicates that the problem could extend to as many as 300,000 children who are impacted by parental imprisonment.
What do we know of those children? First, we know far too little, but we do know that there are considerable problems with their emotional and mental wellbeing. We know there are considerable problems with the physical impact of a child potentially being moved around the country because they are missing a parent, and the changes that there may be in schools. We know that such children have poorer educational outcomes, and that they and their families are largely forgotten, unseen, and impacted as a result of that. We know there is a lack of holistic and tailored support for those children. We know about secondary prisonisation—I am not convinced that it is a word, but we will go with it for the time being—and that there is an impact on their mental health because of the stigma and shame that they feel. Children lack an understanding of what has happened to their parent, and many are assuming caring responsibilities that that absent parent may have.
We heard from the hon. Member for Hammersmith commentary on the impact that criminal behaviour can have on young people who have previously witnessed criminality, and in far too many instances the young person may step into the void caused by a father or parent going into prison. However, we cannot access up-to-date data, and the number of children impacted is simply not recorded. Freedom of information requests to the MOJ have indicated that such data is not in an extractable format, so even if it has been collected, we cannot necessarily extract it within the cost parameters that are often used.
I have one request, which I think is on quite a short list this afternoon. I thought at one point that I could perhaps stand up and make a cheeky little intervention, but I could see five minutes in that this request clearly could not be made in an intervention without testing your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker. My request is to the MOJ: please find a mechanism whereby that data can be recorded and shared with those services that are in a position to support those children, whether that is local authorities, or the excellent charity sector, just as we had with Families First in Worcestershire. It has worked incredibly hard to ensure that such support is provided to children with, I must say, some really striking outcomes.
The report, which I will send to the Minister after the debate, contains heart-warming stories of the difference that has been made to children when there has been intervention and they have been given support. Also crucial has been the difference that such support has made to parents coming out of prison; having conversations with their children who have articulated the impact on them, which has convinced their dad that the last place he ever wishes to return is prison.
Given that I have this opportunity and few other Members wish to contribute—I have plenty of time—it would be remiss of me not to raise two other issues regarding the MOJ that are of concern to me. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is no longer in his place, but he raised the important point that prison should be used as a mechanism to keep us, wider society, safe from people who are dangerous. I recently met two incredible women, Carole Goulde and Julie Devey, who both tragically lost their daughters in domestic homicides. They have lobbied long and hard for there to be a review of sentencing. They have welcomed the fact that the eminent KC Clare Wade has done her review into domestic homicide sentencing, but it would be remiss of me not to use this opportunity to reiterate their calls about the fact that “overkill”—a horrific and graphic term for where people, all too often women, are murdered in a frenzy by someone they may have recently been in a relationship with, or still are—still does not carry a mandatory 25 years. We need to be protected from the truly dangerous individuals who abuse women and murder their own partners. I would argue they are among the most dangerous people we can encounter.
I know that the Government’s response to the Wade review is due imminently. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister discuss that with the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), to make sure that that Government response is not snuck out on the last day of term? It would be most helpful if Members had the opportunity to have time in this House—perhaps an oral statement or an urgent question the following day—to discuss what we think of the Government’s response to the Wade review. As I said, these are among the most horrific crimes, and it is important that this House is given the opportunity to debate that review in due course.
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Select Committee, who has led this debate and highlighted his expertise in this area.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who gave a comprehensive overview of what is happening on prisons and probation. I am so pleased that the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) raised the issue of children. When we had the debate on imprisonment for public protection sentences, it focused on the fact that the whole family is serving the sentence and we do not give enough consideration to the implications for the family, and particularly to the support needed to assist the rehabilitation of prisoners as they are released.
I will declare an interest, as I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. There is no financial interest, and in fact I am told by the POA that it does not even gain me an extra pillow in a cell if I ever need it. It is as simple as that. We have had discussions over recent months—in particular a presentation in the Jubilee Room a few weeks ago, which a number of us attended—where we have been meeting prison officers working on the frontline. I want to report the conversations we have had and, on their behalf, set out some of the concerns they have expressed, which build much upon what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said about the state of prisons.
There are three messages that prison officers want to get across. The first is that the austerity Budgets have taken so much from the Prison Service over the past decade that prison officers have left the system. It can only be described as being in crisis, and that is not just putting prisoners and prison officers at risk but putting the public at risk of dangerous reoffending. The second message is that Ministers need to understand that they cannot run prisons on the cheap. It requires investment, particularly in staffing, to ensure safe, secure and purposeful regimes. The third message, which the Chair of the Select Committee has raised and which I will come back to, is that prison officers want the Minister to know that they are fed up. Morale is at an all-time low, and it is developing into real anger at how they have been treated. To give one quote, they felt like they were “disposable commodities” to be “worked to the bone” and then discarded. They are voting with their feet to leave the service.
Mention has been made of the budget cuts that have taken place over the years and how we have arrived at this situation. To give one statistic, at one point at the height of austerity after 2010, the Prison Service saw a 30% cut in overall expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has said, the figure is still 12% below what it was in 2010. Alongside that, we have had a number of fairly disastrous privatisation experiments—those have not just been in probation, but in the maintenance of the prisons themselves.
What happened in the first years of austerity was startling. In the early-2010s, a quarter of the operational workforce was laid off, and a crisis of violence was unleashed. Having laid so many staff off, we also got into a vicious downward spiral of insufficient staff and increasing violence, and therefore problems with retention. Recruitment drives simply failed to resolve the situation.
On one estimate, during that period we lost 100,000 years of professional experience built up over decades. As a result of that, exactly as has been said, prisons are fearful places with prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and assaults on staff, which have soared, so prison officers and support staff are leaving in droves. We have heard some of the statistics. Mark Fairhurst, the POA national chair, presented evidence to the Justice Committee, where he explained, just as my hon. Friend did, that many leave
“within the first two years”.
He said:
“We are at the highest attrition rate that the service has ever seen. We are currently running at 16% for prison officers and 19% for operational support grades. Some areas of the country have seen attrition rates of between 35% and 45%.”
The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the survey of how prison officers are feeling. Exactly as he said, half of those surveyed do not feel safe at work and 80% said that staff morale at their establishments was bad. When we talk to officers at some establishments, they tell us that it has collapsed completely. Many have a lack of confidence in the future.
It was also raised with us in conversations that the number of prison officers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is rising and at critical levels. Serving and ex-prison officers receive little support for PSTD, and it has an overwhelming impact on their lives. It is unfortunately becoming almost accepted as the norm that prison officers will have to go through that. Mark Fairhurst told the Committee:
“There is no support if you have mental health problems. More and more of my members are getting diagnosed with PTSD, because of the trauma that they deal with and the things they see. There is no mental health support on site for those staff. They are leaving the job with ill health or capability retirement, so there is no support there for mental health.”
This is one of his most startling statements:
“We have come across scenarios in some jails where the most experienced member of staff on that same wing has nine months in the job. It is the blind leading the blind.”
To try to give us an understanding of what that meant, he said:
“When you have inexperienced staff dealing with experienced prisoners who have been in and out of prison all their lives, it has a massive knock-on effect on stability.”
Spending during the first five years of austerity fell by 20%. That is why, as has been said, with spending levels cut so dramatically over a period, it is hard for prison officers to fully comprehend why £4 billion is being spent on building a new generation of prisons to boost capacity when our existing prisons have become mired in squalor—that is the description used—and, according to the Public Accounts Committee only two years ago, there was a £1 billion backlog of work needing to be done.
Prisons are violent places. We have, at times, reached catastrophic levels of violence. It needs to be acknowledged—not to accept that it will continue—that violence is part and parcel of prison life. Prisoner officers cannot understand that the Government will not even include levels of violence in their new key performance indicators for prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) introduced a private Member’s Bill in the last Session—the Prisons (Violence) Bill. We urged parliamentarians to support it to enable that sort of monitoring to be part and parcel of the performance indicators, so that the Government could develop a full strategy.
The POA has joined, as a founding member, the Joint Unions in Prison Alliance, alongside the other unions and working with the Prison Service. It fully supports the Safe Inside campaign to reduce violence in prisons. It is especially concerned about what it described as the “ultra-violence” in the youth custody estate. It warns that an urgent review is needed of the protections that prison officers need when working in that estate. It comes back to investment. The POA also said:
“Dangerous, squalid jails…make rehabilitation impossible. Prisoners are released more criminalised, more traumatised, more addicted to drugs than when they arrived. This is madness and should be completely unacceptable in a civilised society. Prisons are often the best chance that state has to turn someone’s life around, whether through education or treatment, but we’re doing the opposite—we’re making them worse.”
The POA has reached such a state of frustration that it is calling for a royal commission. I believe that was one of the proposals considered by the Conservative party before the last election. A royal commission should examine the problems in our justice system from end to end, to try to tackle imprisonment, incarceration and, more importantly, rehabilitation and, as other hon. Members have said, to look at preventing crime and preventing people reaching imprisonment.
The POA wants to raise clearly what has happened on pay and on retirement age. On pay, the unions welcome the Government’s increase in early starters’ pay, but are concerned about recent statements from the Government about not honouring the pay review rewards in future. Nothing will undermine morale more. When there is an independent assessment of pay, the POA is not allowed to take industrial action like other unions, and therefore has to rely on the pay review bodies. That the Government say they will not honour those recommendations is utterly defeating when prisons are seeking to recruit and retain.
The POA has made it clear time and again that it believes that a pension age of 68 is unacceptable for the physical job that prisoner officers undertake. It would welcome the Government returning to the negotiating table on retirement age, which they walked away from in 2016 after the POA rejected the offer to reduce retirement age. Those negotiations need to be reopened, because 68 is too late.
I have tried to give some understanding of what prison officers are going through at the moment. They ask straightforward questions: what happened to the Conservative party’s commitment and pledge of a royal commission on criminal justice? Will the Minister bring back those proposals? Will he commit to investing the resources, especially in staffing, that are needed to save the system from the current crisis? Will he look to improve workforce morale and retention by looking again at the issues of pay, terms and conditions, and the pension age, which is currently threatened? The final issue they want to draw attention to is the fact that there needs to be a clearer programme to reduce prison violence, ensuring there is sufficient support for prison staff so that they can perform their professional jobs without risk to their lives and limbs.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, for speaking so persuasively, as always, on these incredibly important issues.
Our prison and probation services do vital work to deliver justice, rehabilitate offenders and protect the public, but sadly, after 13 years of Tory neglect, they are broken: judges are being told to jail fewer people because our prisons are full; no prisons are rated as good for rehabilitation and release planning; and one murder every week is committed by criminals out on probation. It is hard to separate that declining performance from the cuts faced by the Ministry of Justice. Even a former Tory Prisons Minister recently declared that they went too far. But with what scarce resources are left, we continue to see incompetence: £1 million spent on maintaining closed prisons; £98 million wasted on avoidable mistakes on a new tagging programme; and an estimated works backlog on the prison estate of £1 billion.
When I visit prisons, I see at first hand overcrowded crumbling estates blighted by staff shortages. Last year, I visited Wandsworth prison, where inmates were locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. While I was there, I met two prisoners who had jobs as prison cleaners. They said that in the dilapidated and run-down wings, pigeon mess created most of their work. They told me that they considered themselves lucky, as their roles as cleaners meant that both of them got to be out of their cells for around three hours a day. They explained that come the afternoon the smell of drugs in the wing is overwhelming, as prisoners use them out of boredom without fear of consequence. While there, I saw a library staffed by some passionate librarians, but there were no prisoners there. It was completely empty, because there were no available staff to move the men across the prison. I saw rooms set up for training, including opportunities for inmates to gain qualifications in skills such as dry lining. Again, they were not being used for the same reasons.
That is hardly surprising, given that prison staff have been leaving in droves. Since 2010, over 100,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience has been lost, leaving wings to be managed by smaller, less experienced teams. As a consequence, violence against staff is up by 165%. Apart from the impact that staff turnover has on the running of prisons, it also has a devastating impact on the public purse. It costs £13,000 to recruit and train a prison officer, yet one quarter of officers leave within a year of taking up the role. Why? Because under this Government being a prison officer is no longer considered a vocation. Instead, it is often just a stepping stone to move into less dangerous, more lucrative work. One thing that the Government could do tomorrow to improve retention would be to give prison governors a say over who they recruit. Currently, they do not as they have no role on interview panels for new recruits. That would be an important step in getting a best fit for their prison, but it is an opportunity that is being missed.
The same goes for procurement. If a governor wants to buy goods for a prison, they have to go through the approved Ministry of Justice supplier. Now, there is an obvious security need here, but the system would seem to be beset by delays and huge cost inefficiencies. At Wandsworth, the new governor told me she needed a new screen for their office to conduct Zoom meetings on. It took weeks to arrive, and the exact same screen was available from Argos to be delivered the next day, and it was cheaper. When I visited Leeds Prison, staff there said that they wanted to procure some wood to make raised flowerbeds for one of their rehabilitation projects. Timber from the approved supplier cost three times as much as the amount quoted by the local timber merchant. Those savings could have been made. When I visited HMP Styal, one of the house units had just been renovated: that consisted of new windows, an alarm system and a basic refurbishment. Using the approved supplier cost just under £12 million, which seemed far out of step with the work required. I strongly urge the Government to look into this issue, as it seems that there is a potential for huge savings and efficiencies—as well as the opportunity to build links between prisons and local businesses, which could provide a path towards collaboration and post-release employment.
In 2021 the Government committed more than £500 million to work and skills reform in prisons, to improve employment rates post release. Two years on, however, the probation inspectorate has found that just 8% of those available for work went into employment upon release. When classrooms remain empty, access to libraries is limited and inmates are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day, how can we be surprised when prisoners, who have had no intervention and no opportunity to learn anything new, leave and reoffend? Moreover, the effects of this are costing the taxpayer £18 billion a year.
Cutting reoffending has to be an absolute priority, but in the current overcrowded, understaffed conditions, prisons are little more than colleges of crime. Since 2015, the Government have repeatedly announced plans to build new jails and increase capacity, but in the last 10 years they have closed nearly 3,200 places, and three new prisons that were planned will not open until 2027 at the earliest. An internal Ministry of Justice memo published in June stated that even if all prison building targets were met, there would be a shortfall of 2,300 places by March 2025. Overcrowding is already having a detrimental effect on conditions and the daily prison regime. Last month the chief inspector of prisons inspected HMP Pentonville, which was originally designed to hold 520 men. Today it holds more than 1,000. How can rehabilitation take place in these conditions? It is just more evidence of a failure to get a grip of our justice system.
The fact that little or no rehabilitative work is being done in prisons is making it even harder for probation officers to do their job. When I speak to them, they tell me that what they long for is to be able to do their job properly, but case loads are simply unmanageable. Officers are having to prioritise paperwork and databases instead of spending proper time with the people they supervise. Under Labour, probation was a well-regarded service, but this Government’s ill-conceived part-privatisation wreaked havoc on the service and caused a mass exodus of experienced staff. In total, these reforms cost half a billion pounds, and they left the public at greater risk from offenders because the work was often reduced to a tick-box exercise.
What was the result? Between 2014 and 2019, during the privatisation years, the number of serious further offence convictions increased by more than a third, and the number of serious offenders on probation found guilty of murder increased by 123%. The service has rightly reunified now, but the huge organisational changes, the staff exodus and the vast sums wasted on privatisation mean that probation is on its knees. Today only one local service has received a good report, and in December the vacancy rate was 29%.
These shortages and high case loads are leaving the public at risk. Just this morning, the probation inspectorate found that only 28% of domestic abuse offenders on probation were being sufficiently assessed for any risk of further domestic abuse. Nearly half should have had access to an intervention such as a group programme or a one-to-one meeting with a probation officer to reduce the risk of a further offence, but that had not happened. In nearly 75% of cases, significant changes such as moving in with a partner, altered child protection plans or a partner becoming pregnant are not being adequately reviewed or reassessed.
All the above failures in probation have caused judges to lose confidence in community sentences, meaning offenders who should be eligible for them are being sent to overcrowded prisons instead. Last year I visited a community payback scheme in my constituency where those on unpaid work were helping to maintain a community play space, which without them probably would have closed. They all, without exception, spoke with pride about doing work of value and having the opportunity to learn new skills. It showed just what can be achieved, but these schemes are patchy and the use of community sentences has more than halved under the Tories despite the clear benefit when they work effectively.
We need to look at how probation can be delivered as an effective local service. Labour would begin to do that by creating a system of community and victim payback boards to strengthen community and victim involvement in sentencing. Under those boards, local people and victims of crime will have a say in deciding what unpaid work offenders must undertake.
Rather than getting to grips with those issues, the Government are currently restructuring probation via the One HMPPS plan. I really hope they will take seriously the concerns raised by the sector and the findings from the damning inspection reports. Funding needs to be channelled to frontline officers, not the bureaucratic layers of organisation above them. That is the only way to reduce the burden they face and ensure they can give proper time and attention to those they supervise. Their inability to do this because of failed Tory reforms has meant that, on average, there have been six serious further offence convictions every week since 2010, including for murder, kidnap and rape.
We have had 11 Justice Secretaries and 13 Prisons Ministers in the last 13 years, so it is no wonder that the system is in crisis. They are never in post long enough to get to grips with the issues, to take responsibility for their spending and be held accountable, or to set a long-term strategy and ensure stability. No wonder the service is stuck lurching from one crisis to the next when that is exactly what is happening in its political leadership. If we are to fix that, we need continuity at the top. We need stable management that delivers a proper plan for prisons and probation, instead of rehashed announcements and gimmicks, and we need leadership that is laser-focused on reducing waste, driving efficiency and cutting reoffending. The Tories have had 13 years to deliver that, and they have failed.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, for his opening remarks and, more broadly, for securing this important debate on this estimates day. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate.
There can be no higher purpose for a Government than protecting the public from the devastating consequences of crime and maintaining a criminal justice system in which people have confidence. We have honoured our manifesto commitment to recruit 20,000 additional police officers and, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, we have introduced tougher penalties for the most serious crimes and removed automatic halfway release of the most violent and sexual offenders so that the worst criminals are locked up for longer. We are building new state-of-the-art prisons that will not only give effect to the order of the court to take criminals off our street, but properly rehabilitate them so that they turn their backs on crime for good. That way, we can break the destructive cycle of offending that costs the taxpayer £18 billion a year and has an incalculable personal cost to the victims and communities blighted by it.
The PCSC Act also brought in better monitored and more effective community sentences, which were just mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). They punish offenders, tackle the underlying drivers of offending and support people who want to turn their lives around. Those measures include tougher and more flexible electronically monitored curfews. We aim to almost double the number of defendants and offenders tagged at any one time to reach 25,000 by March 2025.
We have recruited more than 50 new health and justice co-ordinators, who will cover every probation region and work with health partners so that offenders get the right treatment to stay on the straight and narrow. That will be underpinned by regular drug testing to monitor compliance. We are investing up to £93 million in community payback to drive up the hours of unpaid work done by offenders, so that they visibly pay their debt to society for the damage they have done.
We are achieving our vision to cut the youth custodial population, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Roughly 3,000 children and young people were in custody in 2008-09; as of April this year, the number had fallen to around 600. It is also important to note that, in line with our female offender strategy, between 2018 and 2021, the average female prison population fell by 17%.
Our £100 million security investment programme to reduce crime inside prisons, including stemming the flow of illicit items such as drugs, mobile phones and weapons, was completed in March 2022. Enhanced gate security—including 659 staff, 154 drug dogs and over 200 pieces of equipment—has been deployed to 42 high-risk prison sites that routinely search staff and visitors. We now have 97 X-ray body scanners covering the entire closed male estate and they have recorded more than 28,000 positive indications.
To date, 89 prisons have completed their roll-out of PAVA synthetic pepper spray to stop violent prisoners in their tracks and we have introduced 13,000 new generation body-worn video cameras across the estate, with networked, cloud-based technology. These important investments rightly underpin our focus on the safety of staff and others in prison.
Linked to that, we need prisons to be a place where offenders overcome addiction, which is why we are rolling out abstinence-focused drug recovery wings and increasing the number of dedicated, incentivised substance-free living units across the estate, where prisoners commit to regular drug tests in return for incentives such as more gym time.
Alongside safety and security in prisons, we must invest in education and employment if we are to cut crime sustainably. We know that, if a prisoner can hold down a steady job, it reduces their chance of reoffending by up to nine percentage points, which is why we are driving forward initiatives to help prisoners to secure jobs on release, including through prison employment leads to match prisoners to jobs and employment advisory boards to build links between prisons and local industry, and to ensure that the skills being taught in prisons align with what is demanded and required in the local labour market.
I agree that we need to go further on education. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke about the Shannon Trust and I pay tribute to its work. I confirm that we are extending what we do with the literacy innovation fund across 15 prisons. There is also a much sharper understanding of neurodiversity in our prison population, and I am pleased that we will have neurodiversity support managers across the estate by January 2024. I am also excited about the prospect of the first secure school, which we will be doing in partnership with the Oasis Trust. It is a different approach from those in youth custody, further elevating the role of education.
Ensuring proper support is on offer beyond the prison gates is also crucial if we are to help offenders stay on the straight and narrow, so we are improving pre-release planning and continuity of care. We want to ensure that no one supervised by probation is released from prison homeless. Our new transitional accommodation scheme—community accommodation service tier 3, so below the level of bail hostels—helps us to deliver on that commitment. It was initially delivered in five probation regions in 2021, but our investment is expanding to operate across all of England and Wales by April 2024.
We are also investing in pre-release teams, which have been embedded in 67 prisons and provide an important interface for commissioned rehabilitative services that help ex-prisoners with accommodation, personal wellbeing, employment, training and education. To improve continuity of care for prison leavers with substance misuse or wider health issues, we are recruiting more than 50 health and justice co-ordinators with responsibility for ensuring more joined-up support between prison, probation and healthcare treatment services. Where appropriate, alcohol monitoring on licence is available.
Small things that the rest of us can take for granted can make all the difference, for good or ill. That is why we have introduced resettlement passports, set up ahead of release, to bring together the essentials that offenders need in one place: bank accounts, CVs and the identification people need to prove the right to work and to rent a flat. We have also supported the Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023, which recently received Royal Assent, having started out as a private Member’s Bill. It will enable offenders at risk of reoffending to be released up to two days earlier, to avoid what can be the hectic rush of trying to get round different services on a Friday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked specifically about magistrates’ sentencing powers. Given the time, I should not talk about that in great detail now. We have had a chance to talk about it in the Select Committee. On his specific question about working with the judiciary, we are working with the Judicial Office as part of the review we are undertaking on the changes and plan to engage magistrates on it. We should have completed that review by the autumn.
My hon. Friend and others rightly asked about capacity, the role of Operation Safeguard and other shorter-term capacity measures, as well as the longer-term capital programme. Since October 2022, we have seen an acute and exceptional rise in the prison population. Operation Safeguard is a temporary measure to provide a short-term solution to that acute rise in demand. He asked how much of that capacity has been used. The answer is that it goes up and down; it is a facility to be drawn on as needed. The average over the period is really quite low, but there are days when its usage is greater. Standing it up has provided us with vital extra short-term resilience as we develop further that longer-term capital programme.
As of April, we had invested £1.3 billion in capital towards the delivery of the 20,000 additional, modern prison places to which my hon. Friend referred. By the end of June, about 5,400 of those places had been added to the estate. That includes the two new 1,700-place prisons, HMPs Five Wells and Fosse Way, with the latter having accepted its first prisoners at the end of May.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for that update. Those who have been to Five Wells and Fosse Way recognise what an advance they are in design and facilities. Will he give us a specific update on where we are in the stalled planning process on the other three prisons, which are still stuck in the system? When are we likely to get those moving forward?
Damian Hinds
As my hon. Friend well knows—he was previously a leading light in ministerial office, dealing with local government—we do not control the planning process. I am therefore not in a position to give him a bang-up-to-date update, except to say that those three projects remain part of our plan. Overall, this is a complex capital programme and we need to deal with external factors, including working through the planning process.
Sir Robert Neill
Perhaps the Minister could write to me and the Select Committee to set out where we are with those projects. Have they gone to appeal yet? If so, has any indication been given as to when the hearings will take place?
Damian Hinds
Of course, I will be delighted to correspond in that way with my hon. Friend.
We are also rolling out 1,000 rapid deployment cells across the estate. The first three sites, HMPs Norwich, Wymott and Hollesley Bay, are now accepting prisoners, and the majority of the 1,000 additional places will be delivered this year. We are undertaking major refurbishments at sites including HMPs Birmingham, Liverpool and Norwich, delivering about 800 cells between them. The wing-by-wing refurbishment at HMP Liverpool will see every cell renovated. Construction has also started on new house blocks at HMPs Stocken, Hatfield, Sudbury and Rye Hill, which will add around 850 places between them. HMP Millsike, the new prison of some 1,500 places by HMP Full Sutton, will open in 2025. Our new prisons have a laser-sharp focus on rehabilitation, with workshops and cutting-edge technology that puts education, training and jobs front and centre, so every prisoner gets the right opportunity to turn over a new leaf.
Like many, or most, workforces, the Prison Service has experienced recruitment and retention challenges at a time of very low unemployment. Ensuring our services are sufficiently resourced and that we retain levels of experience are fundamental for delivering quality outcomes. That is why we are targeting the drivers of staff attrition and taking steps to improve recruitment, alongside a wider agenda of development in the workforce.
We welcome the Justice Committee’s important inquiry into the prison operational workforce and we have worked closely with the Committee to provide evidence. We are now closely considering the survey of prison staff, and I reaffirm that we take the issues of the morale and safety of staff with the greatest gravity. Prison staff do incredible work and, so often, are the hidden heroes of our justice system and society. In every prison I have visited, their dedication and drive are clear to see.
We fund a range of services to support staff wellbeing, which include care teams in public sector prisons that are trained to provide support to any member of staff involved in an incident at work. We are committed to making sure our prison staff feel safe, supported and valued, and we look forward to receiving the Committee’s full report and recommendations in due course.
The 2022-23 prison staff pay award was announced in July 2022. It represented a significant investment in the workforce. Alongside an increase in base pay of at least 4% for all staff between bands 2 and 11, we targeted further pay rises for our lowest-paid staff of up to £3,000.
The probation service is in its second year of a multi-year pay deal for staff. Salary values of all pay bands will increase each year, targeted at key operational grades to improve what has been a challenging recruitment and retention position. The pay increases differ for different job roles, but to provide an example, probation officers will see their starting salary rise from around £30,200 in 2021-22 to a little over £35,000 by 2024-25.
Let me respond briefly to some of the individual points made by colleagues during the debate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) asked about crowding in prisons. The most recent statistics show crowding at 20.6% in the estate; by way of comparison, in 2009, that figure was 25.3%.
My near neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), raised the horrific crime of overkill. I have heard what she says and I will pass on those points within the Department.
I commend the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his close association and work with the Prison Officers Association. I confirm that I will continue to look forward to speaking with the Prison Officers Association and other staff bodies throughout the Prison and Probation Service. He was right to identify the centrality of safety and security in people’s experience of work. I reassure him that we measure those things centrally through the key performance indicators that we have in prisons.
Multiple Members rightly talked about rehabilitation. Specifically on the question about education providers asked by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, it is true that there are four education providers contracted to provide education services through the prison system. However, there is also a flexible fund that enables individual governors to draw down funds to make supplementary provision in certain ways. It is important that we get a blend—that we are able to respond to local conditions and the specifics of a prison population, and have some commonality in the provision and in the qualification studies.
Damian Hinds
I am sorry, but I think that I might be starting to stretch Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience. I will be happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman separately if he would like to do so as an alternative.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North talked, quite rightly, about the impact on families. That works in both directions—the effect on the children and what can be an adverse childhood experience, and the effect on the prisoner. Then there is the importance of having family time and family support, and the difference that that can make on release. I pay tribute to Lord Farmer for the work that he has done in that area. We have done some work on improving the maintenance of family ties, but I bring here today the good news that we are working on some data-linking in order to understand the extent and nature of these issues more closely.
We know overall that the efforts of our dedicated staff are working. The proportion of prison leavers in employment six months after release has more than doubled in the two years to March 2023, from 14% to more than 30%. Since 2010, the overall reoffending rate has decreased from 31.6% to 24.4%. As of February 2023, our transitional accommodation service had supported more than 5,000 prison leavers who would otherwise have been homeless across the initial five regions. Of course, there is still a huge amount more to do, but it is clear that we are making significant and important progress. The Government will always value and invest in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Our prisons must be and will be a safe place in which to work, where staff are provided with the right support, the training and the tools to empower them to do their jobs. I look forward to a continued dialogue on this matter with the Committee and others beyond this debate and the report.
In closing, let me repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for securing the debate, and to all who have contributed today. I commend the estimates to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The final brief word goes to Sir Robert Neill.
Sir Robert Neill
I am very grateful to all who have taken part in this important and valuable debate. I just wish more people had been here to hear it, but I hope that they will read at least some of what was said, because the issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House are important. They include the condition of prisons, and the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on the legitimate concerns of the staff in our prisons, which should not be ignored. The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about families are also critical. I, too, look forward to the report of the Wade review.
There are positive things happening and there were positive suggestions from both Front-Bench teams. In some ways, we should try to find a more consensual approach to some issues of prison policy, because to put it right will require an approach that will span the lifetime of more than one Parliament. It is an important challenge, and I am grateful for the time for this debate today.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).
Women and Equalities Committee
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Sir Bill Wiggin to move the motion on behalf of the Committee of Selection.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That Dr Jamie Wallis be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Lia Nici be added.
I believe that I have until 7 o’clock this evening, so I have a few words to say. [Laughter.] I was hoping for a collective groan from SNP Members. [Hon. Members: “Groan!”] Thank you.
I will, if I may, adapt a quote from Winnie Ewing, “Stop the speech, Scotland wants to get on”. I shall leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Winnie Ewing
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Here we are, just coming up to 4.50 pm on Tuesday afternoon. If I reflect back on the time that our dear friend and colleague Winnie Ewing was in this place, quite often Parliament could be sitting to 2 am, 4 am or even 7 am. If she were here today, I can only begin to think what she would make of it. I am sure my much-missed colleague would be saying, “What a shambles this place is that it cannot conduct its business in a way that allows for timely discharge of events. Doesn’t this show to those of us on the SNP side that Westminster has nothing to say to the people of Scotland? Doesn’t it just suggest that it is about time that Scotland completes its journey to independence?” We do the task that Winnie Ewing set for us: our job was not to come here and to settle down, but to settle up for the people of Scotland.
I am grateful for the opportunity to celebrate the remarkable achievements of Winifred Margaret Ewing. Winnie was elected to this House first for the seat of Hamilton in a by-election in 1967, then for Moray in 1974, when she unseated the then Tory Secretary of State for Scotland. Not only did Winnie serve in this House, but she was elected to the European Parliament as well as to the Scottish Parliament. The fact that she served in three legislatures makes her unique as a Scottish politician.
However, it is not the accomplishment of that electoral record that makes Winnie unique. As our colleague from the 1974 intake, George Reid, said:
“Occasionally, just very occasionally, a person emerges from the murk of daily life with the vision and determination to change things for good, to set the country on a different path. That was Winnie.”
That was Winnie—George was absolutely right about that.
When the Hamilton by-election took place on 2 November 1967, the voters of Hamilton changed the political landscape of Scotland. They changed the history of Scotland. When Winnie emerged from the count that night, she did indeed utter the immortal words:
“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”
Winnie lit a spark that night and the fire from that spark has shone brightly ever since.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
My right hon. Friend mentions that very famous Hamilton by-election, but there was another, just before Hamilton, that set Scotland on the path: the Glasgow Pollok by-election, in which the SNP candidate was the great George Leslie, who we also lost fairly recently. It goes to show, does it not, that we on these Benches stand on the shoulders of giants?
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he is so right. With our colleagues in Edinburgh delivering government for the people of Scotland in our Parliament, we have the task of completing that journey to independence, but at a time like this it is right that we pay tribute to those who have gone before.
The Scottish National party was formed in 1934 through the merger of two political parties, the National Party of Scotland, formed in 1928, and the Scottish (Self-Government) party. My goodness, to think of some of the people who had the courage to give their lives to shaping Scotland’s future at that point, we do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants. There are so many to mention. We think of John MacCormick, two of whose sons became parliamentarians—Neil MacCormick in the European Parliament, and Iain MacCormick in this place.
We think of giants such as Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, a remarkable individual who was a Member of this House. He was elected as a Liberal in Lanarkshire in 1886—although I believe he never formally took the Liberal Whip—then stood as an independent and then became the first president of the Independent Labour party. Like so many, however, he was on a political journey and became the first president of the Scottish National party. He was also very well known in Argentina as a rancher and an accomplished novelist. I tell that story because of the spark of genius in those who formed the movement at that time, in the likes of Compton Mackenzie.
We talk about by-elections, and I will come on to the 1960s. I remind the very few Conservative politicians who are here that we have until 7.30 pm, so they should stick with us—[Interruption.] Go on, smile. You might learn something.
Ian Blackford
If the hon. Gentleman would bear with me, there is plenty of time. Let us just settle down.
In thinking about those by-elections in the 1960s, as well as talking about George Leslie, we should also think of the likes of Billy Wolfe in West Lothian in the early 1960s. That journey gathered a sense of momentum, and that momentum really sparked into life with Winnie’s success in Hamilton in 1967. I go back, if I may, to the 1935 Midlothian by-election. My own grandfather and his two brothers became members of the SNP in that period. By-elections have been important for the SNP in fulfilling the promise that it had.
Jim Shannon
It will be. May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate? He and I spoke earlier. Not many people in this House will know that Winnie Ewing and Dr Paisley were good friends from the European Parliament and had a good relationship. Quite clearly, one was committed to Unionism and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the other was committed to independence, but that did not in any way inhibit their relationship.
Although Mrs Ewing and I had very different views on Unionism, I much admired her courage, advocacy, passion and desire for her country. Her nickname in Brussels translated to “Mrs Scotland”—a legacy to be proud of. Her advice of “stand your ground” applies to many of us in politics, myself included. It is a timeless motto not simply for generations of Scots, but for their very proud Ulster Scots cousins in Northern Ireland.
Ian Blackford
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend, if I may refer to him in that way. People should listen to his wise words.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that those of us on these Benches have a passion and commitment. We want to see Scotland become an independent country, but, as we often say, the debate about our country’s future ought to be one of mutual respect. Of course, we understand that there are other traditions, but we all have a responsibility to extend the hand of friendship, as Winnie Ewing did. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talks about the relationship that she had with the Reverend Ian Paisley. I am aware of that relationship, but she also had one with John Hume. Those in Brussels at that time would often see the three of them in conversation—and, indeed, at more social occasions as well, if I may refer to them in that way.
It is important that, when we talk to people externally, we give the message that we are here in this place to stand up for our constituents—and, in our case, to stand up for our country—but that we have no personal animosity towards those on the other side. Those who served with Winnie, whether in this place in Westminster, or, like some on the SNP Benches, in the Scottish Parliament, knew that she always looked out for new Members or younger Members in particular. In the end, the way in which someone comports themselves is important in that regard. Winnie was a shining light and an example to us all.
Ian Blackford
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).
Dr Whitford
Obviously, we are celebrating Winnie as an absolute icon of the Scottish National party and of Scotland, but we need to remember that she was also a woman and a mother. We send the condolences of everyone on these Benches, and of the whole House, to Fergus, Annabelle and Terry.
Ian Blackford
I am very grateful, because that is important. The sense of grief that they will all be feeling from the loss of their mother will be very different from our experiences. We have fantastic memories of Winnie, as so many of us were lucky to spend time with her. It is right that we reflect on all that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire talks about thinking of Winnie as a woman. Let us quickly reflect on that and think about the circumstances for a woman coming to this House in 1967, when it was not that common. It is not just that a woman came to this House in 1967, but that she came here on her own to represent her constituents as the only SNP politician in this place. Quite frankly, the experiences that she had were utterly disgraceful in the main—the misogyny that she faced. I will pay credit to Harold Wilson, who was a friend of hers, but the experiences that she had in this place were absolutely unspeakable.
When we think about where we are, we think about the Scottish Parliament being re-established in 1999 and the SNP going into Government, and I often reflect on those who have driven our movement. We have spoken about being on the shoulders of giants, but for me, there are two people in particular who we owe an enormous debt of gratitude: one is Winnie, and the other is Margo MacDonald, who won the Govan by-election in 1973. As someone who was a teenager in the 1970s, what drove me into the SNP was the leadership of those two people. By goodness, we are so blessed by the leadership, drive, ambition, intelligence, wit, sophistication and glamour that both those women presented themselves with. What fantastic leaders and role models they were for Scotland!
Peter Grant
No, certainly not.
My right hon. Friend mentions the wit that we got from Winnie and Margo, and one of the great things about Winnie was that her wicked sense of humour was as often as not turned on herself. If I can give one brief example, when I stood in the 2008 Glenrothes by-election, Winnie did a lot of campaigning, just by going for cups of coffee in places and talking to people. She came into the campaign rooms doubled up with laughter once, because a woman had spotted her and dragged her 12-year-old daughter across the road to meet this legend of Scottish politics. The wee girl said that she knew who Winnie was because she was learning about her in school. Now, Winnie was a lawyer—she should have known that you do not ask a question if you do not know the answer. She said to the wee girl, “You must be doing modern studies, then”, and the wee girl said, “No, history.”
Ian Blackford
Well, indeed: that is a typical Winnie story. The only thing that I could reflect on beyond that is the description of anyone going for a cup of coffee with Winnie. In all the years and decades that I have known her, I have never known anyone going for a cup of coffee with her—an Irish coffee, perhaps.
Since the issue of by-elections has been mentioned, it is probably worth reflecting that many of us were by-election candidates, including my hon. Friend and myself. I stood in Paisley in 1997.
Ian Blackford
And winners—from Airdrie more recently. What used to happen was that Winnie Ewing would turn up and assist you for the last few days of the campaign. She was your minder—in my case, she actually replaced Nicola, who had been my minder for most of the campaign. For those who have not experienced it, it really was something to behold, because it was not normal political campaigning, certainly when it got to the evenings. In my case, we did a tour of the pubs of Paisley. As someone who was relatively modest, shy and retiring, it was quite remarkable to see Madame Écosse work the tables, and to be welcomed by everybody and have discussions about political life.
Since we are on the subject and we have time, I remember that on election day, we were in a particular inn in Paisley—Members can probably think of the one I mean. Winnie said, “Let’s get a dram”, and I had to say to her, “Winnie, I’m the candidate”, but I relented and had one. She wanted to buy a second one, and I said, “Come on, not today. I’m the candidate; let’s miss that.” The point of telling that story is the spirit and warmth of the individual. It was an absolute pleasure to spend time in her company. I am glad to say that I became a very good friend to Madame Écosse—to Winnie Ewing. She would come up and spend some time with us in Skye. She was fantastic company.
Ian Blackford
Well, I recall going to visit her when she was in the Quarriers home in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I believe. I went with a fellow parliamentarian, a colleague of ours from the Scottish Parliament, Colin Campbell. Colin had made the fateful error of phoning the nursing home as we were leaving his house to say that we would be there in a few minutes. The upshot of that was that rather than our going to visit her in the nursing home, there she was at the door with her coat on and her handbag. As we went in, the remark was, “Right, boys, where are we going?” The expectation was that we would be taking her out to a place where we could have some relaxation and entertainment, if I can put it that way.
Ronnie Cowan
There are two links to me there. Colin Campbell was my history teacher when I was at school. [Hon. Members: “Not modern studies?”] No, history. I also had the great privilege of Winnie being a constituent of mine when she was in that nursing home. I was the candidate in 2015, and I got the phone call to go and meet Winnie Ewing, which was quite an experience for me, and she was incredibly generous with her time and her advice. However, a week later Winnie was not feeling so good. It was coming up to the election, and her family phoned me to say that Winnie did not have a postal vote. So I had enormous pleasure, on election day, of taking Winnie Ewing’s ballot paper and voting for myself, which was a proud moment and something that will live with me for the rest of my days.
Ian Blackford
That is a wonderful story, and knowing the woman as I did, I can say to my hon. Friend that nothing would have given Winnie more pride than knowing he had done that.
I remember that 2015 election with some pride in my own interaction with Winnie at that time. Winnie had sent me a video address that I could use in my own election campaign, and it was not short—it was 30 minutes long. [Hon. Members: “The irony!”] Well, I did say that she was my mentor. Some 29 minutes of that 30-minute address was about Europe, so there is a serious point to this. Winnie studied law in Glasgow, but she also went to study in The Hague. She was a Scottish nationalist—from the age of nine—but she was a European and she was an internationalist. She was so proud of what the European Union had meant for Scotland. She was so proud of the role she had played as a parliamentarian and of the friendships that she had developed with her friends not just from these islands, but right across Europe.
There was the role Winnie Ewing played in the Lomé convention, and in bringing it to Inverness, for goodness’ sake. There was the work she did in establishing the Erasmus programme, which was so inspirational in providing opportunities for our young people. It is therefore not surprising that she would often talk about what the European Union had meant. There are a number of us here from the highlands and islands, and my goodness, how we have benefited from objective 1 status, and the person responsible for that was Winnie Ewing. Think about where we are today—we have to go cap in hand to Westminster for levelling-up money and for what are in effect scraps from the table, as opposed to what was there for us as a right when Scotland and the European Community were working together in partnership. The highlands and islands are full of signs for projects that have been financed by Europe, and that is the legacy of Madame Écosse. Michel Barnier was recently on Skye, and he posted a picture of a path that had been funded by the European Union. What a difference between the spirit of generosity we had from the European Union and what we face in this place.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the modest, shy and retiring gentleman, my right hon. Friend, for giving way. Earlier, he mentioned Compton Mackenzie, and I think it is worth remembering that Compton Mackenzie, who was buried in my native island—he was a founder of the SNP in 1934—was actually an Englishman, which says a lot about the SNP, despite what many would say.
I had the great fortune during the general election of 2001 to get to know Winnie very well. I stayed with her at Goodwill in Miltonduff on several occasions, and I spent many an hour, over a coffee perhaps, with her late husband Stewart, and I look back fondly on that. I remember one time going to the Black Isle show—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) smiles—and we sat down with some farmers. I was the candidate, and I thought, “This meeting with the farmers at the Black Isle show has to go well”, but Winnie sat down and told them, “Well, if we were independent now, guys, you wouldn’t be suffering the problems with BSE, would you?” I thought that “I told you so” start to it would absolutely torpedo our meeting, but it did not, because Winnie Ewing had style and she had the respect of the people, and it was taken that way. They knew the truth of what she was saying and did not take it badly, and the meeting progressed really well.
Of course, we know that Winnie Ewing has left us not just the great political legacy we are standing on, but her own children, two tremendous Scottish National party MSPs, Fergus Ewing and Annabelle Ewing. We extend our condolences to them as well as to Terry, and to her grandchildren.
Ian Blackford
Indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
Winnie was elected to the European Parliament in June 1979.
Ian Blackford
Well, not many of us were active in Scottish politics at that time. I was a teenager—let’s be brutal—and in fact, the first election I voted in was that ’79 European election. The general election of 1979 was not our finest hour. It was, if I may say so, a temporary setback for the Scottish National party. We lost some ground and perhaps were not in the best of fettle. In that European election—I remember it well—there were not many expectations that the SNP was going to win any seats in the European Parliament. Indeed, it was forecast that the Liberal Democrats were more likely to take the Highlands and Islands seat. But what a night that was, when Winnie Ewing won the Highlands and Islands for the SNP.
We hear stories about Winnie Ewing’s interaction with the farmers, and the same would have been true if we were talking about fishing people, crofters, those working in the industrial community in Fort William, and so on and so forth. One thing about Winnie was that she worked for her constituents. I remember, when the pulp mill was closing in Fort William, the way that she picked up the phone to every newspaper proprietor up and down the land to try to get business for that pulp and paper mill. The legacy of the work she did, building relationships right across the Highlands and Islands, was that she increased her majority in every election that she fought as a European MP. What a role model she was for us, as someone who believed in our political philosophy, and someone who was ultimately a first-class parliamentarian.
My wife’s family moved into the Hamilton constituency while Winnie was the MP there, and they often talk about the success that she had getting a phone installed for them in the 1960s. Winnie did that casework, and she came to visit them and made sure that she did her job as the local MP.
I say for those on the Government Benches that I am on page 1 of my speech, but I will make some progress over the next while, don’t worry. [Interruption.] I am in my introduction; actually, it is the précis.
Winnie was a trailblazer for those of us who sit on the SNP Benches, but we would do well constantly to remind ourselves of her words from 1974 when, in response to Harold Wilson asking her how she was settling in, she responded:
“I’m not here to settle in. I’m here to settle up”
for Scotland. Let us remind ourselves on these Benches that that is exactly the job that we are expected to do.
When we talk about the memory of those who brought us here, and about what Winnie wanted with Scottish independence, it was not for us, or for past generations that have tilled the soil. It was for those who will follow us and for future generations, so that Scotland can become the country it can be—a prosperous, greener, fairer country that allows our human capital to flourish. That would be an appropriate legacy for Winnie, our dear friend and colleague.
Who was Winnie? She was born and brought up in Glasgow. She attended Glasgow University as well as the Hague Academy of International Law. She was a Scottish nationalist from the young age of nine. A nationalist, but also a European and an internationalist, as I said earlier—perspectives that were to shape much of her political life. Like many who made this journey, she came from a Labour supporting family. Her father George had been a member of the Independent Labour party, and it was only after her father’s death that Winnie learned that he had joined the SNP in July 1967, months before the Hamilton by-election. So many in the Labour party would make that journey towards the SNP—her family made it in the 1970s. It is a pity that no one from the Labour party is here to hear this speech and join the journey that so many in Scotland have already made.
That phrase, “Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on”, encapsulates so much of Winnie’s outlook—that desire for Scotland to achieve its potential; to get on and be the best that we could be. There was no better ambassador for Scotland in Europe than Winnie. She had a focused determination to put Scotland on the map at home and internationally. Although she served with distinction, leaving her mark in Westminster and Europe, that opportunity to serve in the Scottish Parliament brought her particular pleasure.
When Winnie was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it was a culmination of a drive to restore nationhood to Scotland that had driven her since first being elected to Westminster in 1967. It was a journey of 32 years that brought the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament. How fitting it was that Winnie presided over the opening session of the Scottish Parliament, when she proclaimed that
“the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 12 May 1999; c. 5.]
There was that long journey to Scotland establishing a Parliament, and it being opened by the MSP who was so inspirational in driving forward the process of achieving that Parliament was a recognition of the determination and leadership she had shown since that breakthrough in Hamilton in 1967. Scotland had got on.
Winnie was on her own as an MP in her first Parliament, although she was supported by her Plaid Cymru friend, Gwynfor Evans. Those would be challenging times for her, with the open hostility often shown in this place. How different her experiences would be when she returned to this place in 1974 as the Member for Moray and Nairn and ultimately as a member of the SNP’s first 11. In many respects, it was a challenging Parliament. George Reid, sadly now the only surviving member of that group, remarked of a group meeting when Winnie said:
“Look, if we don’t hang together, we’ll hang apart.”
As was often the case with Winnie, it was sage advice, as apt for all of us today as it was then.
After Westminster came Europe, as we have discussed, and the success that Winnie had there. Before she departed Westminster, she happily took up a number of issues. In her maiden speech in 1967, in a debate on the age of majority, she said:
“There are moral and intellectual reasons why it is good sense to make people responsible at the age of 18 if not sooner—and I mean fully responsible in every sense of the word. They are becoming less inclined to follow their parents’ way of thinking and they are more able to earn. They have seen the world on the television screen, and the visual is more compelling than reading. They have a very good understanding of what the world is all about. There is a revival of interest in politics. I am sorry that the Report does not talk about voting at 18, because that is in the minds of everyone who considers this matter, but if we go as far as the Report recommends, then voting at 18 may well be the logical next step.
I am absolutely on the side of youth. I would remind the House that even if we give the vote at 18, the average age at which the first vote is cast is 21, and if we give the vote at 21, then the average age at which it is first cast is 23. Mr. Pitt was a good Prime Minister, so it was said, and he was only 23, so that today presumably he might not even have had a vote and could not have been Prime Minister.”—[Official Report, 20 November 1967; Vol. 754, c. 980.]
I am telling that story because this was a woman who recognised the importance of lowering the voting age at that time in the 1970s. If we then think about our referendum in 2014, the Scottish Parliament legislated to make sure that 16 and 17-year-olds got the vote. I know that Winnie was particularly proud of the fact that our young people—those who were going to be part of Scotland’s story—were given that opportunity.
I will close with some reflections on the referendum day in 2014 and Winnie’s remarks when she was interviewed at her home by Hugh MacDonald—incidentally, he was the son of one of the two men who hoisted her aloft after the Hamilton by-election. Perhaps sensing that our cause would not be won that day, she maintained her optimism that the process of independence was going in only one direction. She said:
“I have never had any doubt that Scotland will be independent. None. This is still hopeful Thursday for the Yes campaign. I am not daft. I know this is on a knife edge, but this cannot be stopped. It is a movement. It is a process.”
My dearly departed friend and colleague was exactly right.
I want to make my closing remarks to my colleagues on the SNP Benches about the responsibility that we have. If we think about what we have endured over the course of the last few years since the financial crisis of 2008, the United Kingdom has been in reverse. We have had a decade of decline in living standards, with our people being held in poverty. Our responsibility is to have the vision, the energy, the drive and the leadership so that we can show people in Scotland that it does not have to be this way.
I will reflect for a moment on a book written by a chap called Anderson at Aberdeen University, in which he graphically shows that Scotland’s population in the United Kingdom on a relative basis has declined in every decade since the 1850s. That is a matter of fact. It is not about blaming anyone else but about what happens within the status quo.
People often talk about the deficit that Scotland has, but an important factor that has to be borne in mind is that that is the deficit within the context of the United Kingdom. In many respects we have missed the opportunity of North sea oil. Where is the legacy of the £350 billion- plus harvested in tax revenues from that resource? It is gone. But, friends, we will not make the same mistake a second time. What Scotland is facing now is an enormous opportunity from green energy, not just in providing energy for us but in providing leadership in the global economy. The Skilling report, which we as a group published last year, demonstrates that Scotland has the potential to increase its green energy output fivefold. Let us think about the opportunities for us if we can capture that supply chain: it is about creating a green industrial future, driving that investment into the Scottish economy, driving up productivity, driving up living standards and delivering the tax receipts that will be necessary to invest in health, education, transport and every other area of social policy in Scotland.
Look at our academic community, look at the excellence and leadership that we have in world-leading universities in Scotland, and think about the opportunity from putting that to work, developing the start-ups and spin-outs of the new industries of the future and not being held back by a United Kingdom that has turned its back on Europe, sent our economy into decline, lost opportunity and struck 4% off our GDP through the foolhardiness of Brexit.
The challenge for us is to say to people, “Yes, there is a better way; there is a way that Winnie Ewing would want us to take.” It is about showing how we would deliver that prosperity, and putting that in the context of the cost of living crisis, where so many of our people are in fuel poverty—my goodness—in a country rich in energy resource. That is the price that we pay for being part of this Union. As we face that election next year, and the opportunity of removing the Tories from power, it is not about removing the Tories in one election; it is about removing the Tories from Scotland for good, because Scotland becomes an independent country. That would be a legacy for Winnie Ewing.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has just left the Chamber, I come from a different political tradition, but for four years, between 1999 and 2003, I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with Winnie Ewing in the Scottish Parliament. I would like to make a few remarks from a personal angle.
As some Members present know, my parents were small farmers. My father was a small dairy farmer in Easter Ross. In the late ’60s, he and my mother established a small cheese business, which my brother still runs today—enough of the family advert. In the late ’60s, they ventured south of the border and took a stand at the food fair at Olympia. My mum and dad wrote to all the Scottish MPs in this place and asked them to come and visit the stand and taste the cheese. Only one took up the invitation: Winnie Ewing. My parents never forgot that. It meant a huge amount to them.
I did not know Winnie at that stage—I was still at school. Later, my father died, too young. The letter that Winnie wrote to my mother was remarkable. I have it yet; it is a treasured letter that I will never part with, and I trust my children and grandchildren never will either. It meant so much to my mother. This lady transcended party politics. She cut right through to ordinary folk in Scotland. That was a tremendous and rare strength, to which I pay tribute.
In 1999 I appeared, as green as grass, in Holyrood. There was the great lady herself. From the word go she showed nothing but friendship to me. Where my party tended to drink in Deacon Brodie’s, Dr Ewing of Goodwill in Miltonduff rather preferred the Jolly Judge, further up towards the castle. But many were the happy, small refreshments that I had with Winnie Ewing. We enjoyed each other’s company enormously.
I think, too, of the Durness highland games in north-west Sutherland, where Winnie was a regular—and she was very fondly received by the local folk, I can tell you. She was much loved, and they were really charmed that she came to the games as often as she did. Again, it was a great pleasure to have a small dram with Winnie at the games. One evening, in fact, we maybe had one too many, and Winnie decided that I was her favourite Liberal. I was extremely worried because I thought that might totally destroy my career, so I made sure that all copies of the Northern Times that referred to that were suppressed and never came anywhere near here. I took that as a great compliment. It was meant very kindly indeed.
When the word came out that she had left us, I happened to be in north-west Sutherland at the time. People said, “Oh, dash it; she’s away—what a shame.” When people say that kind of thing about someone who has left us, it is meant ever so genuinely. If my parents were alive today, they would be very sad that Winnie is no longer with us. I am very sad that she is no longer with us. As I said, she transcended party politics; she was way above that. It was an enormous privilege to have known her. Her hard-working attitude and sincere approach were something to behold. I mourn her today. We mourn her today.
I would add two things. First, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) referred to her as Madame Écosse. I was the member of my party who once had to go on the telly and explain why she had won such a huge victory in the highlands. It was a testing event for me, but I come from the school of hard knocks. Secondly, I imagine that a great number of people in Europe, including present and former Members of the European Parliament, will mourn her passing. Can there be any greater epitaph? I doubt it.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I am very grateful for this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of Plaid Cymru, to the late Winnie Ewing and to send my condolences to the family, particularly Annabelle, who was a very valued Member of this House when I started in 2001. I think she left us in 2005.
Much has already been said about the inspirational contribution Winnie Ewing made to Scottish and European politics. I could add to that, but I just want to note our appreciation in Wales of her contribution, in particular of course her breakthrough election in the Hamilton seat. I was a teenager at the time—you would not think so, being such a young lad—and completely obsessed with politics. Gwynfor Evans had been elected to the Carmarthen seat in 1966, just before Winnie Ewing. We had also had some near misses. As we have some time, and for the interest of the House, I will mention that, in Rhondda West, we came within 1,000 votes of beating the Labour party. They were much more colourful times back then. Our candidate Vic Davies would drive around the valley perched on the back of a big red dragon, which was loaded on to a flatbed lorry, getting his message to the people. It was a complicated message, I have to concede, but he knew how to do it. Then, in Caerphilly, the much missed Phil Williams, who many people here will remember, again came close to beating the Labour candidate.
Perhaps the most interesting one, if I can just go off on a slight tangent and diversion, which would be of interest to Labour Members, were they here, is S. O. Davies, who, in 1970, was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil. He was allegedly 82 but probably quite a bit older and Labour decided to deselect him, so he decided to stand as an independent. This is a message for the Labour party: he stood as an independent and trounced the very lacklustre trade union official the Labour party had parachuted in. Interestingly, he was then offered the freedom of Merthyr Tydfil but turned it down, saying that the support of the people of Merthyr Tydfil was quite enough for him, thank you very much. They were much more colourful times.
As a young person in 1967 and 1968, the old world seemed to be dying and the new world was being born—not struggling to be born, but being born—before our eyes. As with S. O. Davies, some people from the old world showed us the way a bit. And that is when we had the Hamilton by-election to spur us on. At the time, I do not think one could overestimate the inspirational quality of Winnie Ewing’s victory. Joining Gwynfor Evans, it seemed that the tide was with us. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, this place can be very dispiriting. I know how much Gwynfor Evans, as the lone voice of Welsh nationalism, appreciated and welcomed Winnie Ewing’s arrival, which heralded a fruitful partnership between our two parties that has existed ever since.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Just for the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge, in the many times I spent with Winnie Ewing, she mentioned Gwynfor Evans frequently.
Hywel Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Some people around me may be able to see this very interesting picture, which is of Winnie Ewing and Gwynfor Evans together at an advanced age sitting in the sunshine on a bench outside Gwynfor’s house chatting and laughing. I think Winnie was slightly disappointed that the glasses were empty. [Laughter.] There has been a very fruitful partnership between our two parties and that was established a long time ago. May that long continue. True to the path that Winnie Ewing and Gwynfor Evans established over 50 years ago, may we, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said, never forget that we are here not to settle down but to settle up. That is an inspirational statement.
I am now of an age when the old saw, “They don’t make them like that any more” begins to ring true; I tend to think that as well. So may I say about Winnie Ewing sincerely, “Thank you,” but also, “They don’t make them like that any more.”
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I could not have failed to take advantage of the opportunity to speak in a debate entitled “Winnie Ewing” and to add just a few recollections of my time with Winnie, because it was a very special time. Indeed, I think that what has come across in the tributes that we have heard over the past couple of weeks is how much people enjoyed and appreciated being in her company. She had that special ability to make people feel not just welcome and glad to be with her, but proud to be with her. Spending time with her was something quite special. I spent a lot of time with her and I want to share a couple of stories about that.
There was one day that I will never forget. I was elected in the same year as my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), back in 2001. One of the proudest moments of my life occurred when I was making my maiden speech, from roughly where I am standing now, because over in that Box, the Under-Gallery, sat Winnie Ewing. I kept glancing over to her, and she kept giving me that encouraging smile that I am sure everyone remembers. However, as you probably suspect, Mr Deputy Speaker, she was not there just to hear my eloquence. Her daughter Annabelle was to make her maiden speech the next day, but Winnie was determined to come along and hear all the other new Members of Parliament make their maiden speeches. That is the sort of person she was: she was here to give us solid support and encouragement.
I remember going down to the Strangers Bar with Winnie, as we would inevitably end up doing. On the Terrace, she said, “Your speech was quite good, Pete—the content was quite good—but you are going to have to learn to speak a bit more slowly, and you are going to have to wear better suits.” I leave it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to decide whether I met the standards that were set by Winnie Ewing.
In 2001, the year I was elected, Winnie was a serving Member of the Scottish Parliament. She regularly came up to Perthshire and to Angus, the seat I was contesting at that point. It was always Winnie people wanted to speak to. I had thought myself to be a reasonably exotic candidate, coming from a rock music background, but she was the real rock star: it was Winnie people wanted to speak to on the doorsteps, and she always had time to speak to everybody. I also remember the 2005 campaign, because I ran it, and Winnie was there for all the new candidates. I recall her being particularly thrilled that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) was a candidate and had a real prospect of winning the seat. Winnie was so proud and pleased about his victory—although I do not know about the rest of us!—because she thought it very special for him to win back the Western Isles after her good friend Donnie Stewart had held it for such a long time. I knew how much she appreciated my hon. Friend’s election.
There is one other thing about Winnie Ewing, and I am going to try to set this right over the next couple of weeks. Winnie was a fantastic singer, and I had the pleasure of recording her for a CD that I was commissioned to make as vice-convener for fundraising for the party back in the 1990s. Rather foolishly, I decided that I would record a few of the personalities in the Scottish National party—with mixed results, it must be said, but one performance stood out, and that was Winnie’s. I remember her wandering into the recording studio like a rock star, straight to the mike, for the first take of “Will Ye No’ Come Back Again?”, the great poem by Lady Nairne, and she sang it so beautifully. I found a version of the CD which I will share with my colleagues, and I will make sure it is put online. That is a thing that Winnie was always able to do: to give a song, to take part, and to be prepared to do everything else.
I have not been on the SNP’s national executive committee for some years, but Winnie and I ran the election committee that was responsible for vetting candidates for the Scottish Parliament. I will spare his blushes, but someone we vetted is in the vicinity of the Chamber today, and we had a long conversation about his suitability. I think that Winnie won the day, and he is now our Minister for independence in the Scottish Parliament. We had such a great time on that panel. Winnie, Fiona Hyslop and I were given responsibility for vetting candidates, and I think we got most of them right, but we definitely got that one right.
There are so many great memories; there were so many fantastic times with Winnie. She lit up a room. She was a great friend. She was a mentor and a total and utter inspiration for all of us in the Scottish National party. I am so proud and pleased that I spent some of my parliamentary time as a colleague of Winnie, albeit in different Parliaments, and that I had that time to get to know her and to call her a friend in what we were doing. She will always be a massive figure in this party. I know that everybody says we will not see her like again, but we will not. It is hard to believe that somebody of her stature will emerge in the theatre of Scottish politics for a long time.
I know how much my colleagues are hurting and grieving the loss of Winnie Ewing and I know that this parting has been hard, but what a life. What a contribution. What a legend Winnie Ewing is, and we will miss her dearly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to Winnie Ewing in this House today. I want to start by thanking the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing the debate, and I also want to express my deepest sympathy to Winnie’s family, particularly Fergus Ewing MSP and Annabelle Ewing MSP, alongside whom I worked during my time as a member of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
Although our politics could not be more different, I recognise the enormous contribution that Winnie Ewing made to public life in Scotland. The excellent contributions we have heard this evening from Members on both sides of the House are testament to her extraordinary life of public service. Her place in the history of Scottish politics, going back nearly six decades, is secure and very well deserved.
As others have already noted, Winnie Ewing served twice as a Member of Parliament: for Hamilton, after her famous by-election victory in 1967 until 1970, and for Moray and Nairn between 1974 and 1979. She was also a member of the European Parliament for two decades from 1979, earning her unofficial title as Madame Écosse. From 1999 to 2003, she served as a member of the Scottish Parliament. As we have heard already, her words at the opening of the new Parliament have gone down in Scottish history. It is truly a remarkable record of service, with more than 30 years in total as an elected politician. As Members have highlighted, Winnie Ewing was also a dedicated servant to her party as president of the SNP for 18 years from 1987.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for his very generous opening remarks. It is also worth putting on the record that Winnie’s late husband Stewart was a councillor in the Summerston area of Glasgow, which I currently represent in this place. Winnie, her husband and her children have between them represented Scotland and the people of Scotland at every conceivable level, which really is a tremendous legacy. I echo the condolences paid to all those who survive her and her family.
John Lamont
I am grateful for that point. I think it is fair to say that the family are a bit of a dynasty in Scottish politics.
All those dates of her terms in office and the various Parliaments tell only a fraction of the Winnie Ewing story. We have been reminded very clearly this evening how she approached politics with intelligence, warmth and wit.
I want to pick up on a couple of points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made a very important point that Winnie’s family are grieving and we should not forget that. A number of Members spoke of Winnie’s humour and wit, and we heard about her passion for Europe. Personal family memories were shared by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), as well as memories of the friendship that Winnie offered and, clearly, very fond memories of the Jolly Judge pub in Edinburgh at the top of the Royal Mile, which is one of my favourite pubs as well.
The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) pay tribute from a Welsh perspective and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) spoke of memories of Winnie during his maiden speech as well as her various contributions to the SNP campaigning machine.
Winnie Ewing brought a winning combination of charisma and commitment to everything she did throughout her long and distinguished career. Members have reflected on her by-election victory in Hamilton and what that meant to her party and the constitutional ambitions of the Scottish National party to break up the United Kingdom. As I said, our political views on such matters were and remain very different, but I think we can all agree on the huge significance, back in 1967, of the arrival at Westminster of a young and dynamic Scotswoman. Her driving up in a Scottish-built Hillman Imp to the sound of bagpipes set the tone. She was here to make an impact, and there is no doubt that is what she did.
There is no doubt that Winnie Ewing was a trailblazer and a strong role model whose high profile made it easier for other women on all sides to follow in her footsteps. Parliament is a much better place today for the example she set more than half a century ago.
Winnie Ewing was an inspiration to many, and her voice was truly unique. Since her passing was announced last week, we have heard numerous tributes in news reports and obituaries, in speeches at Holyrood and now here today. We have heard many warm and fitting words from across Parliament to remember Winnie and to celebrate her life. I hope Fergus and Annabelle Ewing and her whole family will take comfort from that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Winnie Ewing was a truly legendary politician who served Scotland both in this place and in Europe. Hers was a full life of public service, and a full life well lived. Rest in peace.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Environmental Protection (Plastic Plates etc. and Polystyrene Containers etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Protection (Plastic Plates etc. and Polystyrene Containers etc.) (England) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mrs Harris—and particularly in those glasses, if I may say so. I think you are the envy of the room. The regulations were laid before the House on 23 May and their purpose is to restrict the supply of single-use plastic plates, bowls and trays and to ban the supply of single-use plastic cutlery, balloon sticks and expanded and extruded polystyrene food and drink containers, including cups. This statutory instrument applies to England only as environmental protection is a devolved matter. I will cover both its purpose and its impact, starting with the former.
It is the Government’s ambition to leave the environment in a better state for the next generation. Our 25-year environment plan and resources and waste strategy outline the steps we will take to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042. Government measures focus on extracting maximum value from plastic materials by making sure that we keep them in circulation for longer, moving away from the take, make and throw model and shifting towards a circular economy. Single-use plastic items are especially problematic as they are typically littered or discarded to general waste, rather than recycled, because of the difficulty in segregating, cleaning and processing them.
The statutory instrument will restrict and ban commonly littered single-use plastic items that we so often see polluting our environment and that are, sadly, frequently reported in beach litter surveys. Such items can then endanger wildlife and damage habitats. As well as the items causing damage to biodiversity, there are costs associated with their clean-up. It is estimated that the UK spends more than £15 million each year just on removing beach litter. I think all those present will agree that that is a colossal waste of money that we should not really have to spend. That amount does not include the costs imposed on our tourism and fishing industries, which are also impacted.
As is well understood, plastic eventually breaks down into microplastics that end up in our soils and seas and eventually permeate our food chains. The full impact of microplastics, especially on human health, is still being uncovered. To build on the success of the bans of other single-use plastic items and our carrier bag charge, further action is needed to curtail the use of problematic single-use plastic items and their release into the environment.
Let me turn to the statutory instrument’s impact. We acknowledge the ongoing voluntary action that industry is taking to reduce the use of the relevant items. That action is led by the UK plastics pact, which has done really beneficial work. The new regulations will provide support and ensure that all businesses move to more sustainable alternatives.
To inform the regulations, we gathered the views of key stakeholders by running a public consultation on the measures, between November 2021 and February 2022. The consultation showed overwhelming support for the measures, with more than 80% of respondents supporting their introduction. We also consulted a range of businesses, the NHS and charities to determine the regulations’ scope. To minimise the impact on small businesses, we have given a nine-month lead-in time since the announcement of the ban. It is intended that the instrument will come into force on 1 October this year, from when it will be an offence to supply single-use plastic cutlery, balloon sticks and certain types of polystyrene, with no exemptions.
The ban on the supply of single-use plates, trays and bowls will apply only when the items are supplied to the end user—typically, a consumer will then use the item for its intended purpose. Businesses can continue to supply the items to other businesses, thereby allowing the continuing use of single-use plastic plates, trays and bowls for packaging, as defined in regulation 3 of the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2015. This will avoid confusion with the Government’s proposals for extended producer responsibility for packaging, which will make producers responsible for the costs of their packaging throughout its cycle. Those items will, then, be captured elsewhere, although it is important to stress that in all cases we encourage businesses to use reusable alternatives where practical.
We are determined to get this right and it is vital that businesses and the public are informed about what they can and cannot do. We have recently published guidance for businesses, and we will publish our guidance for local authorities in advance of the instrument coming into force. The guidance will assist manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and the public in understanding the enforcement and sanctions regime. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs intends to raise awareness further by meeting local authority representatives to provide clarity and support on the restrictions and the exemptions, and to empower trading standards officers to carry out effective enforcement.
The instrument also amends the Environmental Protection (Plastic Straws, Cotton Buds and Stirrers) (England) Regulations 2020 and the Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017. It amends the civil sanctions provision in those instruments to provide for fixed monetary penalties instead of variable monetary penalties. There was a great deal of discussion and consultation about this. The change was actually called for, because fixed penalties would be easier to understand and to apply. The amendments will ensure consistency with the civil sanctions provisions in the instrument before the Committee and will make enforcement easier for local authorities. The amendments to the 2020 regulations also remove a transitional provision relating to medical devices, which is no longer needed.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I know the Minister is about to finish, but before she sits down, will she say whether local authorities, which are broadly the enforcers of the measure, will be given extra resources?
Rebecca Pow
There has been full consultation on the funding that will be required for trading standards departments to carry out the duties that will fall to them. It amounts to approximately £660,000 a year over three years, and local authorities have agreed that that is an adequate sum. There was much negotiation with them to make sure that the funding was in the right ballpark, but such measures are always reviewed three to five years after implementation to see how they are working and whether any tweaks are needed. I can therefore assure the right hon. Lady that resources have been discussed and clarified.
Finally, I have to mention a typographical error in the draft instrument. The heading preceding regulation 40, “Part 1: Amendments”, should be “Part 6”. I am glad that somebody spotted that. Our intention is to correct the error before the instrument is made.
I believe the regulations send a strong signal to industry and the public that we need to think really carefully about the products we buy, the materials from which they are made, and what is being put on the market. The instrument will definitely bring us a step closer to protecting the environment and reducing the risk of harm to human health and marine life. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again today, Mrs Harris. I am always delighted to see a fellow Welsh colleague.
The draft regulations have already been considered in the other place, in what I know was an interesting and lively debate. I echo the comments of my noble Friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent regarding the importance of north Staffordshire-produced ceramic plates and mugs, and how they can be among the most sustainable of solutions to our plastics crisis. I thought that was an excellent point and very well worth repeating here for the benefit of Ministers and colleagues. I know that many Labour Members will be spending lots of time in north Staffordshire over the coming months, so it will be good to be able to look at the plastic and ceramics there.
I welcome the statutory instrument and I want to make clear that we support its scope, reach and focus. The Labour party is crystal clear that we must all do more to tackle the pollution and waste crisis blighting all parts of our country, and the SI will play a small role in doing exactly that. However, as ever with this Government, the devil is in the detail and I want to touch on a number of specific points that require clarity and unpicking from the Minister. She knows me well enough by now to know this is the way we do things here.
First, I want to touch on engagement with our businesses. I suppose the Conservative Government are stealing defeat from the jaws of victory yet again, but this is a real concern with the issues we are considering. I want to touch on the consultation process with businesses and relevant stakeholders, as well as the roll-out and implementation of the proposals and, of course, the next stages of the plan to preserve our planet and protect our environment. So, let me ask the Minister about the engagement and consultation process. According to the sources we have talked to, the consultation lasted a mere 15 days, not the three months she outlined earlier. Will she clarify whether it was 15 days or three months? If it was just 15 days, does she think that that was an effective and fair period of time for such an important set of proposals? Will she further confirm what engagement with local authorities looked like? Did Ministers have any specific engagement with council leaders and senior staff? How many specific meetings took place between officials in her Department and local government representatives?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South has already mentioned the funding that will have to follow to make the new proposals implementable and workable. We cannot forget that the proposals will impact people in all communities, so engagement has to be meaningful and real. Would the Minister describe the engagement and consultation on the proposals in those terms? She will note that in paragraph 10.8 of the very helpful explanatory memorandum, we are informed that the Government notified the World Trade Organisation of the draft instrument on 21 March 2023 and:
“No objections have been made pursuant to notification.”
What communication was received from the WTO and when was it received? With WTO processes being slow, did officials in the Department anticipate any objections being made?
Paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 of the explanatory memorandum set out that the exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 means that single-use bowls and trays legally produced in or imported into other parts of the UK can be sold in England irrespective of the ban. Has DEFRA done any modelling on how many firms, institutions and specific items are likely to make use of the exemption? What are the process and timescales for conducting the post-implementation review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, in which the implications for the environmental ambition of this Government may be considered?
Finally, will the Minister take a moment to outline the specific discussions that took place with the devolved Administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh? She has mentioned that this is obviously an England-only instrument, but it is important that we know what has gone on across the UK. Did those discussions take place at the ministerial level? If not, why not and what engagement did take place? Of course, we must note that official engagement will be particularly important in Northern Ireland.
The proposals have our support, but we want change to be done in the right way and in a way that brings people together in the fight to save our planet and protect our environment. I am afraid that, once again, it is in the detail that the Government have been found wanting.
Rebecca Pow
First, although there were a number of questions—I have come to expect nothing less—I thank the shadow Minister for welcoming the regulations. I think we are all agreed that the measure is necessary and that we need to get behind it. It is certainly incredibly popular with the public, who want to see us doing the right thing for the environment. That is certainly what we are doing on the Conservative Benches, and it is good to have the Labour party supporting us in that.
The hon. Member for Newport West asked a number of questions. If I do not cover them all, I will of course write to the Committee, as there was quite a list pouring out. She asked about the consultation process and mentioned 15 days. Actually, prior to those 15 days we consulted extensively on the issues. We did so in 2021 and throughout 2022 before announcing our intentions this January. We have worked really closely with stakeholders throughout to shape the policy, because we need it to work for businesses.
I thought the hon. Lady would mention the 15-day issue, but it applies only to this statutory instrument to implement the policy, not to the details of the policy, which were all thrashed out in the 12-week consultation. The requirements for the London Gazette consultation, including the minimum length of time, are all specified under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and are, therefore, deemed suitable for Parliament. DEFRA chose to go a bit further than required by the Act and consulted for longer and published the SI alongside the Government’s consultation response, to ensure that it reached as wide an audience as possible. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied with that.
The hon. Lady asked how engaged we have been with businesses. Obviously, that is really important. Our response to the consultation was published in January. As I have said, we have engaged extensively with businesses, trade groups and even individual organisations such as the NHS. We also published guidance on gov.uk back in May, giving industry ample time to prepare. When we first announced our intentions, I went out and did a whole lot of media. I seem to remember that we went to the Co-op and did a whole lot of items about single-use plastics, which got wide coverage and, indeed, wide support from the public.
The hon. Lady asked about the WTO. We did not expect to get comments back from it. Lots of its members have implemented measures on plastics, so it is something that it was expecting. I will not say that it was a formality as such, but it is something that we had to go through, as she will well know.
The hon. Lady also raised the devolved Administrations. Of course, this SI is for England only, but as ever we collaborate really closely with the devolved Administrations. We are doing so right now on our other, wider measures to reduce plastic packaging, particularly the extended producer responsibility regime. Just the other day, I chaired a meeting with all my counterparts in the devolveds. Officials are working incredibly closely. In devolved areas, other nations are perfectly able to act as they wish in their own circumstances. There was an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act for a number of single-use plastic items, including straws, stirrers, cotton buds, plates, cutlery, balloon sticks, and expanded and extruded polystyrene food and drink containers. That was largely because Scotland brought in its ban in June and ours will come in October, so that seemed a perfectly sensible thing to do just for those few months. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees with that.
I think that that more or less answers the points that have been raised. I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for her support. I reiterate that we believe that these measures are a really important part of our much wider strategy to tackle plastic pollution, not least on the international stage, where we are heavily involved in the international plastics treaty, and that they are an important marker for us in all the other, wider things we are doing as a Government. I thank Members for listening so intently and hope that they are reassured that we are doing the right thing for the environment. I certainly believe that we are doing so and therefore recommend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
2.49 pm
Committee rose.
Irchester Village's Post Box Installation
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 View all Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 July 2023 - (4 Jul 2023)
The Chair
Before we start, I have a few preliminary reminders: switch off electronic devices or turn them to silent; no food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted in this sitting; and send your speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, or pass them to Hansard colleagues in the room.
Clause 16
Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
Clause 16 raises the profile of the Victims’ Commissioner, a vital and powerful voice for victims. Previous office holders—we have spoken of them in previous sittings: Louise Casey, Helen Newlove and Vera Baird—have all been dedicated in speaking up for the needs of all victims and witnesses, especially the most vulnerable.
The Victims’ Commissioner plays a crucial role in advising national policymaking, raising awareness of the common issues faced by victims and witnesses, conducting research, and assessing how the criminal justice and victim support agencies comply with the code. However, in the 2021 victims consultation, we heard that the commissioner requires further powers to effectively carry out their duties.
The clause introduces a requirement for the Victims’ Commissioner to lay their annual report in Parliament, which will give greater prominence to the report and amplify victims’ voices. It also bolsters the status of all Victims’ Commissioner reports by requiring Departments and agencies under the remit of the Victims’ Commissioner to respond to recommendations directed at them in all published reports within 56 days. They must say what action they plan to take in response to the report or explain why no action will be taken.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Maria Eagle
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his remarks. Does he agree that for a Victims’ Commissioner to be effective, they have to be in post? Can he give us an update on how the recruitment of Dame Vera Baird’s successor is going? There has now been a gap between Dame Vera leaving and whoever the new postholder is to be taking up their post.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention; I said that I thought that I could predict her question, and I did—in my head—with a fair degree of accuracy. I gently refer her to the response that I gave to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, in our deliberations last week. This is a hugely important post, as the right hon. Lady highlighted in her intervention, and it is right that we take it seriously and get it right.
I suspect that Opposition Members may raise wry smiles at this, but we have had a number of Lord Chancellors in the past year. The Victims’ Commissioner is an important post to which a Lord Chancellor can recommend an appointment to the Prime Minister. The current Lord Chancellor has been in post for a few months now, and he wants to ensure that he reviews the situation and gets it right so that he is happy with the postholder, but he shares my view—and indeed that of the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood—that it is important that we get this done properly and as swiftly as possible.
The proposals in clause 16 will better hold agencies to account and ensure that they are actively considering victims’ experiences and how they can be improved. The clause also adds to the list of agencies that the Victims’ Commissioner may make recommendations about, crucially adding police and crime commissioners and the criminal justice inspectorates.
As set out previously, the Bill also puts in place mechanisms to improve the processes for monitoring compliance with the victims code, both locally and nationally. The Victims’ Commissioner is expected to have an important voice in those discussions, where systemic issues have been escalated, so that action can be taken to drive improvements. Together, the measures add to the existing broad Victims’ Commissioner powers, allowing the Victims’ Commissioner to tailor their role as they see fit to achieve their functions and outcomes for victims. We expect that that will result in better treatment of victims at both local and national levels, fulfilling the most important function of the Victims’ Commissioner.
As set out in previous Committee sittings, and as I said to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, a recruitment process is under way, and we take it extremely seriously. With that in mind, I commend clause 16 to the Committee.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for addressing the clause. As I have already outlined, regarding my previous amendments that would have strengthened the powers and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner, we fully support the function of a robust and independent Victims’ Commissioner. We first asked for a provision to grant the commissioner a statutory duty to prepare and issue a report to lay before Parliament in early 2021, so I am glad that the Government have finally caught up and heeded our calls.
We believe that victims’ rights should be a parliamentary responsibility, and I am pleased that the report will not just go to the Secretary of State. During the evidence sessions, Dame Vera raised her concerns about the efficacy of the data that will be available to the commissioner for the purposes of their report—something that I have also raised in debates on earlier amendments. Will the Minister outline how a future Victims’ Commissioner, when appointed, will receive the appropriate data and information to allow for independent scrutiny? The Bill at present fails to do that.
The Victims’ Commissioner’s powers under clause 16 do not go far enough in ensuring that victims have a steady, reliable voice that criminal justice agencies and the Government must listen to. Granting agencies the duty to respond to the commissioner’s recommendations is a welcome first step, but how will the Government ensure that agencies respond and comply? I understand that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is still waiting for a response to their “Safety Before Status” report five months after the deadline. Can the Minister explain why the Government do not believe it is necessary to respect the powers of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and respond to such a pivotal report? Can he reassure all of us here that exactly the same practice will not just happen again to the Victims’ Commissioner?
Edward Argar
There were a number of points there, to which I will respond swiftly for the benefit of the Committee. I note the point made by the shadow Minister about having asked for such provision in 2021. In a gentle way, I must say that she was beaten to it—by Dame Vera, in fact; she and I had discussions about how that might happen in 2018-2019, just before I was reshuffled to the Department of Health and Social Care, so I am pleased to see the measure before us today.
The Bill already contains data transparency provisions and a duty on the Secretary of State and others to publish the data at both a local and national level. That will give a huge additional layer of data granularity for not just the Victims’ Commissioner, but others, including Members of this House, to scrutinise.
I turn to the duty to respond. I suggested to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood that I had predicted her question. I thought this could have been the other question she might have gently sent in my direction—about the “Safety Before Status” report and the response time to it. I note that the other report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner was responded to. We always seek to respond within the timelines set out. As the hon. Member for Cardiff North will be aware, that particular report is a matter for the Home Office, but I will ensure that my colleagues in the Home Office are made aware of her remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to debate clauses 18 to 20 stand part. [Interruption.] I will speak more slowly between clauses next time so that the Minister can find his notes.
Edward Argar
As the day goes on, Mr Hosie, I get more dextrous when it comes to finding the right piece of paper to respond to interventions or, indeed, to your swift running of the Committee.
These clauses have been grouped together, because while each separate clause relates to each of the separate criminal justice inspectorates in turn, they all introduce the same measures. Each of the inspectorates named in the legislation has a role in the oversight of victim treatment in the criminal justice agencies they inspect. His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons oversees the responsibilities prisons have to victims, and His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation oversees the delivery of probation’s responsibilities towards victims. That includes the victim contact scheme and the role of probation in protecting the public and keeping victims safe.
His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services oversees the delivery of the police’s responsibilities towards victims, including how forces protect vulnerable people and the service provided to victims throughout their engagement with police. His Majesty’s chief inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service oversees the delivery of the CPS’s responsibilities towards victims, including the victims communication and liaison scheme and the service provided to certain groups, such as victims of domestic abuse. Increasing transparency around the performance of criminal justice agencies and ensuring clear oversight when victims are treated poorly are both integral parts of driving improvements for victims. In delivering these aims, the inspectorates’ diligent reporting on the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal justice agencies is vital, and we fully recognise the importance of their work in ensuring victims are treated as they should be.
The inspectorates play a key role in scrutinising the performance of the agencies that they inspect and monitoring the delivery of recommendations, utilising tools such as re-inspections where required. Their work promotes effective practice, challenges poor performance and encourages improvement. We want to build on that foundation to deliver further progress for victims, with clauses 17 to 20 bolstering the inspectorates to enhance victim focus in their work.
The clauses will achieve that by empowering Ministers to jointly direct that a joint inspection programme must include provision for the inspection of victims’ issues, creating a sharper focus on how victims are treated and where to focus improvements. That new power will be an addition to existing ministerial powers to drive improvements with regard to code compliance. They will also be able to use the newly collected and shared code compliance information that we touched on in the debate on the previous clause to inform the use of the power. Joint inspections will involve the inspectorates working together to address cross-cutting systemic issues that impact victims and their experience of the criminal justice system.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in particularly welcoming the inclusion of His Majesty’s chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, given that many victims’ experiences—sometimes adverse experiences—of the criminal justice system occur in the courts? Of course, it is not for us to tell the judiciary what it should do, as we have been reminded during the passage of the Bill. There is not an inspectorate of the court service in the same way, so does my hon. Friend agree that the inspectorate of the CPS can, to some extent, fulfil the role of improving the experience of victims through the court process?
Edward Argar
When I see my hon. Friend rise to ask a question, I always look at him with a degree of trepidation, because he knows of which he speaks, having for many years served in the youth justice system. He is right that, as well as the judiciary being independent, and that independence being, quite rightly, jealously protected, so too are individual prosecution decisions by the CPS. His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate, exactly as he says, has the potential to make a huge impact here, because we often hear from many victims that the court stage of the process of seeking justice can be very challenging for them. The clauses will ensure that victims’ issues are comprehensively assessed, with associated action plans driving improvements so that victims receive the service they deserve.
Maria Eagle
I am having a look again at the report of the Justice Committee—the pre-legislative scrutiny of what has ended up being the first part of the Bill. The Select Committee raised the issue that the general difficulty that inspectorates have relates to having levers available to them to ensure that their recommendations, if they are even accepted, are implemented. The inspectorates all use different methodologies. I wonder whether the Government have developed any plans to ensure that the inspections that he is legislating for give levers to the inspectorates, so that we do not merely get what often happens now, which is repeated reports making the same points, with the inspectorates having no way, even if their recommendations are accepted, of ensuring that anything is done about them.
Edward Argar
The right hon. Lady makes a couple of important points. First, on the different methodologies, while I expect that we will want to see consistency in the application of principles to them, I suspect that, by the nature of what they are inspecting and the independence of each of the inspectorates, there will be some tailoring and divergence in how they operate in terms of their inspections.
On the right hon. Lady’s broader point, which I think was the thrust of her intervention, and the PLS point about how inspectorates get traction with their recommendations, we have set out in debates that we would expect the recommendations to be responded to and acted upon, but ultimately it will be for those who are accountable for running the individual services, be they Ministers, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or ultimately the Attorney General in the case of the CPS, to heed those recommendations and act on them.
I think that it is right that Ministers respond to, for example, the recommendations of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, which answers directly to the Prisons Minister, and ultimately to the Secretary of State, but it would not necessarily be appropriate if Ministers were compelled to enact every recommendation without consideration. It is right that there is a degree of agency for the Secretary of State, for which of course they are accountable to this House and to hon. Members.
I suspect that if there were sensible recommendations to be made and a Secretary of State ignored them, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood would be one of the first to challenge them on the matter in this House. I think the provision strikes an appropriate balance. Any Secretary of State or agency head who did not give careful consideration to the recommendations of an inspectorate would be—“reckless” is the wrong word, so let’s say “courageous”, in the language of Sir Humphrey.
To conclude, the clauses require the inspectorates to consult the Victims’ Commissioner when developing their inspection programmes and frameworks. That will ensure that the commissioner can advocate for what matters most to victims, with their invaluable insight considered throughout the consultation process. Centring the victim experience in this way will promote positive change across the criminal justice agencies that are inspected. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Anna McMorrin
It is clear from my previous amendments to the Bill on expanding the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner that the commissioner should be widely consulted for the majority of matters in the victims code. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the recommendation following pre-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee to place a duty on criminal justice inspectorates to consult the commissioner when developing their work programmes and frameworks to drive improvements, because it is the victims’ experiences and what they go through that matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood was absolutely right when she emphasised, as the Select Committee set out, that the inspectorates need the levers to act when these issues are pointed out. It is imperative that a formal consultative role is established as only some inspectorates routinely consult the Victims’ Commissioner. I welcome this provision, but would like to see that point emphasised.
Edward Argar
When responding to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, I should have thanked and paid tribute to the work of the Justice Committee for its pre-legislative scrutiny, which played a huge role in improving the original clauses and drafting of this part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 21 simplifies the process for victims of crime to escalate complaints about their experiences as a victim. The policies and approach introduced in the legislation will lead to improved experiences for victims, but if things do go wrong, the clause will help them raise their concerns more easily and seek redress. It does that by giving victims the ability to complain directly to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, rather than referring their complaint through an MP, where their complaint relates to their experience as a victim of crime. Victims may either make a complaint themselves or do so through a nominated representative, such as a friend or relative.
The change addresses a concern that some would call the “MP filter”, which may be a barrier for victims and deter them from escalating complaints against public bodies due to a complicated and intimidating process. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House respond swiftly and sensitively to ombudsman forms that they are sent by their constituents in cases that come before them, and that all Members seek to assist their constituents in that respect. However, we are seeking to simplify this process further. Given the nature of complaints that may arise in this context, it is possible that some victims may not feel comfortable approaching their MP to share a potentially traumatic experience. I hope they would, but I appreciate some may not.
The PHSO is an independent complaint-handling service with extensive expertise in driving improvements in public services and identifying the most appropriate route for redress. When it decides that an organisation has not acted properly, it can recommend that the organisation prevents the issue from occurring in the future, acknowledges its mistakes, issues an apology or makes a payment to the complainant, or all of the above. It may also follow up to check that action has been taken and report to Parliament where an organisation has failed to follow recommendations, and that, of course, is central to improving activity and delivery. It is therefore important that complainants feel confident and comfortable when making a complaint, to encourage them to do so when needed and, as a consequence, to prevent similar issues in the future.
Anna McMorrin
There have been calls for some years to remove the MP filter so that victims who want to complain do not have to go through their MP. I met the ombudsman in July last year, and they made it clear how essential it was for the MP filter to be removed, so I am glad the Minister has outlined this proposal and finally conceded the point.
This move has widespread approval both inside and outside Parliament, but it is long overdue. The Government introduced a draft Bill back in December 2016 to remove the MP filter. How many victims could have sought support directly from the ombudsman in the last six years had the Government followed through with that Bill? That is not to mention the fact that the MP filter was intended as a temporary measure to be phased out after five years when first introduced in 1967. Yet here we are in 2023.
I also echo the ombudsman’s further request to allow victims to make a complaint in formats other than in writing. The Government’s response to the Justice Committee was that complainants can nominate someone else, such as a family member, to submit the complaint for them. However, there is a consensus that that does not go far enough in ensuring that everyone has adequate access to this vital public body.
The ombudsman’s consultation response on the Bill outlined the issue using a case in which the complainant stated they found the system difficult to navigate because they could not read or write. There is no guarantee that this individual would be able to nominate someone close to them to handle this incredibly sensitive and very personal issue for them, so I wonder whether the Minister might consider conceding on this point. Finally, it is worth noting that the ombudsman service is not well known among victims of crime, so how will the Government increase its visibility?
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance for, I think, the first time, Mr Hosie. It is not so much that I want to make a speech; it is just that I feel compelled to say thank you to the Minister for moving on this issue.
In the 10 years I have been an MP, I have always felt quite compromised by being another level of the bureaucracy slowing down my constituents in getting through to an ombudsman-type person. That has always felt odd and inappropriate, and it gives false hope and a false understanding that MPs have some involvement in this process. It also took away another tool, but now we can act as lobbyists, as well as having the commissioner in place.
It is good to hear that the individual will have responsibility in terms of the victims code, because we keep asking about accountability and how to make sure the code is applied in an even-handed way geographically. I warmly welcome this change, which is well overdue, and I am glad the Bill is bringing it forwards.
Maria Eagle
I also approve of the fact that the MP filter is going, but it has had some advantages. They have, perhaps, paled in comparison with the disadvantages, but I have always found when assisting constituents that the filter makes it possible to ensure that the application is in a fit state. It is not always easy these days to get separate advice—a lot of the advice agencies are not operating in the way they were—and I have frequently seen constituents’ applications that could be better set out and, perhaps, that could make the points that I know about, because I know the case, more persuasively. I think there is an issue about quality in that sense.
I know that the ombudsman is set up to find out what has really gone on and treat the person making the application fairly, but it is constrained by what is written in the application and the documents that have been sent. Many people who want to complain are very involved in their case and do not necessarily put it in the strongest possible manner.
In the past, I have not referred cases to the ombudsman when it has been absolutely clear to me that they will not succeed. In part, that is because, in a way, I am in a better position to explain to my constituent why they will not succeed and to make sure that they do not have false hope. I am clear with them that I am not going to send a case forward to the ombudsman if I absolutely know that it will not succeed, because that will not do them any favours. One can imagine that more cases may come to the ombudsman that are not going to succeed.
Sarah Champion
I hear my right hon. Friend’s point about being that first filter, but does she think it is fair that we are put in that position? I understand what she says about cases going forward that might not be appropriate, but I have never felt easy about that being my role.
Maria Eagle
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Indeed, when I first came into Parliament many moons ago, that was how it worked; it was just one of those roles that one had, and so one tried to make the best of it. If there is a chance of deterring a case that has absolutely no chance of success and is not going to help the constituent concerned because it is inevitable that they will not get what they want, then perhaps having the MP there to explain it helps. There is no doubt that one can become a lightning rod for annoyance in those circumstances, and that is not a happy place to be.
I prefaced my remarks by saying that I approve of the MP filter going, but I think that there is an issue here that a greater number of cases that are less well prepared and have no chance of succeeding may go forward to the ombudsman. I wonder what the Minister is going to do, both on providing resources for the parliamentary commissioner and on providing the public with information and, perhaps, other ways of getting advice in completing applications, to ensure that the intent of this positive legislative change will not be overshadowed by some of its potential consequences.
Edward Argar
I also met Rob Behrens, the ombudsman, and I pay tribute to him and his team for their work. I am pleased by the broad consensus in the Committee. I note what the shadow Minister said; all I will say is that I am bringing this measure forward and that I am grateful for her support.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her kind words. It is always a pleasure to do political business with her, if I may put it that way. I sometimes wish that some of what happens in Committee Rooms was rather better publicised. People watch Prime Minister’s questions and think that is everything that happens, whereas in fact there is quite a lot of constructive to and fro in rooms such as this when we are seeking to improve legislation.
As ever, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood makes a very important point. When we seek to change or influence something in this place, there is rarely a simple, binary choice between an unadulterated good, without any downsides, and an unadulterated bad, without any upsides. On balance, I believe that we are taking the right approach and that the positives significantly outweigh the negatives, but she is right to highlight the challenges. Not only can a Member of Parliament sometimes help to strengthen an application before it is made, but it can be useful to an MP to see applications so that they know if there is an issue. If there are suddenly two or three about the same organisation and the same issue, that aids Member of Parliament in standing up in the House to challenge a Minister, or to hold an agency to account about what may be a more systemic problem.
That said, I do not think that the approach that we are adopting would preclude someone from seeking advice from a Member of Parliament if they so wished as they prepared their form. Some of my constituents have found the ombudsman service quite helpful, not in prejudging a case but in giving some pretty good advice when they ask, “What do I need to submit with it?” There is also some pretty good advice on the service’s website.
Ultimately, the clause should make it easier for people to complain, but I agree with the right hon. Lady that we need to provide support to ensure that they can make their best complaint, if that makes sense, to the ombudsman, in order to give them the best chance of having it looked at in the best possible light. I will take away the point that she makes, and reflect on whether we can do more as Government, and as parliamentarians, to promote awareness of the PHSO route, and how we might better support people in going through it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Duty to collaborate in exercise of victim support functions
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 12, page 10, line 5, at end insert——
“(1A) For the purposes of this section, the relevant authorities for a police area in England must together conduct a joint strategic needs assessment.
(1B) The Secretary of State must, drawing on assessments prepared under subsection (1A), provide a statement every three years on current support for victims of domestic abuse, including—
(a) volume of current provision,
(b) levels of need, and
(c) investment.”
Amendment 89 requires the relevant authority for a police area in England to conduct a join strategic needs assessment. The amendment is supported by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner Nicole Jacobs, and I thank her and her team for both the evidence that she submitted and her help with the amendment. Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 made great strides by placing a duty to plan and provide accommodation-based support for survivors of domestic abuse, including their children. However, there is no such duty for other essential community-based services, such as counselling, therapeutic support and advocacy, which are vital for survivors to find safety and recover from abuse.
In November last year, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner released the findings from her mapping of domestic abuse services across England and Wales, titled “A Patchwork of Provision”. She found that most victims and survivors wanted some form of community-based support. For example, 83% wanted counselling and therapeutic support, 74% wanted one-to-one support, such as a caseworker, and 65% wanted mental health care. There is a clear need for a range of community-based services, and a duty to collaborate would be a step forward in helping to co-ordinate the response.
However, victims and survivors are diverse, and so are their needs, which all too often are not being met. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report found a huge discrepancy in the provision of services across England and Wales, and an acute lack of funding, particularly among “by and for” services. Fewer than half of survivors were able to access the community-based support that they wanted. Only 35% said that accessing help was easy or straightforward. Over 70% of survivors who wanted support for their children were unable to access it, and only 7% of survivors who wanted their perpetrator to receive support to change their behaviour was able to get it.
Only 23% of survivors who wanted help to stay in work were able to get it, and just 27% who wanted help with money problems or debt received it. The mapping highlighted how effective and critical such services are in supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, but over a quarter of domestic abuse services were forced to cease some services altogether due to a lack of funding. Among “by and for” organisations, that rose to 45%. For children, who are recognised as victims in their own right for the first time in the Domestic Abuse Act, the Bill becomes empty legislation unless there is funding to provide services for them, or structures in place to understand their needs and provision.
The duty to collaborate will make some progress in responding to that need. However, I am unsure how a local strategy can have any material and substantial impact without a joint strategic needs assessment, which I will refer to as a JSNA from this point forwards. JSNAs draw from data to create a description of the place and population, taking into account the social, demographic and economic characteristics of the population in that area. They identify risk and protective factors to ensure effective commissioning. They provide the multi-agency partnership with important information to inform local initiatives, including data and typologies of domestic abuse, trends, volume, extent and distribution.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment, which, as she set out, would require relevant authorities for a police area to conduct a joint strategic needs assessment—I may adopt the same shorthand as she did in order to save words—as part of their obligations under the duty to collaborate to inform the strategy for commissioning victim support services. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to use the assessments to publish a statement every three years on the current support for victims of domestic abuse, using the needs assessments to assess whether provision is in line with need.
The hon. Lady is quite right to highlight the importance of service provision for such victims and survivors. It is something that she has championed, and that with passion and experience the shadow Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, has raised on every occasion in this House when she has had the opportunity since we were both elected together in 2015; I pay tribute to her for her work in this space.
It is vital that we have the relevant support services to fit the local needs of victims and that a bespoke approach is taken, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach set at a national level. That is why the funding system for victim support services operates as it does. I sometimes fear that some of the debate around duties to fund specific individual services slightly risks over-constraining individual local commissioners in their ability to meet the needs of their particular communities and to ensure that there is an appropriate blend of services, be they general services, “by and for” services or very specific services, so I sound a slight note of caution there. Of course, when it comes to overall funding—I suspect we may touch on this in subsequent debates—in the Government’s view the spending review, rather than individual legislation, is the right place to set such funding limits.
Grants and funding are supplied to PCCs to allow them to use their knowledge of local need and provision to choose what they fund. As part of the process, relevant local needs assessments that indicate the needs of victims already take place regularly as part of good commissioning practice. The grant funding is provided to commission practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all types of crime in their local areas. PCCs are expected to carry out needs assessments, which will allow them to target the funding and ascertain the level of need and demand in their area.
Sarah Champion
I am listening intently to what the Minister is saying. For clarification, I am not asking for a prescription like, “Five per cent. of support goes to people with dogs.” What I am saying is that authorities need a robust understanding of their demographics so that they are able to justify that they are supporting the needs in their areas. As the Minister has moved on to PCCs, will he comment on whether he believes that system is working? PCCs are individuals—political appointments—and I wonder whether that is leading to some of the subjective delivery we are seeing nationally, which I know he seeks to address.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes a couple of points. First, my remarks a moment ago were made in the context of the broader debate that can often happen around the funding of services. To her specific point, I fear I may detain the Committee a little while, but I suspect I will address her points within that context.
Police and crime commissioners are directly elected and therefore accountable to their communities, but there is always—I suspect that, under any Government of any political complexion, there will always be—the perennial debate of how to strike the appropriate balance: local flexibility and tailoring to meet local needs, versus the challenge of how to achieve a degree of consistency and avoid the so-called—this is a dreadful phrase— postcode lottery. That is always going to be a tension within the system. The challenge for us all, whichever side of the House we sit on, is how to strike the appropriate balance between those two approaches: the national and consistent approach, versus a degree of local tailoring, which reflects not only local need but political decision making by police and crime commissioners.
Sarah Champion
As the Minister knows, I am trying to help. Would it not help the Secretary of State and the Government if an agreed baseline of data was collected? A region may push back on it, but it gives the Government a guide to see whether an area is succeeding or failing, and whether they need to be asking questions. For example, we do the same thing with ambulance times—we have that baseline. There will be local variations that can be discussed with the Secretary of State, but the baseline gives the Minister the opportunity to make investigations.
Edward Argar
I reassure the hon. Lady that if she allows me to develop my point a little, I will address her specific JSNA point before I conclude.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we published our victims funding strategy last May. I am pleased that that was published, not least because I set it in train back in 2018 when I was last a Minister in the Department. I am pleased that it has seen sunlight. The strategy provides a framework for how agencies should work together to best resource the victim support sector. Within it, there is a clear expectation that commissioners carry out regular needs assessments, using all the data required to commission appropriate services for victims in their areas, including victims with tailored needs. The duty to collaborate in the Bill, which the hon. Lady touched on, is clear that relevant agencies must work together to ensure that services that meet local needs are commissioned and provided for.
Clause 13(3) requires relevant authorities to have regard to any assessment of the needs of victims that they have already carried out when preparing their joint strategy. We will be issuing statutory guidance to accompany that duty. That will set out clear expectations for how the duty should be carried out, as well as good practice, including around data and consistency of data. The guidance will set out that relevant authorities are expected to explain in their joint commissioning strategy how they have had regard to the relevant needs assessments, and how commissioning decisions meet those needs.
I understand the points made by the hon. Lady, both in her opening remarks and in her interventions. I share her view that support services have to be commissioned in line with, and reflect, genuine need. That is why we have created the duty. To a degree, it reflects the duty created under the Health and Care Act 2022 for integrated care boards and integrated care systems in that context. We should allow local flexibility in the services that are offered but seek to avoid duplication and gaps where multiple agencies commission the same service in some spaces and nothing is commissioned in others. It is a cornerstone of the duty that local needs must be assessed and considered. For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendment is required to clearly state that a joint needs assessment must be considered, but I have a few more remarks to reassure the hon. Lady.
Subsection (1B) of amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to provide a statement every three years on the current support available for victims of domestic abuse, including the volume of provision, levels of need and investment. The Department receives regular monitoring returns from PCCs and the support services that we commission. The returns include data that indicates how many victims are seeking support, and provide insight into demand and levels of need across England and Wales, which informs national commissioning decisions.
We are committed to improving our understanding of need and the impact of funding at a national level. To do that, we have introduced core metrics and outcomes to be collected from all victim support services that are commissioned through Government funding streams as part of the victims funding strategy. We will also establish an oversight board to monitor them.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The trouble with the data that the Minister is describing is that it will not be all the data in a local area if it just comes from a PCC, because the vast majority of community-based services for victims of domestic and sexual violence come from a local authority. Unless that data is all pulled together with a joint needs assessment, the Minister, up here in this ivory tower, will get only a tiny fraction of the reality.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister highlights one of the issues that we grappled with in the course of drafting the victims funding strategy. I pay tribute to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for her work in trying to grapple with this issue as well. I am talking about trying to get an understanding of what is provided in a given locality, not just from the money provided by central Government—we can track that and see what is commissioned—but through local authorities and, in some cases, although I suspect it is not a huge amount, elements of NHS service provision.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point. I am no longer a Health Minister, but I suspect that were I ever to be so lucky as to be reshuffled back into that role, she would gently, or perhaps less gently, lobby me on that point. Of course, there is also the provision of services that are not funded by a statutory body but are voluntarily supported and funded. That is not to say that that is a reason not to fund services statutorily; equally, in regard to understanding the provision locally, it is important to understand all aspects of that provision.
I will turn to the JSNA—
Sarah Champion
You probably will in an hour or so. [Laughter.] I do not want to push the amendment to a vote, but I would like the clarity that will prevent me from doing so. Is the Minister saying that in the statutory guidance he will require or ask for data not only from the PCCs but from the local authority, the NHS and—one hopes—community services?
Edward Argar
I suspect that I have but two or three minutes more, and I hope that in that time I will be able to address adequately the hon. Lady’s concerns. The funding strategy’s oversight board will review collected data returns to establish where there are obvious gaps in current funding, where we may be duplicating funding across Government and where we could improve collaboration at national level to improve services for victims. The duty to collaborate will further improve our—
Sarah Champion
Minister, I think you have an hour, not two minutes, so please take your time.
Edward Argar
I will not test your patience in that way on a Tuesday morning, Mr Hosie.
The duty to collaborate will further improve our understanding of both local need and the services commissioned for victims of not only domestic abuse but sexual abuse and other serious violence offences. The publication of the joint commissioning strategies will give valuable insight into the levels of service that victims are receiving in each police area across England and an assessment of how areas are making improvements against local objectives or key performance indicators. An oversight forum will then scrutinise those strategies, assess how well the duty is executed nationally, share best practice and help to devise plans for improvement.
A national statement every three years focused solely on domestic abuse would not in itself hugely build on the understanding that the Secretary of State already has through existing mechanisms or necessarily better help local areas to understand need. The strategies published under the duty to collaborate will instead provide information of the type, or a large amount of it, that the hon. Member for Rotherham is asking for—that is, on the volume of provision, levels of need, and investment—for not only domestic abuse but sexual abuse and other serious violent offences more broadly, and with the important local context that is useful for commissioners. I therefore encourage the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a Division, as the Secretary of State will in effect have access to all the information that she asks for. However, although I am—
Edward Argar
I give way to the shadow Minister, but let us hope she does not dissuade me from what I am about to say.
Jess Phillips
I do not wish to dissuade the Minister. In my local area, there is a “by and for” service that is run specifically for Afghan women, that is completely funded, usually, by the will of volunteers, and that is dealing every year with hundreds of cases of Afghan women who are victims of domestic abuse, and it does not get its funding from any of these sources. How will the Secretary of State know that that is an issue?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady did not quite succeed in dissuading me from what I was about to say, which is that although I am unable to accept the hon. Member for Rotherham’s JSNA amendment at this time, I will reflect very carefully on its import and what she said, and particularly on the words of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in the oral evidence we heard, and in the context of the points made by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Rotherham about the challenges in understanding service provision when that is not funded through a national or a public funding stream.
I cannot commit further than that, but I will commit to reflecting very carefully, between Committee stage—as this is a carry-over Bill, we will have a few months—and before it returns to the House on Report, on the points that the hon. Members and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner have made very eloquently.
Sarah Champion
I apologise for testing your kind patience, Mr Hosie. While the Minister is in a reflective mood, I hope he will also reflect on the financial and time commitments that might be placed on organisations, and try to ensure that we get the data we need with the lightest of touches. I am grateful for his movement on the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jess Phillips
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 12, page 10, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) In discharging their duty under this section, relevant authorities must collaborate with specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services within the police area, as commissioned under section [Commissioning of specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services].”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Commissioning of specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services—
“(1) It is the duty of relevant local authorities to commission specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services for victims in accordance with need.
(2) The services provided under subsection (1) must include, but are not limited to—
(a) counselling and other psychological support,
(b) advice and advocacy support in relation to welfare benefits, debt and access to financial support,
(c) support for children affected by domestic abuse,
(d) legal advice,
(e) victims helplines,
(f) support for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, trafficking or modern slavery who offend as a result of that abuse,
(g) perpetrator programmes with a priority outcome of increased safety and freedom for victims,
(h) support for victims of elder abuse,
(i) support for victims of stalking,
(j) support for families where a relative has died by suicide following domestic abuse,
(k) support for victims of modern slavery and trafficking,
(l) support for so-called ‘honour-based’ abuse victims,
(m) outreach and education initiatives aimed at raising awareness of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and
(n) ‘By and For’ services that support individuals with protected characteristics.
(3) In discharging the duty under this section, the relevant local authorities must have particular regard to the need for such services provided by, and for the benefit of those with protected characteristics.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations—
(a) define ‘specialist community based services’ in collaboration with the violence against women and girls sector, and
(b) set out how providers are to be regulated.”
Jess Phillips
I apologise for my lateness, Mr Hosie. I am suffering from a weird bout of dizziness, which I have never had before in my life.
Jess Phillips
I will attempt to stand, but should I need to sit down I will. I am fine if I just stand still.
Unsurprisingly, I will follow on from the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham regarding exactly how the very welcome duties around domestic abuse and sexual violence will work in practice. I am afraid that the Bill runs the risk of having a good title—obviously I preferred it when it just had the word “victims” in it—but not much else in this space. No one is not on the side of victims. Everyone wants them to be looked after and cared for. The problem, as is so often the case, is that the devil is in the detail. The support, care and provision of services that victims need are specialist, tailored guidance and support in the face of tragedy, abuse, exploitation, fear, anger and loss. I tabled the amendment and new clause in recognition of the specialist services that are needed if we are to truly deliver on the promised principles of the Bill.
My commitment to specialist services and my desire to get specialisms written into the law is, and will be, lifelong, because I have watched as generic services have taken over from specialist support-based services. In my constituency, I have seen a case where the perpetrator is being supported by the same service as the victim, which is both unethical and dangerous. That happens because there are all-encompassing, non-specialist victims-based services rather than specialist women’s services. I gently point out to all Government Committee members that there is a huge desire from the Government to talk about women-only spaces. I notice that it is politically expedient to talk about women’s specialisms in some aspects of our politics; if only putting women’s specialisms into the law were such a hot topic. I notice that much less debate goes on about that.
The amendment and new clause would clarify that police and crime commissioners, local authorities and health bodies must commission specialist women’s community services that will provide the support, care, prevention and guidance that victims need. Without specifying the types of services that should be commissioned to best serve victims, the duty will undoubtedly incentivise large generic contracts and not local specialist services—a real risk to which I will return.
First, though, I will make the argument for specialist provision and pay homage to the providers that deliver it. It is easy to make such an argument when we hear of the need, experiences and injuries of victims, and the sheer scale of crimes suffered. We know that such services are currently available to victims. For example, community-based domestic abuse services are life-saving and, crucially, life-building for victims of some of the worst crimes, but an estimated 70% of domestic abuse victims and survivors who seek support rely on community-based services.
In previous Bills such as the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Government have sought to have protections from on high, not from local commissioners. They decided it was more important to make sure that refuge-based accommodation services were provided in all areas. However, they did not put the specialisms in, as I will come to in a minute. Currently, 70% of people are seen by community-based services, so we are touching only a fraction. Refuge, the UK’s largest domestic abuse charity, states that 80% of its thousands of service users access some kind of community-based specialist service, but inconsistent provision across the country means that many survivors are not able to access such support. In 2022, less than 50% of those who wanted to access community-based services were able to.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
We all have female constituents who have been victims and who need community-based services. I have had constituents contacting me who are on a very, very long waiting list. Those specialist services are not there at present. Not only do we need them, but we need the funding to be in place for them.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. In my local area, we have had to shut down waiting lists, and not just because of their length: there have been cases of domestic homicide, where women have been murdered while on a waiting list for services. Those agencies that were not able to provide specialist services then feel the hand of blame coming from the state: because people were dwindling on waiting lists, the agencies get a level of blame for the murder of those women. In the worst possible circumstances, we cannot even operate waiting lists any more. They just shut them.
The care and support that victims and survivors need are specialised and wide-ranging. In new clause 19, we have laid out some of the key services that need to be provided. The mental health impacts of domestic abuse and sexual violence cannot be overestimated, so counselling and other psychological support is central. In Women’s Aid research, almost half of women in refuge reported feeling depressed or having suicidal thoughts as a direct result of the domestic abuse that they experienced. Throughout the journey of the Bill, we have heard the heartbreaking case of Katie, who took her own life following sexual abuse. Katie was a childhood friend of the journalist Charlie Webster, who wrote:
“The thing about the trauma of sexual abuse, it doesn’t just go away. What happened to Katie made her feel worthless like she wasn’t enough, and it impacted her mental health, as is common for all survivors, me including.”
We must ensure that victims can get the help they need.
The organisation Surviving Economic Abuse has done extraordinary work on raising the profile of economic abuse and the devastating, complex impact on domestic abuse victims’ lives. Some 95% of domestic abuse victim-survivors experience economic abuse, and the lack of access to economic resources post separation is the primary reason why women return to an abusive partner. It is crucial that survivors have access to specialist experts who understand economic abuse, as well as advocacy support in relation to welfare benefits and debt and access to financial support to rebuild their lives.
The impact of domestic abuse on children is a shamefully underdeveloped area of policy. Colleagues and I were successful in securing the recognition of children as victims in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, but what does that actually mean in practice? One in seven children and young people under the age of 18 will have lived with domestic violence at some point in their childhood, but the provision of children’s support services nationally is patchy, piecemeal and precarious. I am one of the nation’s leading experts in this, but if a child in my constituency came to me today and said, “I’m not a direct victim of domestic abuse, but my mum is being beaten up by my dad every day,” I would not know where to send them. I would not know where to refer that child.
Sarah Champion
Will the Minister give way? Sorry, I mean the shadow Minister.
Sarah Champion
I wonder whether my hon. Friend heard the “Woman’s Hour” piece last week. Olivia Colman is a trustee of a theatre group that goes into primary schools specifically to raise issues that are uncomfortable, but also to try to give some support to those hidden children who will be seeing domestic abuse and to try to prevent perpetrators in future.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. That organisation is called Tender; I am also a patron, along with Olivia Colman. Again, that support is only provided through having good headteachers or good local commissioners. There is nothing from this building or nationally that says there must be specialists going into every school, because if in every single school there is a class of 30 kids, and one in seven—my gosh, I am so dizzy that my maths will not work it out, but we will have a huge number of children in every class who suffer this in silence. They need specialist support available to them. We are failing to reach and save children in dire domestic abuse circumstances.
Edward Argar
It is good to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, in her seat. I hope she is feeling a bit better, although I am pleased that neither her eloquence nor her passion for the subject has been impaired. I am grateful for her amendments to place a duty on relevant local authorities to create specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services for victims, in accordance with need. Her new clause 19 would also require the Secretary of State to define in regulations “specialist community based services”, after agreeing that definition in collaboration with the violence against women and girls sector, and to set out in regulations how providers are to be regulated.
Supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence is an absolute priority for the Government. As I said in responding to an earlier group of amendments, I recognise the hon. Lady’s expertise and commitment to the issue. I hope that one thing we can both agree on is the importance of getting the right support for victims of these crimes. She is absolutely right: there is a place for broadly based general support services for victims of crime, but equally I have seen at first hand, both in my current incarnation in this role and previously, the importance of specialist services, particularly “by and for” services and trauma-informed services, if we are to succeed in reaching out to and being able to help victims and survivors of those horrendous crimes and give them the confidence to engage and be supported.
Amendment 80 calls for collaboration with the providers of community-based specialist services for female victims of domestic abuse and sexual abuse. The duty to collaborate set out in clauses 12 and 13 is specifically and purposely placed on the commissioners of services only—that is, police and crime commissioners, local authorities and integrated care boards in England—as it is a duty to collaborate when commissioning services. To expand collaboration beyond commissioners would risk changing the objectives of that duty, which are to encourage more strategic and joined-up commissioning of services, rather than to dictate or fix which types of services the commissioners, who understand the needs of their area best, should focus on and should aim to commission.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s ambition to ensure that specialist women’s support services are properly considered as part of that commissioning process. As needs will vary locally, the Department provides police and crime commissioners with grant funding to commission practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types in their local areas. PCCs are expected to carry out needs assessments to inform their local commissioning decisions, as I mentioned in discussing a previous amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rotherham.
Sarah Champion
This point builds on my previous amendment. Budgets are tight and PCCs are trying to get the most support from their limited budgets. Can the Minister point to anything in the Bill that will make sure that the specialist services get a look-in? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley touched on generic services, which we were seeing a lot. Brexit was meant to eliminate having to go to the lowest bidder, the European regulations and that sort of stuff. My fear is that unless there is something the Minister can point to in the Bill that embeds that need for both demographic and specialist support services, the PCCs will go for the cheapest, most common provider.
Edward Argar
I slightly differ from the hon. Lady’s perspective; I do not believe that it is necessary to have that provision in the Bill. There are other mechanisms, be they through statutory guidance or through commissioning guidance and the work that is done together. We have touched on this point before, but the challenge is the extent to which we think mandating—and thereby, to a degree, being prescriptive—is appropriate, versus being permissive, for example by setting out guidance and expectations, but saying that it is for a directly elected and accountable police and crime commissioner to make decisions and be accountable to their electorate and their public for what they are doing and whether they are making the right decisions.
Jess Phillips
I understand entirely—I am a firm democrat and I will fight for democracy—but I am afraid the idea that very marginalised groups of people with very little resource could launch a campaign to spark public interest in, say, Lincolnshire to get the 19% of people who voted in the PCC election to change the balance is for the birds. I say that as someone who has tried to do it. I am not entirely sure that PCCs can truly be accountable to their electorates on the issue. If we are seeing gaps, surely it is Parliament’s responsibility to deal with them.
Edward Argar
I was going to make the point that, sitting alongside local accountability and local tailoring, we also have—as the hon. Lady will know, and for want of a better term—a national approach. The context is slightly different, but we have the rape and sexual abuse support fund, for example, which is nationally commissioned. With RASAF, we seek to fill gaps in provision and ensure there is a geographical spread.
I will turn to individual services in a moment, but in any locality a PCC might say, in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham, “I have limited resources, so I will put them where the greatest number of victims are in my area.” However, a small number of victims might not be covered by that, because they are a small number in that locality. That is why we have the national approach sitting alongside to ensure that there is national provision in a number of areas.
Jess Phillips
On the idea that there is anywhere in our country where victims of domestic abuse are small in number, let me say that the national average is 19% of all victims of crime, and domestic abuse represents the highest volume of any crime in our country where calls go to the police. I do not expect the Minister to have the data to hand, but I would like to see a PCC’s office that is spending 19% of its budget on this.
Edward Argar
I will see whether I can get that data. On the hon. Lady’s point about the figure of 19%, she is right to highlight the horrifying prevalence of that crime, which often goes unnoticed because of the nature of reporting and the nature of the crime. Moreover, there are particular groups within the figure and within the cohort of victims, for example minorities. A PCC might take the view that in a locality a particular group might need specific trauma-informed services, which, given their choice of resource allocation, might not have been catered for. That is why we seek at national level to try to address such issues with direct funding grants and with agreements that we reach, for example through the RASAF.
Our role as Government is to set the expected standards for the approach to commissioning of victim support services. At a macro level, we have done that through the victims funding strategy, which clearly sets out the expectation for commissioners to put victims at the centre of commissioning. We wholeheartedly agree that commissioners should consider a range of different services, including specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support, and that they should choose to commission services that best fit the needs of their population.
Let me turn to the specifics of the amendment. I am in agreement on the importance of commissioners drawing on the expertise of providers of victim support services when preparing and revising their joint strategies. That is why clause 13(2) specifically requires relevant authorities to consult with persons who represent the interests of victims, providers and other expert organisations. We would expect them to consult with providers of specialist services for female victims of domestic abuse and sexual abuse, as well as “by and for” services in the children’s sector, to name but a few more. However, we do not consider it proportionate to list in legislation organisations with which commissioners must consult, which would risk resulting in a hierarchy of services or unintentionally omitting organisations providing valuable and important services.
In addition, we intend the accompanying statutory guidance to set out that local commissioners should consider engaging with a range of providers that reflect the types of service required in their area, such as women-only services, when considering their statutory duty to consult persons appearing to them to provide relevant victim support services and other appropriate persons. Guidance will also support commissioners by recommending standards and processes for that consultation. We are engaging with both providers and local commissioners as we develop that guidance so that we can reflect best practice, and I would be very happy to work with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley to explore how guidance may further support commissioners in fulfilling their obligations to reflect the views of providers, and those who support victims, in their joint-commissioning strategies.
I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are fully aware that domestic abuse and sexual violence disproportionately impact women and girls. Beyond the Bill, in February 2023 we published a revised strategic policing requirement, which includes violence against women and girls as a national threat for policing to respond to. In 2021, the Government published a new and ambitious cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy to help to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere. That includes a new full-time national policing lead on violence against women and girls, DCC Maggie Blyth, who I have had the privilege of meeting; I know that the shadow Minister meets her regularly as well. She is now in post and is doing an excellent job in the role.
We have awarded £125 million through the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund to make our streets safer for women and girls. We have contributed up to £3.3 million to fund the roll-out of Domestic Abuse Matters training to police forces. That includes funding the development of a new module to improve charge rates. The Government are also taking targeted action against sexual violence, including through the 24/7 rape and sexual abuse support line, which offers free, confidential emotional support for victims and survivors.
I therefore encourage the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—I do not know whether she is persuadable—not to press her amendment to a Division. The duty to collaborate focuses only on commissioning bodies, as they are best placed to meet the objectives of our duty. In the Government’s view, the Bill already includes provision for engagement with providers, such as providers of specialist women’s services for domestic abuse and sexual violence, underpinned by the statutory guidance that will be produced.
New clause 19 would place a duty on relevant local authorities to commission specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services for victims in accordance with need. It would also require the Secretary of State to define in regulations “specialist community based services”, after agreeing that definition in collaboration with the violence against women and girls sector, and to set out in regulations how providers will be regulated.
We do not fully share the hon. Lady’s view about the extent to which local authorities should be required to fund particular types of community-based services; again, that goes to the point underpinning my earlier remarks about it being a local decision for which local authorities would be accountable. In our view, it is for local commissioners to determine what services to fund, noting the additional national strand of direct funding alongside that. That determination will be based on their assessments of the needs of their local populations, knowledge of available services and their understanding of those services and their provision. Our concern is that the approach set out in the new clause risks excluding or minimising the importance of some of the other service types that commissioners could consider for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. As drafted, the new clause could risk creating a hierarchy.
On overall funding, we believe that the right approach to setting funding levels continues to be through the spending review process, rather than individual pieces of legislation. That allows Government and individual Departments to outline priorities and respond to changing circumstances; allows the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a range of funding requests and pressures, recognising the finite amount of taxpayer money available to any Government; and allows those priorities to be considered in the round.
I hasten to add that I am not in any way questioning the importance of these vital services. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of them, both as Under-Secretary of State and in my present role. I have seen at first hand the amazing work that they do. They often go above and beyond the resources that they have available, in their own time and with their own resources, so passionate are those who work in this part of the sector to assist to the best of their ability those who need their help. That is one of the reasons that we have included ringfenced funding in our grants to PCCs for community-based services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
In allocating money to PCCs, there is always a balance to be struck. Many PCCs, I know, would prefer a greater proportion of their funding to be unringfenced and to be used entirely at their discretion within those broad parameters. We think that we have struck the appropriate balance, with them having a degree of discretion, but with some ringfenced funding to address particular needs.
Sarah Champion
I am listening intently to what the Minister is saying. He says that he is concerned that the list of services put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has the potential to create a hierarchy of services, but he has only detailed IDVAs and ISVAs further on in the Bill. How does the Minister hold both those thoughts?
Edward Argar
I suspect that when we reach that clause, we will debate that exact point. However, to pre-empt what I will say about that clause—I shall say this briefly before you call me to order, Mr Hosie—the reason is that ISVAs and IDVAs have a particular, evolving and developed professionalism that gives them a particular locus within the criminal justice system. It is quite right that we cannot issue guidance to judges, because they are the independent judiciary, but through this approach to ISVAs and IDVAs we can seek to give the judiciary greater confidence in the professionalism of those roles. We thereby hope to see the judiciary being more willing to utilise them in the court process. That is my rationale, but we may debate that point when we come to the relevant clause.
New clause 19 also highlights the importance of legal advice for victims. The Government asked the Law Commission, as part of its work on the use of evidence in sexual offence prosecutions, carefully to review the law, guidance and practice relating to the trial process in prosecutions of sexual offences, an issue in which I know the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley takes a close interest. That will include consideration of whether independent legal advice and representation would be beneficial where personal records are sought, or more widely for the trial process.
On setting out how providers are to be regulated, we do not want to take a prescriptive approach in legislation. Local commissioners regularly review the services they commission to ensure high standards of victim services and will set relevant and tailored quality standards in their agreements with local providers. I suspect that a degree of the debate here is around where the line lies between prescription and a permissive approach.
As I have said in response to similar amendments, we have allocated a substantial amount of funding for domestic abuse and sexual violence victims and survivors, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to victims of these crimes. We are making it clear to commissioners and funders that they should consider the value and role of specialist-based support services when assessing local need to inform the distribution of funding, but ultimately local commissioners are best placed to determine how those services should be provided locally. On that basis, I gently encourage the shadow Minister not to press her amendment to a Division.
Jess Phillips
I will respond to some of what the Minister has said. His charming hope that all commissioners are absolute experts in this is not one that I share. I have been a commissioner on a local authority, and I think Birmingham remains probably the only part of the country to commission sexual violence services as part of its sexual health commissioning, and sexual and domestic abuse services as part of its substance misuse commissioning. The reason is that I was the commissioner and I am an expert in this.
In our evidence session, the woman from Rape Crisis said that she could not think of any specialist Rape Crisis services being commissioned by mental health services in our country. There is this idea that commissioners all have a total understanding of specialist domestic and sexual violence services. I have a plan for someone who works in the service to become a commissioner in every service, to ensure that that happens, but given the failure of my ability to influence Bury St Edmunds Council to have someone from women’s aid services elected to it, I will struggle. I do not think we can argue that commissioners know best. I have watched them know very little about anything to do with this topic. They are not specialists. They need to be told what specialisms they have to provide.
On hierarchy, I totally agree about the paradox that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham pointed out. I want there to be a hierarchy. That is what I am saying: I am asking for a hierarchy, where specialist services are placed at the top and generic support services are just that.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, because I genuinely believe that we can get to an agreement on this issue prior to Report. I totally believe in the Minister’s will to do that. I say gently, though, that evidence from the Domestic Abuse Act shows that if we do not write these provisions into legislation, local authorities will just take refuge accommodation in-house and it will become completely non-specialist—it has been staffed by men, for example. We did not get this written into the Domestic Abuse Act, but I would really like the words “women” and “women’s specialist services” to exist somewhere in the Bill. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote today, I stand ready to make this argument again later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) offences against children.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for child victims.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) fraud.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of fraud.
Amendment 82, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) modern slavery.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of modern slavery.
Anna McMorrin
I will start with amendment 9. As it stands, the duty to collaborate in the Bill is limited to victim support services for domestic abuse, conduct of a sexual nature and serious violence. All of that is welcome, but it is such a restrictive remit that it excludes vulnerable victims who would benefit from joined-up services. Extending the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for child victims would ensure that children’s needs are guaranteed to be front and centre of any collaboration that takes place.
In her evidence session, when asked whether children should be included in the duty to collaborate, the response of the Children’s Commissioner for England and Wales was, “Absolutely.” I am happy to see that the duty to collaborate is in the Bill, but there needs to be more accountability around it. If we are going to put children as victims into the Bill, we have to recognise that they experience crime and victimhood very differently. What we need to put around them, to make sure that they are supported and can process things to see justice delivered, is different. Including children in the duty to collaborate would allow a national network, operating through regional and local levels, to enable every child to have the same experience and the best support. At present, as the Children’s Commissioner outlined,
“it is just not there.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 24, Q51.]
According to Victim Support, children and young people are disproportionately more likely to be victims of crime, particularly the most serious crime. They often experience those crimes in their homes, schools and communities, and the crimes are sometimes carried out by people who should keep them safe. The Howard League for Penal Reform surveyed over 3,000 children in schools over a period of seven years; of those, 95% of children aged 10 to 15 reported being a victim of crime. Including them in the duty to collaborate is imperative to ensuring that the relevant agencies are prioritising children’s unique needs. That is what amendment 9 seeks to do.
Amendment 19 would include victims of fraud in the duty to collaborate. I put on the record my thanks to Catch22 and the shadow Attorney General’s team for working with me on the amendment. Concerns have been raised around there being a need to collaborate only with a subsection of crime types. That dilutes and undermines the importance of other crime types. Fraud is the UK’s most prevalent crime type.
Janet Daby
According to UK Finance, over £1.2 billion was stolen through fraud in 2022. Does my hon. Friend agree that victims of fraud must be mentioned in the Bill?
Anna McMorrin
Absolutely, and that just goes to emphasise the importance of the amendment. The cost to the mental health and wellbeing of victims of fraud is significant. In the year ending December 2022, 3.7 million offences were reported to the crime survey for England and Wales—a huge number, equating to 41% of the total offences experienced in that period. I am sure that the Minister has not had a chance to look yet, but our amendment has received coverage in The Times today, which reports that fewer than one in 3,000 fraud offences committed last year resulted in a prison sentence.
Far too often, The Government have treated fraud as a second-tier type of crime, and if Government Committee members reject that characterisation, I need only quote their own Ministers’ words back to them. In February last year, when he was the Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) told the BBC that fraud was not the sort of crime that people experience in their daily life. Shortly afterwards, the Government’s counter-fraud Minister, Lord Agnew, resigned that post in protest at the
“combination of arrogance, indolence and ignorance”
that he had observed in the Government’s response to fraud. The Treasury, he said,
“appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20-21.]
Bear in mind that that was when the current Prime Minister was in charge at the Treasury.
Is it any surprise, then, that a year after a previous Prime Minister and Home Secretary were chastised by the Office for National Statistics for leaving out fraud when they talked about the overall rates of crime in our country, the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary repeatedly did exactly the same in the House? Minister after Minister has tried to play down or simply ignore the most frequently experienced crime in our country, and I fear that by not having it in the Bill the Government are seeking to do the same. All of us whose constituents have fallen prey to scammers know that it is anything but a victimless crime. I am sure that every Committee member is dealing with constituents who have become victims to fraud. We are talking about thousands upon thousands of lives being ruined in our communities—retired people losing all their savings, and mums and dads losing the money that they had set aside for when their children went to university, or to help them to put a deposit on a house.
According to the Government’s fraud strategy, published in May, 300 people who contacted Action Fraud last year to report their losses were considered by the call handlers to be at risk of suicide. Just last week, we heard that two elderly pensioners lost £27,000 because criminals posing as police officers had persuaded them to withdraw large sums of cash. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham pointed out, last year alone over £1.2 billion was stolen through fraud. It is the most commonly experienced crime in the country, ruining the lives of millions, yet the Government did not see fit to include victims of it in the duty to collaborate. I am sure that the Minister will agree that they would benefit from a multi-agency approach. I am keen to hear his response before deciding whether to push the amendment to a vote.
Sarah Champion
The amendment is supported by the Centre for Social Justice, which identified that the duty to collaborate must cover support services for victims of modern slavery. Local authorities, the police and the NHS are all key agencies that come into contact with victims of modern slavery, and have a role to play in supporting them, alongside specialist programmes such as the national referral mechanism. That can range from immediate emergency support and protection to providing longer-term social care support or housing. There is a particular gap for victims before and after their contact with the NRM, and the lack of support often means that they have to choose between being destitute and going back to their exploiter.
Local authorities are the primary agency providing care and support for children, and only some children receive the additional support of independent child trafficking guardians. However, there is often confusion among local authorities about their responsibilities for supporting modern slavery victims. There is also often a lack of co-ordination with specialist support providers under the Home Office modern slavery victim care contract. Victims are passed from pillar to post, unable to access the support they need.
Police often find modern slavery victims out of hours, when access to other services is limited. Clear, joined-up strategies for supporting victims of modern slavery would help prevent those victims being placed in unsuitable and unsafe accommodation after being identified by the police—that is, of course, if the police identify them as a victim of modern slavery. A lack of clear and joined-up referral pathways can mean that victims of criminal exploitation, especially young people exploited in county lines drug dealing, find themselves arrested, rather than safeguarded and therefore given support.
The gaps in support provision particularly impact British victims of modern slavery. In 2022, the highest number of British “possible victims” were identified since the NRM began. One in five NRM referrals in 2022 was for a British child. It is essential that we get the support for that group of victims right. Research suggests that many British victims in particular are not accessing specialist support available under the NRM, either because they are not identified as victims of modern slavery as they or the professionals have misunderstood their entitlement to support, or because they choose not to be referred. That leaves them without access to specialist support, and their particular needs may not be recognised by mainstream providers.
The definition of victims in clause 12 lacks clarity in respect of modern slavery victims. Some modern slavery victims are victims of other offences listed in clause 12(4), such as sexual offences or serious violence. However, modern slavery can also result from threats, deception, and financial control and coercion, which may not meet the threshold of serious violence. The particular needs and experiences of modern slavery victims need to be considered in strategies, assessments and the exercise of support functions. That is best accomplished by listing those victims in the duty to collaborate.
Explicitly including modern slavery victims in the duty to collaborate would address local authorities’ confusion and lack of awareness of their responsibilities to support victims of modern slavery. It would strengthen the implementation of the modern slavery statutory guidance. It would lead to stronger local co-ordination by the police, the NHS and councils when it comes to identifying support needs, providing support and monitoring the recovery of modern slavery victims. It would also help ensure that British victims who do not enter the NRM receive appropriate support that recognises and responds to their needs and experience of exploitation.
We cannot let more vulnerable people slip through the gaps in local service provision. A joined-up approach to tackling modern slavery is needed, and I truly believe that amendment 82 will facilitate that.
Maria Eagle
I rise to support all the amendments, but I will briefly say something about amendment 19. We have all come across extremely distressing cases of fraud in our constituency. In 2012—10 years ago—2,629 people were jailed for fraud, but last year the figure was 1,177. However, the number of offences rose from 441,000 in 2012 to 3.7 million last year.
There has been an absolute explosion in that type of offence, and there are consequently many more victims, who often lose their life savings and their future security. Almost nothing is done for them. They are simply left to feel as though they have been duped and are stupid, and nobody seeks to help them. Normally, they do not even get any kind of response from Action Fraud, which is like a black hole; once a report is made to Action Fraud, the person who made it never hears from Action Fraud again. It is hard enough for a Member of Parliament to get a letter out of Action Fraud about a particular case.
Given the explosion in the number of fraud cases, it is surely important for the Government to take this issue seriously, and to recognise that the people involved are victims, who need support, just as any other victims do. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will give an assurance that much more will be done to recognise that victims of fraud need the support that this Bill seeks to give to victims.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cardiff North, and for Rotherham, for their amendments, which seek to expand the duty to collaborate so that under that duty, support services must be provided to victims of fraud, victims of modern slavery and child victims.
The duty to collaborate will require local commissioning bodies such as police and crime commissioners, local authorities and integrated care boards in England to work together when commissioning support services for the victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes. We have focused on the victims of those crimes because they are particularly traumatic crimes with a high number of victims each year. They are also crimes where there will be a particular benefit from collaboration, as victims of them typically access a range of services across health, local authorities and policing. However, we are committed to providing support for all victims. Beyond the Bill, the Government are committed to supporting victims of all crime types; support is available through PCC-funded services, and there is other specific support for victims of terrorism.
If I may, I will take the amendments slightly out of order. I turn first to amendment 19, which seeks to include victims of fraud under the duty to collaborate on victim support services. Clearly, this Government take extremely seriously the challenge posed by fraud and its impact on victims. As I have said, the Government have been very clear about our determination to support all victims of crime, and we are taking steps to improve local collaboration on support for victims of fraud. This includes supporting the multi-agency approach to fraud—or MAAF, if I may abbreviate—which brings together relevant local agencies to improve the quality of support available to fraud victims. MAAF hubs should be rolled out across all England and Wales by September.
The duty to collaborate focuses on crime types for which support services are commissioned by a combination of police and crime commissioners, local authorities and health bodies. The measure seeks to bring together those who commission those services, so that commissioning is co-ordinated and strategic, with better join-up and smoother referrals for victims. It is important that the duty be focused on crime types for which services are commissioned by a specific combination of PCCs, local authorities and integrated care boards, so that collaboration can have the maximum and intended impact.
Support for fraud victims is typically delivered through PCC-commissioned local services and the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit. Because of this, many victims of fraud would be less likely to benefit from collaboration between PCCs, local authorities and ICBs. However, the duty does not prevent local commissioners from collaborating on other crime types, including fraud.
More broadly, the Government have allocated £400 million over three years to tackle economic crime, including fraud, and to help fund the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit, which supports fraud victims. We are also providing over £30 million to City of London police to support the upgrade in the Action Fraud service; the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood touched on that service. A number of improvements have already been made to the system to improve the victim reporting experience and the quality and timeliness with which cases are sent to police forces for action.
Opposition Members have highlighted the scale and impact of fraud. That is why the Government take fraud so seriously and have done so much in this space. The Government published “Fraud Strategy: stopping scams and protecting the public” in May, as the hon. Member for Cardiff North said. This strategy sets out how Government, law enforcement, regulators, industry and charities will work together to cut fraud incidents by 10% by the end of this Parliament, and includes measures to improve the support available to victims of fraud. As we roll out those initiatives, we will continue to consider how victims of fraud can be better supported.
Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that specific support services for child victims are provided. I agree that it is vital that child victims be able to access the specialist support that they need in order to cope and recover from the impacts of crime. The Bill aims to improve the support offered to children and young people. Child victims are covered by the definition of victim in part 1 of the Bill, and by the current code. The duty to collaborate requires local authorities, police and crime commissioners and integrated care boards in England to collaborate when commissioning victim support services for both adults and children who are victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent offences.
To emphasise the inclusion of children in the duty, following pre-legislative scrutiny, we amended the definition of victim to clarify that child victims who witness and/or experience the effects of domestic abuse are victims, and amended clause 1 to emphasise that commissioners must have regard to any assessment of the needs of child victims when preparing their joint commissioning strategy.
The duty focuses on crimes that are particularly traumatic, have a high number of victims each year, and for which services are commissioned by a combination of police and crime commissioners, local authorities and health bodies. Those services will benefit from collaboration to reduce duplicative commissioning and improve strategic co-ordination of support. Including all offences against children brings a vast range of services into scope, not all of which require a collaborative approach; that would risk diluting the focus of the duty.
Finally, I turn to amendment 82, which would seek to include support services for victims of modern slavery in the duty to collaborate. The Government are committed to supporting all victims of crime, including those who are subjected to modern slavery. Clause 12, which the hon. Member for Rotherham is seeking to amend, already requires local commissioning bodies such as police and crime commissioners, local authorities and integrated care boards in England to work together when commissioning support services for domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes.
Local commissioners can already consider victims of modern slavery under the duty to collaborate, where those crimes apply, and we envisage that it is likely that for the most part, modern slavery victims will have suffered conduct that constitutes domestic abuse, sexual abuse or other serious violent crimes—particularly because “serious violence” includes threats of violence—and therefore will already be captured by the duty to collaborate.
We intend to clarify in accompanying guidance that modern slavery victims can, and are likely to be, captured by the duty. The duty does not list crime types that commissioners must consider in relation to serious violence, and instead allows local areas to make that decision based on the impact on the victim and the maximum sentence that a crime could receive. Commissioners can therefore already consider modern slavery, where that comes under the definition in the clause, under the duty to collaborate.
Sarah Champion
I hear what the Minister is saying. I also heard the word “should” rather than “must”. Will the Minister clarify that in the guidance, there will be an explanation of how modern slavery presents? A lot of modern slavery—I am thinking particularly about prostituted women—involves coercion and intimidation. Those people will probably not present themselves as victims in the usual sense; they will probably argue about that. There needs to be a bit more understanding, rather than us just saying “modern slavery”.
Edward Argar
I will try to answer quickly, before we get cut off by the end of the sitting. I take the hon. Lady’s point. Recently I attended a Select Committee sitting in which we looked at so-called honour-based violence and abuse. One of the key points that came out of that was that a multiplicity of offences constituted so-called honour-based abuse, and the same is true of modern slavery. It is important that we reflect those multiple indicators in the guidance.
The definition of serious violence in the duty mirrors the approach taken to the serious violence duty derived from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022; that provision does not list specific offences, but instead defines serious violence based on the impact on the victim, and the maximum penalty for the crime committed. A more prescriptive approach of specifying types of serious violent crime would risk excluding offences that commissioners may want to consider, and would not allow for the necessary flexibility.
More widely, the Government are committed to supporting victims of modern slavery and ensuring that they get the support that they need. For example, children’s services work in close co-operation with the police and other statutory agencies to offer potentially trafficked children the protection and support that they require as part of the local needs assessment. “Working together to safeguard children 2018” sets out the system of multi-agency safeguarding arrangements established by the Children and Social Work Act 2017.
The Government have rolled out independent child trafficking guardians to two thirds of local authorities in England and Wales. Those roles are delivered by Barnardo’s until March 2024. They provide additional advocacy and support to child victims of modern slavery. Adult victims of modern slavery in England and Wales can access support through the national referral mechanism, under the Government-funded modern slavery victim care contract.
Every year, we support thousands of adult victims, so that they can begin rebuilding their life, engage with the criminal justice system and transition back into the community following their traumatic experiences. The current contract is delivered by the Salvation Army. I would be more than happy to work with hon. Members going forward, as we monitor the success of these initiatives in helping victims of modern slavery.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill 2022-23 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 July 2023 - (4 Jul 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have the usual preliminaries before we begin. Remember to switch your electronic devices to silent. The Speaker does not permit food or drinks, other than the water provided, to be consumed during the sitting. If Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or pass them on when they have finished speaking, that would be extremely helpful.
You may have spotted at the top of today’s amendment paper that there is a supplementary programme motion in the name of Mr Wood, the Government Whip. I understand that he does not intend to move it at this point in the proceedings, but that he may move it at the end of the sitting. Is that correct?
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Yes, Chair, either this morning or at the start of the afternoon—whichever is appropriate.
The Chair
Okay, we will take it later. That is fine.
Clause 216 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 217
Prohibition of unfair commercial practices
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 217, page 146, line 5, leave out second “trader” and insert “person”.
This amendment ensures that the definition of “commercial practice” for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill includes an act or omission by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of a consumer’s product to another consumer.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 218 to 222 stand part.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.
Clause 217 sets out the unfair commercial practices that are prohibited. Those include misleading actions, misleading omissions, aggressive practices, contravention of the requirements of professional diligence, the omission of material information from an invitation to purchase, and the practices listed in schedule 18.
The clause also defines important terms for the purpose of this chapter, including “commercial practice”, “consumer” and “trader”. Commercial practice is defined as any act or omission by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of any trader’s product to a consumer or of a consumer’s product to another person. As such, a business providing a platform on which products are promoted or supplied may fall within the scope of this chapter.
Government amendment 71 is a technical amendment to clause 217. It ensures that the Bill reflects acts or omissions by traders that are currently covered by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, or the CPRs for short. It ensures that traders that enable private individuals to sell products to each other are within the scope of this chapter, reflecting the scope of current law.
Clause 218 defines and prohibits commercial practices that are misleading actions and restates the equivalent provisions from the CPRs. It protects consumers from traders who deceive through the provision of false and misleading information.
Clause 219 defines and prohibits commercial practices that are misleading omissions. It requires traders to provide consumers with the information they need in an up front, clear and timely manner to make an informed transactional decision.
Clause 220 defines and prohibits commercial practices that are aggressive and restates the equivalent provisions from the CPRs.
Clause 221 defines and prohibits commercial practices that contravene the requirements of professional diligence and restates the equivalent provisions from the CPRs. It requires that traders do not engage in practices that fall below the standard of skill and care they may be reasonably expected to have provided.
Clause 222 lists what information must be provided to consumers when a commercial practice is an invitation to purchase. The information is deemed material.
I hope hon. Members will support Government amendment 71, and I propose that clauses 217 to 222 stand part of the Bill.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Is it not the shadow Minister first?
The Chair
I thought you were indicating. This is what happens when you are drafted in at the last moment, isn’t it? I will eventually wake up; do not worry.
Neil Coyle
Thank you, Mr McCabe. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.
In speaking to the amendments, may I thank the organisations that have contributed? There is a whole range of them, but I would particularly like to thank the British Toy and Hobby Association and Electrical Safety First, not least because they are based in the best constituency in the country: Bermondsey and Old Southwark. The other organisations include Which? and trading standards bodies. There is a range of amendments in my name covering a range of issues. They have at their core the need to protect British consumers, British businesses and British standards. I want to air a lot of issues. I hope I will not need to force votes and I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
Amendment 118 would make a person marketing goods online a trader for the purposes of the Act. Amendment 119 would make it an unfair commercial practice to sell goods online unless the specified safety requirements have been complied with. Amendment 123 should be self—
The Chair
Order. Mr Coyle, we seem to have got out of sync. You are currently speaking to your amendments, but we have not quite got to them,
Neil Coyle
Are we not there yet, Mr McCabe? It looks like it is me who needs to wake up.
The Chair
It has been an early start for all of us. Why not just pause there and we can return to you later?
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe.
Before we turn to the group led by amendment 118, I will make some brief remarks on clause 217 stand part and speak to Government amendment 71. Clause 217 sets out a general prohibition on unfair commercial practices. As the Minister has outlined, it defines commercial practice as
“any act or omission by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of—
the trader’s product to a consumer
another trader’s product to a consumer, or,
a consumer’s product to the trader or another trader”.
Subsection (4) introduces provisions outlining what constitutes an unfair commercial practice, which may include a misleading action, a misleading omission or an aggressive practice, and those are dealt with in the following clauses. In addition, the subsection states that a commercial practice is unfair if it is listed in schedule 18, which we will debate in detail shortly.
We welcome the clause as a necessary provision in prohibiting unfair commercial practice, and I reiterate that we look forward to working with the Minister, including in today’s debate. If there are ways in which we can improve the Bill, we are very happy to work collaboratively so that it is as robust as possible. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark in the light of our discussions with stakeholders will play an important part in those deliberations.
Amendment 71 ensures that the definition of commercial practice for the purposes of chapter 1 of part 4 of the Bill includes an act or omission by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of a consumer’s product to another consumer. We welcome this amendment, which importantly ensures that the actions of rogue traders still fall under the definition of commercial practice and supports the integrity of the regime.
Clause 218 introduces provisions defining commercial practices that are misleading actions. We welcome the clause, which provides a necessary definition of a misleading action, and support its inclusion in the Bill.
Clause 219 introduces a definition of commercial practices that count as misleading omissions. Under the clause, a misleading omission would constitute the omission of material information and information that the trader is required by another enactment to provide. As with clause 218, it is a common-sense, straightforward clause and we support it.
Clause 220 sets out how an aggressive practice could constitute harassment, coercion or undue influence. That can involve behaviour before a contract or purchase is made, but it can also occur after a transaction has taken place. We support the definition’s inclusion in the Bill, but I ask for clarification. I draw the Minister’s attention to subsection (3)(a), where the Bill states that
“‘coercion’ includes the use or threat of physical force”.
Does the Minister intend that coercion includes many other threats, be they financial or personal blackmail, to suggest just a couple? Is there a wider definition or guidance on interpretation that would be helpful in providing clarification for the consumer as well as for those making a decision under the clause? I would welcome clarity from the Minister on that.
Clause 221 defines commercial practices that contravene the requirements of professional diligence. That includes practices that fall short of the standard of skill and care that a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers and that is commensurate in the trader’s field with honest market practice or the general principle of good faith. That is important for rooting out rogue traders who may not be qualified for their profession, whether they are builders, electricians or other experts. We welcome the definition.
Clause 222 sets out where a commercial practice would be considered to have omitted material information. Subsection (2) lists what would constitute an omission, including the main characteristics of a product, the business address and the delivery price, among other things. Although we support the list of omissions and welcome its inclusion in the Bill, elements of the clause could go further to provide more protection to consumers, as reflected in amendment 127, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, and amendment 126, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, which we will come to.
Kevin Hollinrake
I think there is just one key point that the hon. Lady asked me to address, which is about other types of coercion. Looking at the definition with regard to practices, clause 220 talks about “coercion or undue influence”. Under subsection (3),
“‘undue influence’ means exploiting a position of power in relation to consumers so as to apply pressure in any way”.
I think that covers the definition, as she requested.
Amendment 71 agreed to.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 217, page 146, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) a person marketing P’s goods for sale online.”
This amendment makes a person marketing goods online a trader, for the purposes of this Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 119, in clause 217, page 146, line 22, after “222),” insert—
“(ba) a product is sold online, and the operator of the online marketplace has not taken reasonable steps, as defined by regulations made under section 234 of this Act, to ensure that the goods offered for sale in the online marketplace comply with—
(i) the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 1803) (‘the 2005 Regulations’), and
(ii) such other safety requirements as the Secretary of State may specify.”
This amendment makes it an unfair commercial practice to sell goods online unless the specified safety requirements have been complied with.
Amendment 123, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Marketing online products that are either—
(a) counterfeit; or
(b) dangerous.”
Amendment 120, in clause 218, page 147, line 9, at end insert—
“(e) an operator of an online marketplace failing to take reasonable steps, as defined by regulations made under section 234 of this Act, to ensure that no goods offered for sale in the marketplace have been the subject of a notification to an enforcement authority under regulation 9 of the 2005 Regulations.”
This amendment makes it a misleading action to sell goods online without taking reasonable steps to ensure that those goods have not been subject to a recall.
Amendment 124, in clause 223, page 150, line 27, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a commercial practice has been found to be unfair under paragraph 32 of Schedule 18 of this Act, the authorities under this section have the power to require the removal of the relevant online marketing from the internet.”
Amendment 121, in clause 234, page 158, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must by regulations define ‘reasonable steps’ for the purposes of sections 217 and 218 of this Act.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to define “reasonable steps” for the purposes of clauses 217 and 218 of this Act.
Amendment 122, in clause 241, page 160, line 14, at end insert—
“‘online marketplace’ means a service using software, including a website, part of a website or an application, operated by or on behalf of a trader, which allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with other traders or consumers;
‘safety requirement’ includes—
(a) any relevant enactment governing the safety of products or of a specific type of products,
(b) any voluntary national standard of the United Kingdom, and
(c) any standard adopted by an international standardising body.”
This amendment defines the terms “Online Marketplace”, and “Safety Requirements”.
Neil Coyle
It will surprise no one that I wish to speak to these amendments; I am sorry for being rusty. Having been on Bill Committees previously and managed to get amendments through, or at least poached by the Government, I feel embarrassed to have slipped up on this one.
I went through the amendments previously, so I hope Members can copy and paste from previous debates. Amendment 123 is self-explanatory. Amendment 120 would make it a misleading action to sell goods online without taking reasonable steps to ensure that the goods have not been subject to a recall. Amendment 124 would create the takedown power—the power to remove dangerous or counterfeit goods from online sales. Amendment 121 defines reasonable steps. Amendment 122 defines an online marketplace and safety requirements, in line with the bodies who have contributed who are still concerned about where things are at in the Bill.
I think the Government’s original aim was to publish a draft Bill; this Bill took some organisations by surprise, and I think a lot are playing catch-up, hoping that issues will be aired here and that Ministers will be meeting with them soon, ahead of the Lords stages. They hope to see a bit more progress on some measures in the Bill. Most accept the need for this legislation, but very few seem convinced that the Bill does the complete job.
Mr McCabe, you were not in the Chair for our evidence sessions, where we had all the “wild west” references. The Minister suggested a Clint Eastwood in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” character to help take action. For those not familiar with the genre, that is the third film of Sergio Leone’s trilogy, and Clint played an antihero. He takes Tuco in to claim the reward, and then shoots him down from the noose, in order to claim further, higher rewards down the line—so that is an intriguing analogy from the Minister.
The first film in the trilogy was “A Fistful of Dollars”. I am here with “For a Few Dollars More”—the second in the trilogy—to offer a better system, with some improvements to what the Government have put forward, to try to do a better job. For those who are familiar with “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, there are only two kinds of people in this world—those who have seen the film, and those who have not.
The main amendment that I wish to speak to is amendment 124, and the takedown power to require the removal from online trade of counterfeit or dangerous products. This would deliver, in part, what the Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, said on Second Reading of the Online Sale of Goods (Safety) Bill, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), when pressed about taking items offline. He said that,
“we should go further than that and require marketplaces to ensure that such products are not on their sites at all, ever, and that they check to ensure that they do not appear and, indeed, remove retailers who have transgressed.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 715.]
This group of amendments, and particularly amendment 124, help deliver what the Minister said he would like to achieve, and what I hope the Bill will achieve by the point it completes its progress through both Houses.
Fundamentally, it comes back to what customers believe. My constituents, and customers, believe whether they are shopping at Argos on the Old Kent Road or on Amazon online that the goods they are buying will meet the required UK standards. That is simply not what is happening.
Some 90% of toy sales online are through Amazon, eBay and AliExpress. I have referred to Amazon previously, and I do not want to pick on Amazon, but it is one of the big three. It has done some work to try to address the concerns of organisations and trade bodies, but it is simply not enough. In its US annual report a couple of years ago, Amazon acknowledged that it was, in its own words,
“unable to prevent sellers in our stores or through other stores from selling unlawful, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods”.
I use Amazon to represent online marketplaces more generally, because of the familiarity of customers. They believe it is a reputable organisation and trust that it meets standards, but that is not the case.
Of course, Amazon also has an ongoing battle with the GMB on recognition, which it should have resolved some time ago. Ministers should have been supportive on that issue: they say they want a high-skills, high-wage economy, and that is what trade unions set about to deliver, and that is certainly what the GMB is seeking, in partnership with the Amazon workforce.
Frankly, it is a bit shocking that some of these amendments are necessary, but they are. The British Toy and Hobby Association survey “Don’t Toy with Children’s Safety” highlights some significant concerns. The toy industry is worth £3.2 billion to the UK economy—it is a massive sector. The survey showed that, in 2021, 60% of the toys tested were unsafe for a child to play with, and 86% of the toys freely available online were illegal to sell in the UK. That is appalling for lots of reasons, including because some of it is counterfeit.
We touched on this point in previous debates. British companies trade legitimately in goods that they are licensed to provide and make. They hold a trademark. It is insulting for them to have others trading on profitable sites such as Amazon and others with contempt for UK law, in a way that would be tackled if it was happening in a physical shop or even down a market. The truth is that Del Boy’s products would meet higher standards than some of those sold online. Platforms have been accommodating counterfeit, hooky, shoddy and dangerous goods for far too long.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
I can confirm that the letter went out yesterday morning.
Neil Coyle
Maybe it is still in the internal post. I thank the Minister for the letter; it would be nice to know what it says. The point is that the Bill does not make clear how customers will secure redress. It presents a convoluted route of multiple agencies and potential court action that people simply will not want to take.
My amendment does not go as far as some have suggested. It is a moderate suggestion. There have been suggestions that there is full and shared liability for platforms for any product sold and that some of the measures should be retrospectively implemented so that there should be penalties on those who have sold goods that they know to be counterfeit or dangerous going back for years. I hope that amendment 121 in particular, but also other amendments in this group, are useful to the Government in delivering their aims and defending customers and businesses.
The wording of amendment 124 is crucial; I hope that the Minister will come back to this when he responds to the debate. It would “require the removal”. It is not a request to remove a product; it is a requirement to remove a product. It could be put in the hands of all the bodies in clause 143, with penalties and timely action to prevent a fatality if this is not done quickly enough. The use of the word “require” is deliberate, because the power to request is in other legislation. For example, the police can request the removal of video footage from YouTube that is incitement to violence or hatred, is homophobic or is incitement to violence between gangs. One meeting I had with the Met revealed that more than 300 requests to take down videos had been ignored by YouTube. They included calling for revenge and the murder of specific individuals in revenge attacks between gangs in London. The police should have a stronger power than that, but as with this legislation, the power to request that something is removed is insufficient; it must be the power to compel the removal, similar to—for those familiar with local authority powers—a cease and desist order by a planning body. That would be a comparable power if the Government are keen to have something stronger than that offered in the current legislation.
I hope that amendment 124 helps British businesses, jobs, standards and customers and helps the Government —that is why I am here today. Ministers claim that they want to make the UK the “safest” place in the world to be online, and here are the means to deliver that laudable aim.
Seema Malhotra
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tour de force in going through his amendments and the reasons for tabling them. We can all agree that as a package, the amendments move us further forward in ensuring that there is adequate regulation of products sold in online marketplaces. My hon. Friend also made reference to the work of Electrical Safety First and its research. Having met the organisation, spoken at its event in Parliament and seen the important work it does through the all-party parliamentary group on online and home electrical safety, I think I can say that we all recognise that we must ensure the steps taken in the Bill will be adequate to deal with the challenges we know consumers face and which can put families, lives and businesses at risk.
My hon. Friend spoke to his amendments. Amendment 118 makes someone marketing goods online a trader. Amendment 119 makes it an unfair commercial practice to sell goods online unless the specified safety requirements have been complied with. Amendment 124 provides for a takedown power, about which the Minister has made some positive comments. We believe very strongly that that is needed, and I hope that he will give a commitment today about how we can take it forward, and whether the Government will accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, which we support, or introduce their own during the course of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
I appreciate the continued spaghetti western analogies. In my case, “Pale Rider” might be a more apt example, as obviously my demographics mean that I am pale, stale and male, but we are keen to ensure that we have a proper shoot-out with the people the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark describes. I am totally onside with the vast majority of what he says. He knows we need to make sure we take the right kind of action in this area, and his amendments would add provisions related to product safety to regulate the sale of dangerous and counterfeit goods in online marketplaces. Existing UK product law is clear: all products must be safe, including those sold online. However, we recognise the challenge the growth of online marketplaces has created for how we deliver product safety in a global economy. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman: these are not just UK-based problems: this is a global problem. As he knows, marketplaces operate around the globe and other jurisdictions are also seeking to tackle the issue.
I hosted a roundtable with major online marketplaces in April and was clear that, in addition to their current duties, they must do much more to keep unsafe products off their sites, including removing third-party sellers who supply unsafe goods. That point was mentioned on Second Reading of the Online Sale of Goods (Safety) Bill, as the hon. Gentleman referenced just now. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, which I visited in Teddington, is following up with a programme of test purchases. There I saw at first hand some of the potential products sold online, such as toy magnets that do not comply with UK product standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) has done fantastic campaigning in that area on button batteries. There is much we need to do. This is not just a consumer safety problem: it is about creating a fair and level playing field for UK retailers. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Argos and Amazon, but I would add our local high-street electrical stores, which have also been disadvantaged by online marketplaces being able to operate in the way they do.
Neil Coyle
I do not remember any western in which a sheriff held a roundtable. In terms of the outcome, what is the pace at which counterfeit or dangerous goods will be removed? That is the concern for consumers. Even if I buy something, discover that it is shoddy and report it through the process in the Bill, there is still a significant gap in time before something is taken off. The takedown power is crucial to prevent further hundreds, thousands or millions of that product being sold or marketed to people when it is known to be dangerous or faulty and could put lives at risk.
Kevin Hollinrake
I entirely agree. We do not think the marketplaces are going far enough. It is a key phrase that the likes of Amazon, Wish and so on just see themselves as marketplaces rather than distributors. Our point is that they are distributors. The key thing is making sure that is properly defined in law. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out some of the percentages. That is the work done by the OPSS, defining that between 60% and 80% of the products it sampled were unsafe. That is clearly and completely wrong.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is coming to it, but the takedown power is the crucial bit to do that and it is what the OPSS, which he refers to, says it wants.
Kevin Hollinrake
Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman allows me to go through my speech, I might be able to give some answers to his points. We are on exactly the same page on this and we have to get this right. He talks about getting the analysis right and raised a different analogy of where he considers we may have got that wrong in the past. It is important we get this right. From our perspective, the product safety route is the right way to do this. The whole product safety framework will be reformed, including online sales, and that holistic review of product safety, taking existing obligations into account—we believe there are distributor obligations—is the most appropriate vehicle for meeting concerns about unsafe goods sold online.
Neil Coyle
The shadow Minister also asked when the product safety review will take place.
Kevin Hollinrake
Very shortly. I just answered the shadow Minister; there is no prolonging this issue from my perspective. We are keen to get on with this but want to make sure the review is in the right place and the right shape when it happens. We want it to happen very soon.
The forthcoming consultation will include proposals to ensure that shopping online is as safe as on the high street and that there is a fairer playing field for law-abiding businesses. We anticipate publishing these proposals soon and look forward to continuing engagement with our stakeholders to inform and shape our proposals.
Amendment 124 would give powers to the Competition and Markets Authority and trading standards to require the removal of marketing material for counterfeit and dangerous products online. We believe, however, that extensive enforcement powers are already available. For example, when a trader markets misleading or faulty goods online, enforcers including the CMA and trading standards can apply to the court for an enforcement order to stop and prohibit the marketing and sale of the offending goods under part 3 of the Bill. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will let me get to the point where I think he wants me to get to, that will be the point made in the letter.
Part 3 of the Bill gives the CMA the power to impose an online interface order against the infringer or a third party. That type of order or notice may require the removal or alteration of online content on a website that gives access to or promotes the offending goods. The hon. Gentleman’s point was about similar powers for other enforcement bodies such as trading standards. As I said to him, however, in a letter that I think he received yesterday, that is something I am keen to explore, and will do so over the summer. I will give him a final chance to intervene, if he wants, and then I will conclude.
Neil Coyle
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his reassurance that this will be looked at over the summer. As things stand, the Government are saying—the Minister has just said—that a product could cause a fire and potentially a fatality, but still the process would be to report it through a particular agency and possibly take court action, rather than what the regulators want to do and customers want to see, which is the take-down of the item to prevent any further dangerous incident or potential fatalities. I hope that the Minister gets to a point where that immediate power will be available.
Kevin Hollinrake
I totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is why I will look at it over the summer. It is not provided for in the Bill, but he makes a good point and I am keen to explore the options. We will come back to the House at some point to report what we will do in this space. I therefore very much hope that he will withdraw his amendments.
Neil Coyle
With that reassurance of looking at this further over the summer and to improve on where things stand, I will take the Minister at his word. The idea that we can support everything in a product safety review that will start we know not when feels a bit like missing the bus—or missing the stagecoach, to stick with the analogy. The powers need to be in the Bill to ensure that when the product safety review is done, the vehicle is already available to enable dangerous or counterfeit goods to be removed, but given his reassurance, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 217, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18
Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Making claims about—
(a) the environmental benefits, or
(b) the sustainability (as defined by section 234(1C)) of a product or service which are not based on evidence which can be verified by a court.”
This amendment seeks to ban the practice of “greenwashing”. It would include the making of unsubstantiated claims about the sustainability of products and services an unfair commercial practice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 69, in clause 234, page 157, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on a definition of sustainability for the purposes of paragraph 32 of Schedule 18.
(1B) A consultation under subsection (1A) must—
(a) set out which products and services can be labelled sustainable; and
(b) require the definition to comply with international standards.
(1C) Following a consultation under subsection (1A) the Secretary of State must by regulations amend this Chapter to add a definition of sustainable.”
This amendment seeks to ban the practice of “greenwashing”. It requires the Government to define which products and services can be labelled “sustainable” and requires that this definition complies with international standards.
Richard Thomson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. With your indulgence, if it is appropriate, I will also speak to amendment 69 and am happy to speak to amendments 115 and 116.
Richard Thomson
Thank you for your guidance, Mr McCabe.
I have not yet spoken in Committee, and the reason for that is simple. As I said on Second Reading, from a Scottish National party perspective, we think that the Bill is generally speaking a good Bill. Our concern is primarily with the bits that we feel are missing, so the amendments that I will speak to this morning and afternoon are with a view to fill in some of the potholes that we see in the road for the Bill.
Amendments 68 and 69 would tackle the phenomenon of greenwashing. By that, I mean the practice by which companies use advertising and/or public messaging to appear more eco-friendly, whether in the generality or with regard to specific products, than is actually the case. The amendments would compel the Secretary of State to consult on a definition of sustainability for these purposes that is in line with international standards and then to amend the relevant chapter to add that definition to the Bill, and to add greenwashing to the schedule 18 list of practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair.
Seema Malhotra
I will speak just briefly to schedule 18 and then to amendments 68 and 69. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon for his amendments and his explanation of them.
Schedule 18 introduces—
The Chair
Order. The general debate comes at the end. We need to stick with the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
That is fine. I have one line, but it can come later.
Amendment 68 would ban the practice of greenwashing. Making unsubstantiated claims about the sustainability of products and services would be an unfair commercial practice. Amendment 69 is consequential on amendment 68 and would require the Government to define which products and services can be labelled “sustainable”, and requires that the definition complies with international standards.
I support the principle of the amendments tabled and the arguments made. They are along the lines of the discussion that we had in Committee last week when I spoke to the issues around greenwashing, our standards and support for evidence. I asked the Minister what overall strategy he has to ensure that green claims are accurate and evidenced, and I asked that we have a strategy for the prevention of false claims as well as a mechanism for enforcement against them. As has been argued, that issue is on the increase, particularly for younger people.
Research has shown that those under 35 across the world make decisions about products, services and even their employment on how much they trust the information that they see in relation to sustainability and climate responsibility. If we do not tackle that issue, we will see a further increase in people misleadingly marketing products because they know that those issues drive consumer purchases. They have great influence on consumer purchases and decisions.
The Minister might refer to the green claims code introduced by the CMA. Important work has been done, but in the absence of any real leadership or strategy from the Government I want to ask the Minister whether they intend to put the green claims code, or its successor, on a statutory footing. Making sure that we have a robust legislative underpinning and strategy for such issues is increasingly important, because many stakeholders see a gap.
Greenwashing was also mentioned by consumer groups in the Committee’s evidence sessions. I would press the Minister on whether the Government have plans to introduce amendments on the issue, and to strengthen voluntary or other codes relating to green claims and expectations. In an increasingly green economy, consumers are at risk of falling victim to misleading green advertising, and legislation needs to catch up.
Kevin Hollinrake
Amendments 68 and 69 would add the practice of greenwashing to the list of banned practices in schedule 18, and would introduce a requirement for the Government to consult on the matter. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon for his amendments, and I absolutely agree that consumers should not be misled. I admire his commitment to recycling, which is admirable. I wondered whether I should touch on that, given the difficulties that the SNP has got into with its deposit return scheme, but—
Richard Thomson
I thank the Minister for that sideswipe, but it would be a great deal easier for the Scottish Government to comply with an English-designed scheme if that scheme was actually in existence for us to emulate. Absent our deposit return scheme, we are stuck with the recycling schemes that we have, and I wonder whether the Minister will get to the point.
Kevin Hollinrake
I was just referring to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will briefly say that our perspective is that a nationwide scheme would be best for business.
Misleading consumers about the environmental qualities or impact of goods and services in a way that causes, or would likely cause, consumers to take a different decision is already against the law. Furthermore, under clause 187, when the CMA gives a provisional notice to a person in respect of an infringement of the unfair trading provisions, the CMA can require the respondent to provide evidence to substantiate the claims that they make to consumers. That meets the shadow Minister’s requirement. It is against the law to mislead, and as she says, the CMA’s draft guidance on sustainability agreements between businesses, which aim to ensure that environmental goals are achieved, will give greater clarity on these issues. Those interventions are already significant. The Government’s priority is to ensure that interventions support our environmental goals; we would then observe their impact before taking further steps. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw amendment 68 on that basis.
Richard Thomson
I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but this is an issue of fundamental importance, and if I withdrew the amendment, it would be an opportunity missed. Of course, we could go through any number of proposed amendments to the Bill and say that there is already legislation in place that in some way tackles that issue. Of course it is true that there are measures on this issue, but there is still a proliferation of claims out there that have not been tackled by existing legislation. I know the Minister is a keen advocate for ensuring that markets work as effectively as they can, and for allowing markets to reach conclusions. The amendment is simply a tool that would allow Ministers to act in the interests of consumers. It would be a missed opportunity not to push it to a vote, and not to include it in the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 115, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 At any stage of a purchase process, presenting a price for a product which omits obligatory charges or fees (or an estimate thereof) which are payable by the majority of consumers, which are not revealed to the consumer until later in the purchase process.”
This amendment adds the practice of “drip-pricing”, a pricing technique in which traders advertise only part of a product’s price and reveal other obligatory charges later as the customer goes through the buying process, to the list of unfair commercial practices.
Amendment 115 would add the practice of drip pricing to the list of unfair commercial practices. Drip pricing is a pricing technique whereby traders advertise only part of a product’s price and reveal other obligatory charges later as the customer goes through the buying process. For example, an airline may advertise a flight abroad at a certain cost that does not include an obligatory seat charge. That is added only later in the purchasing process, by which point the consumer has already prepared to purchase the product and is less likely to stop the purchase. The argument that this practice should be included in the Bill was well documented during the Committee’s evidence sessions. The consumer group Which? stated:
“We think that drip pricing is another practice that is very harmful. There is a lot of evidence that that is the case, and it should be included on the face of the Bill.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 13, Q16.]
That sentiment was reflected in Committee by Citizens Advice, the National Consumers Federation and Consumer Scotland, all of which argued that schedule 18 could be improved by adding the practice of drip pricing. Which? provided evidence of consumer detriment in its written submission, which states:
“We know that in many online markets people overpay for products and services because only part of an item’s price is initially shown and the total amount to be paid is revealed only at the end of the buying process. For example, multiple hotel booking firms were shown to have failed to have displayed compulsory charges such as taxes, booking or resort fees in the headline price. However, while the use of these practices is common, the CMA has found its enforcement against drip pricing has been inhibited by the absence of an explicit ban.”
In its 2021 paper, “Reforming Competition and Consumer Policy”, the CMA notes:
“Drip pricing causes real detriment to consumers...Advertising of Prices market study concluded that of a series of different price framing practices, drip pricing was clearly the most harmful frame for consumers in terms of purchasing and search errors, and that raised levels of consumer learning did not fully mitigate issues with the practice. Lengthy transaction processes associated with drip pricing can ensure consumers gain a greater sense of ownership of a product and are less likely consider other offers once additional costs are revealed.”
It is clear that the introduction of drip pricing to the list of unfair commercial practices would be supported by consumer groups and the CMA, so I urge the Minister to consider supporting the amendment. I look forward to his response.
Kevin Hollinrake
I share the hon. Member’s concerns. That is why we commissioned research earlier this year, which we will publish shortly. It will detail how widespread and harmful the practice is. The Prime Minister has already said that we will gather evidence on what steps the Government should take to tackle drip pricing, so I think we are aligned in our commitment to tackling the issue.
One of the key challenges, which I do not think the hon. Lady addressed, is distinguishing drip pricing that is harmful or anti-competitive from practices that may offer greater value to the consumer—for example, a company offering optional extras such as faster postage or insurance. We will consult during the passage of the Bill on which elements of drip pricing might need tackling, and on whether further action is required. We believe it is important to conduct that exercise first, so that we have a proper, evidence-driven policy. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. There are issues to consider in relation to the amendment, but I think the broad thrust of the argument for taking action is clear. The Minister says that the findings of the research will be published shortly; I am assuming that “shortly” is not in more than a year’s time. We need to clarify that with the Government. If shortly means shortly, however, then I would be grateful for confirmation that, on the basis of the research, the Minister intends to address drip pricing; that may determine the wording in the Bill. Can the Minister confirm that there is an intention to address the issue during the passage of the Bill, perhaps through a Government amendment? The Opposition are very willing to work with the Government on that.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am keen to make a commitment to work with the hon. Member on the issue, and to ensure that a measure is brought forward as quickly as possible. I cannot give a precise date, but it will be very shortly.
Seema Malhotra
On the basis that shortly means shortly, I am willing to withdraw the amendment. Will the Minister clarify that he expects the research to come forward before Report, so that we have time to look at it? That would be a good point at which to bring forward an amendment on the issue.
Kevin Hollinrake
I cannot say when Report will be, and I do not have the timetable for that, or for the consultation on the work that we may need to do on the issue. I cannot make that precise commitment, but we are very committed to delivering on drip pricing. As the hon. Member knows, the Prime Minister spoke on it, so I cannot imagine that there will be any undue delay.
Seema Malhotra
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 116, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Commissioning, incentivising or authorising the writing or submission of false consumer reviews or endorsements, in order to promote products.
33 Offering or advertising to submit, commission or facilitate false consumer reviews or endorsements.
34 Displaying consumer reviews of products on an online interface—
(a) without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure that such reviews are submitted by consumers who have used or purchased the products in question;
(b) where any consumers who provided reviews were incentivised to describe certain products in a particular way, without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure this is not the case; or
(c) in a way that deceives or manipulates consumers, or where a practice has been undertaken in relation to reviews that otherwise materially distorts or impairs the ability of consumers to make free and informed decisions, without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure this is not the case.”
This amendment adds the practice of commissioning fake reviews, offering services to write fake reviews, and displaying consumer reviews without taking reasonable steps to verify their accuracy, to the list of unfair commercial practices.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 125, in schedule 18, page 343, line 2, at end insert—
“32 Stating or otherwise creating the impression that reviews of a product are submitted by consumers who have actually used or purchased the product without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to check that they originate from such consumers.
33 Submitting or commissioning another legal or natural person to submit false consumer reviews or endorsements, or misrepresenting consumer reviews or social endorsements, in order to promote products.”
This amendment would add fake reviews to the list of banned practices.
Seema Malhotra
I am pleased to speak to amendment 116, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and me. I will also touch on amendment 125, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. They are similar provisions, and he will want to make his own arguments for amendment 125.
Amendment 116 adds the practice of commissioning fake reviews, offering to provide the service of writing fake reviews, and displaying consumer reviews without taking reasonable steps to verify their accuracy to the list of unfair commercial practices. Amendment 125 would similarly add fake reviews to the list of banned practices. We support both the amendments, but I will speak to amendment 116 in more detail, as it provides a more comprehensive legislative basis for banning fake reviews, and was recommended by the consumer group Which?.
When the Bill was published, the Government announced with much fanfare that they would introduce provisions banning the unfair commercial practice of fake reviews. However, nowhere in the Bill is there any measure that bans fake reviews. The supposed banning of fake reviews can be found in clause 234, which gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of banned practices. Unless the Minister corrects me, all we have is a promise from the Government that at some point in the future—beyond 2025—fake reviews might be banned. As Which? said during the Committee’s evidence sessions,
“We do not think that we should wait. Clearly, fake reviews are harmful, so the buying, selling and hosting of fake reviews should be included in schedule 18.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 13, Q16.]
It was not just consumer groups that expressed that sentiment; the British Retail Consortium also stated:
“We are concerned about fake reviews. We support the banning of them. We wish that what the Government propose for them was on the face of the Bill.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 49, Q78.]
I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of why the Government have left a ban out of primary legislation. One view is that the Government intended to include a ban, but ran out of time. Well, we have time to catch up during the passage of the Bill. Retail and consumer groups consider this measure very much noticeable by its absence, and it is important and significant that we address it during the passage of the Bill.
I have no doubt that the Minister will stress the need for further work and consultation on the issue. If so, perhaps he could also reflect on the considerable evidence of consumer detriment caused by fake reviews. Which? research from 2020 found that consumers are far more than twice as likely to buy poor-quality products that have been boosted by fake reviews. That affects the Minister’s constituents, mine, and those of every Member of this Committee.
As the CMA has noted, the average UK household spends £900 a year as a result of being influenced by online reviews. That demonstrates how significant the financial damage of fake reviews can be. In the Department for Business and Trade’s research from April this year, 11% to 15% of reviews in the category that it assessed were fake. That is the Government’s own research. The evidence is clear: action on fake reviews is needed now to protect consumers from their negative consequences. I would go so far as to say that the Opposition are doing the Government a favour by introducing these amendments. We have done the Government’s work for them.
I urge the Minister to support the amendments. Perhaps he will want to bring forward his own, as the Government are known to take good ideas when they see them, many of which they take from the Opposition. We understand that there has been significant dysfunction in Government, which may have got in the way of their doing the work that the country needs them to do. I therefore urge the Minister to support the amendments. He may also want to bring forward his own amendments at a future stage of the Bill or in the other place. I jest, with good reason, but we are not precious; we just want the right thing to be done. I hope that in his response, the Minister will confirm what action the Government will take during the passage of the Bill.
Richard Thomson
I very much support amendment 116, to the extent that I withdrew my attempt at an amendment that would have countered fake reviews. It is clear that fake reviews are a matter of real concern, not just for reputable companies, but for consumers, who like to rely on customer feedback before making some of their most important financial choices. Schedule 18 defines and sets out unfair practices, and it is only right that fake reviews be added to them. We again come back to the fundamental principle that if a market is to work effectively and efficiently, people need access to timely and accurate information. That goal of having accurate information in the marketplace is subverted considerably when fake information and misinformation are allowed to abound.
Neil Coyle
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston and the hon. Member for Gordon have already made some excellent points, so I will be brief.
Amendment 125 would add fake reviews to the list of banned practices. No customer should be hoodwinked by the deceitful practice of submitting a fake review. Fundamentally, many customers see fake reviews as fraud, which is the fastest-growing crime. Our police services are overstretched and sadly, under this Government, they do not have the resources to tackle fraud. The amendment examines alternative routes to securing action to tackle a problem that is leading to dangerous circumstances, as has been outlined.
Amendment 125 would provide a stronger power than the one proposed, and it has been called for by organisations representing British customers and responsible British businesses. It would be better for good business, better for customers and better for ensuring that standards were upheld. The charity Electrical Safety First, which is based in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, has said that in one of its investigations 93% of products bought from online marketplaces were unsafe—93%! In some significant part, that is down to fake reviews imposing a false legitimacy on goods. People buy because they believe other people have bought and have had an enjoyable experience or got the product they sought.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has already provided examples of the need to protect consumers, and I draw the attention of the Committee these live examples, which are happening right now. “A portable heater” was on eBay and people were saying it was fine, but it had
“easy access to live parts with 240 volts running through the heating element, posing”
what ESF called
“an imminent risk to life.”
Another example is a
“‘water-proof’ extension lead… on Amazon.”
Guess what? There are
“no water-proof capabilities”
and this
“presents a significant risk of electric shock. This item has already been recalled as unsafe by the Office for Product Safety and Standards”.
A combination of the takedown power and the removal of fake reviews that claimed that these products were okay and good to use would be a significant step forward—one that, sadly, is not in the Bill.
One last example is the bargain beauty products—not something I buy often for myself—on eBay that had no fuse in the plugs. That is how dangerous they were. Those goods, known to be dangerous, are still online. Removing fake reviews might help to prevent people from buying such shoddy items, but removing the goods altogether should be the fundamental aim. I politely suggest that the Minister adds ESF and specific consumer groups such as Which? to his round of pending meetings, to ensure that the Bill is improved—and to tackle the problem that he previously acknowledged existed. He likened himself earlier to “Pale Rider”. He may think he is “Pale Rider”, but I am not convinced that he has turned up on a horse, or even on a pony. Given that there is no baron here, it is more as though he is on a rocking horse.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am not sure that I can take that analogy any further. I think we are all in agreement. They say that the art of originality is to remember what you have heard but forget where you heard it. The Opposition say that we are stealing their good ideas, but obviously we committed some time ago to taking action in this area. I am not averse to taking some of the good ideas that we hear from the Opposition from time to time, but we also have to ensure that we reject the many bad ideas we hear from them in debates.
The Government agree that legislation to tackle fake reviews should be strengthened. We anticipate doing so by adding to the list of banned practices. However, it is important to get the details of those proposals right. That includes defining what we mean by fake reviews and how “reasonable and proportionate” steps will be understood. Similarly, we want those rules to encompass the manipulation of reviews that may harm consumers, which also needs detailed work with stakeholders to define. For example, the issue is not just about people trying to boost reviews, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston stated; it is also to do with people removing negative reviews inappropriately, which might affect ratings on review sites. The Government will therefore be consulting on fake reviews during the passage of the Bill to ensure that these rules work as intended and are clear for businesses. We will be doing that shortly, in the autumn.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark talked about ESF and Which?. I have spoken to both organisations and met them regularly. In fact, one of my first jobs in my ministerial role was to speak at an Electrical Safety First conference. On that note, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.
Seema Malhotra
I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response; it does not sound as if there is anything other than long grass here. Significant groundwork has been done, both within Government and with stakeholders. Having another consultation in the autumn is like long grass: it is designed to spin things out until we reach 2025 and then there is something to add to the schedule. Unless the Minister wants to tell me that there is an intention to do more during the course of the Bill, we will be pushing this to a vote.
Seema Malhotra
Schedule 18 introduces a list of commercial practices that will automatically be considered unfair in all circumstances and will be prohibited. The list is long and comprehensive, and the Opposition welcome every practice listed, including a seller’s claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when they are not, falsely claiming that a product is able to prevent disease, providing inaccurate information about the availability of a product, and threatening a consumer if they do not buy a product.
However, we are concerned that there are significant omissions, which we addressed during our debates on the amendments. We will be happy to consider alternative wording, but we will continue to pursue additions that we believe would strengthen the Bill and its implementation. Nevertheless, we support the inclusion of this important schedule in the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
As has been said, the schedule protects consumers from the most prevalent and harmful commercial practices engaged in by deceitful traders. It largely replicates schedule 1 to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and provides a list of 31 commercial practices that are banned in all circumstances due to their inherently unfair nature. Among those practices are operating pyramid promotional schemes, displaying trust marks without obtaining the necessary authorisation, and stating that a product can be legally sold when it cannot.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 18 accordingly agreed to.
Clauses 218 to 221 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 222, page 149, line 21, at end insert—
“(j) for goods and services offered on online marketplaces, whether the third party offering the products is a trader or not, on the basis of the declaration of that third party to the provider of the online marketplace.”
This amendment would add whether or not a third party seller on an online marketplace is a trader or a consumer to the list of omissions of material information in an invitation to purchase.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 126, in clause 222, page 150, line 11, leave out “and its price”.
This amendment expands the definition of an invitation to purchase to cases where the information provided to the consumer covers the characteristics of the product but not its price.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to speak to amendment 127, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, and to make some remarks about amendment 126, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
Amendment 127 would add whether a third-party seller on an online marketplace is a trader or a consumer to the list of omissions of material information in an invitation to purchase. We have already raised concerns about the safety of products sold in online marketplaces, specifically through third-party sellers, and these concerns are accentuated by the inexplicable delay—it has been over a year since its publication was first promised, as we have discussed—of the product safety review into precisely this issue. In the meantime, the amendment would provide an extra safeguard for the consumer by making it mandatory for them to be informed about the status of a seller when they purchase a product online. That is particularly important in an increasingly digital economy, in which almost every individual or business can sell but consumers are unaware that they have different rights and forms of redress, depending on the status of the seller.
Consumer rights groups regularly conduct studies of products sold by third-party sellers on online marketplaces to test whether they comply with UK safety requirements. For example, in February this year, Which? sent 10 plug-in mini-heaters bought from online marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay to be tested at its product safety lab. All of them failed and were illegal to sell in the UK. That is especially dangerous for consumers in the light of the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis, which is resulting in people being pushed to buy cheaper, less reliable products.
Although only comprehensive Government action on this front will lead to the issue being properly tackled, the amendment would go part of the way towards providing the consumer with more power in online marketplaces, by informing them of the status of a seller and that their rights of redress when purchasing some products will vary from the rights they have when buying from the high street. It is a common-sense amendment that will help inform consumers in our digital economy and subsequently reduce the risks they face when buying from online marketplaces, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Amendment 126 would expand the definition of an “invitation to purchase” to cases where the information provided to the consumer covers the characteristics of a product but not its price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark will speak to the amendment, which raises important questions for the Government. Removing the price from the definition of an “invitation to purchase” would ensure that many rogue traders, and the services they offer, were in scope of the definition.
As the Chartered Trading Standards Institute has pointed out, many rogue traders who target vulnerable consumers do not give a price when offering to do work. This means that it would automatically not be considered an “invitation to purchase”, and the regulations in clause 222 would not apply. By removing the reference to “price” in the definition of an “invitation to purchase”, the amendment would ensure that more rogue traders fall under the definition and can be caught by the legislation. The Minister may have his own views on the amendment. This is a really important issue, so I would welcome his response on the effectiveness of the amendment in addressing the issue and on the impact it could have.
Neil Coyle
I have a few brief supplementary comments, further to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. I just want to point out an anomaly and the problematic nature of the wording of the Bill, which I hope the Government will re-examine before they go further.
Amendment 126 would expand the definition of “invitation to purchase” to cases in which the information provided to a consumer covers the characteristics of a product, but not its price. That might sound counterintuitive, as it did to me when I first went through this with organisations, but it would expand the goods and services covered by the legislation. That is important, because the use of “price” in the wording of the Bill could prohibit action against a rogue trader. The existing wording might stop the Government meeting the aims that they are setting out to achieve.
The suggestion is that the specific requirement that the price be covered, if that is not the price paid, will potentially prevent action from being taken against a trader who deliberately advertises a price, but then changes it. An example might be where someone arranges for a person to come and fix a car part, a boiler or a pipe leak, and that person then arrives and says, “The product you’ve looked at online is not compatible with your boiler,”—or their fittings, their car or whatever it might be—“but guess what: I’ve got a different one in the van that’s a bit cheaper,” or a bit more expensive, “but will do the job better for you.”
By making a slight change to the wording of the Bill to remove the words “and its price” on page 150, amendment 126 would deal with that kind of rogue practice, which is out there and which has been raised by trading standards. The fear among the bodies that are trying to secure greater action against rogue traders is that the existing wording of the Bill allows wiggle room and will let the dodgy practices continue. I hope that airing that specific, possibly niche concern today will give us greater time to capture it and ensure that the Bill does not preclude action against rogue traders where specific prices are agreed up front but that is not the deal that takes place, because someone pays for a cheaper or even a more expensive alternative that does the same job.
Having flagged that concern, I hope that the Government will look again at the wording and at how they will meet their overall aim, which I support.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is an interesting point. We took the decision to strengthen the existing provisions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in relation to invitations to purchase by removing the need for enforcers to prove that the transactional decision test has been met. This significantly increases the criminal liability of unscrupulous traders.
Amendment 126 would expand the definition of an invitation to purchase still further to cases in which information about products is presented to consumers without a price shown. We are concerned that that would expand the definition too far. Moreover, other provisions in chapter 1 of the Bill will achieve a similar aim: they will prohibit traders from making misleading statements or omissions in respect of all commercial practices. We feel that that covers this issue. However, I am happy to have further conversations with the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, certainly based on the evidence he has received, which I am happy to look at.
Amendment 127 would require that information as to whether a third-party seller or online marketplace is a trader or a consumer be added to the list of material information in an invitation to purchase. We have the same aim. Clause 222(2)(c) will require
“the identity of the trader and the identity of any other person on whose behalf the trader is acting”
to be disclosed. Moreover, subsections (2)(d) and (e) will require a range of contact details to be provided to consumers about who they may be buying from.
Accordingly, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his comments. We still take the view that this needs to be tighter. In the light of his intentions, which we understand, we will take it away and look at it again. I do not want to lose our amendment, but we will not press it to a vote today. Perhaps we can come back to it at a future stage of the Bill.
Neil Coyle
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will look at the evidence. I am happy not to press amendment 126.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 127.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 222 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 223
Public enforcement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 223 sets out who is responsible for enforcing the prohibition on unfair commercial practices. Trading standards have a duty to enforce the prohibitions in their areas across Great Britain. The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has a duty to enforce the prohibitions in Northern Ireland. The CMA has the power to enforce the prohibitions on a civil and criminal basis in the UK.
Seema Malhotra
We welcome clause 223. As the Minister states, it introduces provisions relating to the enforcement of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, setting out how local weights and measures authorities—trading standards—will have a duty to enforce the prohibitions. The CMA will also have enforcement powers. We have talked several times in this Committee about the importance of trading standards in enforcing the regime. How involved have the CMA and trading standards been in the discussion around the powers in the Bill?
Is the Minister confident that local trading standards officers have the resources to enforce the regulations, especially after 13 years of what can only be described as a managed decline of local trading standards authorities, with local services facing a 52% reduction in service capacity under the Government’s watch since 2010? It is important to know that, because where increased expectations are coming through in legislation the question is whether there will be capacity to deliver on the new demands. I would be grateful for his response.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have meetings with the national teams of trading standards, and indeed the CMA, on a regular basis. We have had numerous discussions about the legislation, if the hon. Lady means her question broadly. Indeed, she was able to question some of those witnesses in the recent evidence sessions. Clearly, resources for trading standards are a matter for local authorities, not central Government. It is for local authorities to determine where those resources are committed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 223 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 224
Rights of redress
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 224 sets out the conditions under which consumers may exercise redress rights. The main condition is that misleading actions or aggressive practices must play a significant factor in the consumer’s decision to make payment for the supply of a good or enter a contract. Without the clause, victims of rogue traders who engage in lies and aggressive selling practices would be left with no private right of redress.
Seema Malhotra
Under clause 224, as the Minister says, the consumer will be able to enforce their right to redress relating to unfair commercial practices, subject to conditions, including that they have entered into a relevant contract, that the trader has engaged in a prohibited practice, that the prohibited practice was a significant factor in the consumer’s decision to make payment, and that the product concerned is not of an excluded type. Those are important provisions, including in the context of our debate about greenwashing. That is why it is important that we take forward the issues we have debated. None the less, we welcome the clause and these important provisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 224 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 225
Rights of redress: further provision
Richard Thomson
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 225, page 152, line 30, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make any further provision necessary to ensure that the rights of redress available under this Chapter are equivalent to, and not lesser than, those available under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277).”
This amendment seeks to ensure that the “Consumer Rights to Redress” that will be set out through secondary legislation cannot offer a reduced level of the protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 114, in clause 225, page 152, line 33, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress by regulations set out in 225(1), and
(b) lay a copy of this report before Parliament.
(8) The report must be laid within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress through secondary legislation, as is the case in EU member states.
Richard Thomson
As the explanatory statement sets out, amendment 67 seeks to ensure that the consumer rights to redress introduced through secondary legislation by Ministers cannot offer less protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. That statutory instrument was effectively the successor to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and was designed to implement the unfair commercial practices directive as part of a common set of European minimum standards for consumer protection. Consumers, not just in Europe but throughout the UK, have benefited immensely from those protections. It is important as a point of principle that as legislation is repealed or evolves, there should be no inadvertent reduction in baseline consumer protections. There should be a reduction in consumer protections only where the Government deliberately choose to do so and we have an open debate.
The amendment is very much about ensuring that nothing slips down the drain inadvertently in terms of consumer protection. If the Government are not minded to accept it, what existing protections will they unwittingly let fall by the wayside? The amendment would capture the baseline level of protection through future secondary legislation. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Seema Malhotra
I am pleased to speak to amendment 114, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. I will also make reference to amendment 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon.
Amendment 114 would require that the Secretary of State prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the merits of introducing a consumer right to individual and collective redress through secondary legislation, as is the case in EU member states. Amendment 67 would ensure that the consumer rights to redress set out in secondary legislation cannot offer less protection than the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. We support the principle of amendment 67, which would have a similar effect to amendment 114 by ensuring a more robust consumer right to redress.
More specifically on amendment 114, I refer the Minister to the written evidence of Which?, which notes that
“the Bill states that ‘Consumer Rights to Redress’ may be provided for in future secondary legislation, so it will give the Secretary of State powers to amend these rights. These rights are fundamentally important, as they include payment of damages when a trader misleads a consumer. We want assurances that they will not be downgraded as a result of this process, and a commitment from the Government to strengthen redress procedures when these new regulations are drafted.”
Amendment 114 would require a commitment from the Government to report on doing that, aiding the process of strengthening redress procedures when new regulations are drafted. I urge the Government to support amendments 114 and 67, and to ensure that consumer rights to redress are as strong as they can be, particularly in an increasingly digital economy.
Kevin Hollinrake
Amendments 67 and 114 deal with consumers’ private rights to redress. I agree with the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Gordon that it is vital that consumers have robust private rights of redress.
Amendment 67 would limit changes by regulation to the consumer rights of redress to those that are equivalent to the remedies in the CPRs—the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The Bill includes powers to amend rights of redress. That could include how such rights are exercised; the powers could also be used to make those rights clearer and simpler. Those would be positive changes for consumers that might not meet the test of equivalence to the current regulations that the amendment would impose. We would like to retain the ability to exceed the existing private redress provisions, if appropriate, which may encourage more consumers to make use of these rights. The first regulations made using the power will be to create the new regime to replace the current private redress provisions in the CPRs. Accordingly, those regulations will be subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure, thereby providing for appropriate parliamentary oversight of use of the power.
I turn to amendment 114. The courts already have the power to make an enforcement order against an infringer, or to accept undertakings from them to provide redress to affected consumers, through the measures in part 3. Enforcers can also accept undertakings from infringers to provide redress to affected consumers. For example, in 2021 the CMA secured an undertaking from Teletext Holidays to pay over £7 million in outstanding refunds from package travel trips cancelled due to covid-19.
The Bill will make the power to require enhanced consumer measures directly available to the CMA. Consumers also already have individual private rights of redress. In the “Reforming competition and consumer policy” consultation, we consulted on whether to introduce a right for consumers to bring collective redress. Responses were mixed, with concerns raised about unintended consequences such as the creation of a claims culture and inadvertently disincentivising the bringing of proceedings by consumer groups.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston referred to the EU situation. The outcome, however, is similar to the desired situation under the EU’s directive on collective redress, which requires member states to designate entities, such as consumer organisations, that can bring actions for collective redress on consumers’ behalf. The EU does not mandate that member states introduce direct rights for individual consumers to bring an action for collective redress.
We will keep the evidence under review, but our priority is to embed the CMA direct enforcement regime and understand the impact that it makes. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.
Richard Thomson
With regret, I am not minded to withdraw amendment 67. I hear what the Minister says about how the Government may wish to go beyond existing levels of consumer protection. That is welcome where appropriate, but I do not see anything in the amendment that would prevent Ministers from doing that. The key element in the amendment is to capture a baseline level of protection, equivalent to what was in the 2008 regulations, to ensure that there is nothing that dips below that without a conscious decision to do so having been taken and debated. On the basis that there is nothing that would prevent the Government from enhancing the levels of protection at any time, I am keen to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 View all Victims and Prisoners Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 July 2023 - (4 Jul 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) fraud.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of fraud.
Amendment 82, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) modern slavery.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of modern slavery.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I will quickly respond to the Minister’s comments on amendment 9. I take what he said about ensuring that collaboration includes support for different sorts of victim, but the point that I am outlining in the amendment—that child victims often need a very different type of support—is backed up by a lot of evidence and the many organisations we worked with to table the amendment. I would like the Minister, when taking the Bill forward, to reflect on that and to see what he can do to encourage and include collaboration specifically with child victims and support services. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 19, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) fraud.”—(Anna McMorrin.)
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of fraud.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 12, page 10, line 36, leave out “disclosure or”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Edward Argar
I will be brief. These amendments are part of a collection of minor and technical amendments that have been tabled across the Bill to ensure that consistent terminology is used in relation to data protection. These changes are primarily for the purposes of clarifying the provisions and ensuring that they work as intended; they do not constitute a policy change and are not intended to have substantive effects. The amendments in this group make changes to clause 12 to remove the term “disclosure” and insert
“within the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018”,
to ensure consistency with existing legislation.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
That is absolutely fine. The amendment seems fairly minor, so knock yourselves out!
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Amendment made: 30, in clause 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert
“within the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment and Amendment 29 give “processing” of information the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018. Processing includes disclosure and other uses of information, so there is no need to refer separately to disclosure.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert—
“(8A) Collaboration under this section may include the co-location of services in accordance with the Child House model, as defined by the Home Office guidance entitled “Child House: local partnerships guidance”, published 6 September 2021.”
This amendment would include within the duty to collaborate the use of the Child House model, described by the Home Office guidance as “a multi-agency service model supporting children, young people and non-abusing parents, carers and family members following child sexual abuse”.
The purpose of the amendment is to promote the establishment of child houses as part of the relevant authority’s duty to collaborate in the exercise of its victim support function. Although the Bill seeks to collaborate between commissioners, it does not provide the firm direction needed to enable the joint multi-disciplinary service provision that makes such a difference to child victims. By rolling out the child house model, we can ensure that children are provided with both therapeutic support and support to navigate the criminal justice process all under one roof.
Too many children face a lack of support after experiencing sexual abuse. Young victims seeking justice are faced with extremely distressing delays in the justice system, as waiting times for child sexual abuse cases have surged in the past few years. Ministry of Justice data shows that the average number of days between a defendant in child sexual abuse cases in England and Wales being charged and the criminal trial starting rose by 43% in four years. That is from 276 days in 2017 to 395 days in 2021—a lot of time in a young life. For children already suffering with depression or post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the abuse, the drawn-out process of waiting for a trial to start and end can be extremely distressing and compound the significant mental health impacts of the abuse.
In 2020, the Office for National Statistics found that around half of child sexual abuse cases did not proceed further through the criminal justice system, citing one of the reasons as being that victims worried that the process would be too distressing. Going through a police investigation and prosecution as a victim is often described as inherently traumatic—think of that for a young child. That is because during the process of a police investigation and trial, a child or young person often has to retell the experience of abuse multiple times, usually in an environment that is unfamiliar, intimidating and confusing.
NSPCC research found that support for child witnesses varied depending on location and that only a small minority were ever offered communication support through a registered intermediary. NSPCC analysis of freedom of information data revealed that in 2020-21, only 23% of the 119 local authorities that responded across England and Wales said they provided dedicated support for young victims in the form of independent and specially trained advisers. Research shows that children face an inconsistent network of agencies and services after experiencing sexual abuse. Instead, we could use the approach of a child house.
A child house provides a child-centred model in which the agencies involved in supporting young victims, including healthcare, social care, children’s independent sexual violence advisers—CHISVAs—the third sector and police, all provide co-ordinated services in an integrated, child-friendly environment. It is literally under one roof, and that supports children to give their best evidence. Currently, there is only one child house in England and Wales: the Lighthouse in London. They would love Members to go and visit them. It is a fantastic place and just a tube ride away—do go and see it.
In 2021, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime was commissioned to evaluate the Lighthouse. As part of its research, children were consulted on their experiences. MOPAC found that the model addresses concerns that children who reported sexual abuse often face—that is, multiple interviews with social workers, the police and other professionals. Children who had used the Lighthouse complimented the care and respect they received from the staff. Being able to go at their own pace with choice and control was described as valuable. Children emphasised the positive impact that the homely atmosphere had and said that the environment was created by the little things, such as being offered a hot drink and police officers not wearing uniforms.
One child spoke about their experience to the NSPCC, saying—I slightly paraphrase: “Looking back on the Lighthouse, even though obviously I wish I hadn’t had to go there, I think they just made the experience of having to go there a lot less harder than it had to be…And yeah, I did feel like almost loved there. I guess looking back I didn’t realise at the time how easier things were made for me with the Lighthouse being there.”
The child house model has been recommended by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, the Home Office, NHS England, the Children’s Commissioner for England and the Government’s own tackling child sexual abuse strategy, as well as the British Medical Association. Despite those endorsements and a wealth of evidence that supports the effectiveness of the model, the Bill does not address the fragmented support landscape currently faced by children. I ask the Minister to listen to all the evidence, use the opportunity in the Bill and commit to rolling out the brilliant model of child houses across the country. We really can demonstrate what a difference that would make to all child victims.
Jess Phillips
I rise to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and remind the Committee that the Children’s Commissioner mentioned the Lighthouse what might be a record number of times; I am sure that Hansard would tell me one way or the other. The experts are telling us that the approach works and I have some experience of the alternative—when cases fall apart and children are completely unsupported. That still happens in the vast majority of cases, I am afraid, so I support the amendment.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Member for Rotherham for the amendment, which would include within the duty to collaborate the use of the child house model. Co-located, child-centred support services, including those delivered in accordance with the child house model, do excellent work in supporting child victims of crime. Like other Committee members, I recognise the work done by the Lighthouse. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, and her deputy Ellie Lyons, in campaigning for and highlighting the rights and needs of children.
The Government recognise the importance of the co-located child-centred support service, which is why we provided £7.5 million towards a pilot of the UK’s first child house, in Camden. Following that, we have published guidance for local partnerships that wish to introduce similar models for child victims in their area. The duty to collaborate aims to facilitate a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to commissioning and to improve the strategic co-ordination of services, so that all victims get the timely and quality support that they need.
The legislation requires commissioners to collaborate when commissioning services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent offences. As we discussed this morning, it allows for flexibility for local commissioners to decide what services will best meet the needs of their population; that could include commissioning co-located services, exactly as the amendment suggests.
Listing in legislation the sorts of services that commissioners may or must consider is, I fear, slightly over-prescriptive—this goes back to the debates we have had about a number of amendments. I repeat what I said in those debates: it would risk excluding some of the other excellent service models that local areas may also want to commission, although I do not in any way diminish the huge impact that the child house model clearly has.
The duty also requires commissioners to consider any assessment of the needs of children when preparing their joint commissioning strategy. Statutory guidance will support commissioners in doing this, encouraging the co-production of services where appropriate and linking to the “Child House: local partnerships guidance” document. As the original draft Bill already allows local commissioners to adopt the approach where appropriate, we believe that it strikes an appropriate balance. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham might be persuaded to agree.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his warm words in support of the child house model. This was always a probing amendment. I hope that the commissioners listen to the Minister’s support for the model and act accordingly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 12, page 10, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State for Justice must ensure the relevant authorities have sufficient funding to exercise their functions in relation to relevant victim support services.”
This is not a probing amendment. For me, this is the nub of the gap in the Bill. Amendment 83 would make the Secretary of State for Justice ensure that the relevant authorities have sufficient funding to exercise their functions in relation to victim support services. I put on the record that the amendment is supported by Refuge. Its recent report, entitled “Local Lifelines”, highlights that
“Due to inconsistent funding of support services across the country, survivors face a postcode lottery”.
Collaboration between relevant public authorities is part of the solution. However, without funding, the duty to collaborate will not result in a meaningful change for survivors.
The Minister has talked about the duty to collaborate helping to identify duplications and gaps, but there are no duplications in this threadbare sector—only gaps, which cannot be filled without additional funding. Community-based domestic abuse services provide holistic, specialist support to women and children experiencing domestic abuse in local settings. Some 95% of survivors supported by Refuge, the UK’s largest provider of gender-based violence services, rely on some form of community-based service, yet far too often, through no fault of their own, survivors are unable to access community-based services due to the postcode lottery in service provision across the country.
In 2022, the report published by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, “A Patchwork of Provision”, estimated that fewer than half of survivors who wanted to access community-based services were able to. Minoritised women seeking support from specialist “by and for” organisations face even greater barriers to accessing support. It is therefore vital that the Victims and Prisoners Bill introduces strong measures to safeguard these services.
Although the Ministry of Justice has committed to increasing funding for victims and witness support services to £147 million per year until 2024-25, that funding is not ringfenced to domestic abuse services. Existing commitments are simply insufficient to meet the demand for specialist domestic abuse community-based services across the UK. In the witness sessions, the Minister asked how much was needed for that; I can confirm that Women’s Aid put the cost at £238 million per year. I know that seems like a lot of money, but when we look at other schemes and how casually we now talk about billions and trillions, £238 million to provide the services we need to make this Bill as effective as the Minister wants it to be seems somewhat slender.
Amendment 83 would strengthen the duty to collaborate to require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient funding for relevant authorities to exercise their functions in relation to relevant victim support services. Refuge’s report demonstrates the extent of funding challenges facing frontline domestic abuse community-based services. More than four in five, or 85%, of frontline workers surveyed by Refuge said that their service is impacted by insufficient funding. Funding gaps are particularly acute for mental health support, early intervention and support for children and young people.
In many cases, funding contracts are simply insufficient to cover the costs of running a safe and effective service. That leaves organisations reliant on insecure and fundraised income, which is fundamentally unsustainable. For the financial year 2021-22, more than half of Refuge’s income was generated from fundraising sources. In this cost of living crisis, many charities are seeing their fundraising income falling dramatically.
In addition to insufficient fundraising, short-term contracts and recruitment challenges are exacerbating the insecurity facing many community-based services and contributing to rising caseloads. More than three quarters, or 76%, of frontline workers surveyed by Refuge said that their caseload had increased over the past 12 months. That comes at a time when victims and survivors need our support more than ever. The cost of living crisis is exacerbating the financial hardship victims and survivors face when fleeing abuse. Survivors typically flee with few possessions and often have to give up their jobs for their own safety. According to Refuge, as a result of this crisis more women are going to community-based services with financial support needs, such as food bank referrals and debt advice. Community-based services are not only transformational for victims and survivors; they are critical to managing the cost of domestic abuse to society.
According to Government estimates, domestic abuse costs society a staggering £78 billion a year. Economic analysis published by Women’s Aid early this year shows that every £1 invested in domestic abuse services will result in at least £9 of savings to the public purse. The case for investing in community-based services is therefore clear. Sustainably funding specialist support services, which reduce the need for victims and survivors to use statutory services, will save money in the long term while transforming the lives of victims, survivors and their children.
Jess Phillips
I just want to draw a comparison between services—for example, in the health service—that we fund and do not expect to get to crisis point. The best example I can ever think of is diabetes services. Imagine if the scheme in our country was that 10% of all people who have diabetes could access insulin and the other 90% could access insulin only at the point that they were about to die. That is the current situation with community-based services in domestic abuse services. If you fund crisis, you get crisis. If you fund prevention, you get prevention. That is simply the case at the moment.
We ration provision. We literally have a form for it, called the DASH—domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and honour based violence—risk assessment. A DASH risk assessment will be undertaken and you will be given a score—almost like, “How good is your domestic abuse?” We will come to some of these issues when we debate independent domestic violence advisers. From that score, a decision will be made about what sort of service you can access—not you, Mr Hosie; rather what sort of service “one” can access. I have seen DASH risk assessments where a woman has been hit repeatedly with a brick in the face and was not given a high risk of harm on her risk assessment. To be given a high risk of harm on a risk assessment, someone basically has to be at imminent risk of death. It is a bit like high risk in children’s social care; in the vast majority of the country, a parent basically has to have a knife to the child’s throat for the case to reach the threshold for any sort of children’s social services care.
Imagine if people got that kind of level with diabetes and we said, “You can have the insulin. There may be a service for you, but not necessarily,” and to everybody else who we could avoid elevating to the risk level of having been hit around the face with a brick, we said, “Go on this waiting list. Come back later. We’ll manage you in the community,” which basically means, “Go away until he knocks on your door 17 times with a machete and even then we won’t consider you high risk of harm.” Those are literal cases that I have handled.
I speak in absolute support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I also want to make a broader point about funding. The Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report said that around £40 million, if not more—I think that figure is correct, but I am more than happy to correct the record if I have got it wrong—is being allocated to legal aid access for people who do not like their parole decision. The Minister has stood up a number of times today and said that the way to get money is by going to the Chancellor and doing it through the financial systems, which of course was not the case in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, because the money was allocated for the refuge assessment. The only money that is being allocated in this Bill is something that can be accessed by, for example, murderers but not by the people they would go on to murder.
Edward Argar
I fear that this is one area where I may not be able to bring the hon. Member for Rotherham with me. I will try but I suspect I may be out of luck on this one. I am grateful to her for the amendment and for the opportunity to debate this important matter.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the Parole Board, my recollection of what the Committee and the assessment looked at was not additional new money being made available in the way she suggests for part 3 but not for part 1, but a recognition of the cost implications of those changes based on the current entitlements to legal aid and the way the process works.
Edward Argar
I take her point, but I add the nuance that it is not a case of new money being allocated. It is an assessment of the consequences of a legal entitlement that would exist in those circumstances.
To speak to the broader point, I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham on the importance of sufficient funding for victims’ services and ensuring that, where we can, we also provide funding to commission services on a multi-year basis. That was one of the key pillars of the victims funding strategy. That reflected what I, when I was last doing this job, was told by the sector, and what the hon. Lady will have been told as well, about the challenge of small, short-term pots of money—a situation that results in a number of key staff spending most of their time not delivering the service but writing bids to try to collate enough to meet the financial needs of that service. The funding strategy recognises and reflects that, so the Government do recognise that, where possible, that should be the approach adopted.
Outside of legislation we are more than quadrupling funding for victims’ services—as a basket, as it were—by 2024-25. That funding is up from £41 million in 2009-10, and includes an additional £6 million per annum through this spending review period, which is provided directly to police and crime commissioners and ringfenced for domestic abuse and sexual violence services in response to increased demand. Through the Bill, we are creating a statutory duty on PCCs, integrated care boards and local authorities in England to collaborate when exercising their victim support functions for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes. That will mean that support is better co-ordinated and more effective. Collaboration should also improve use of existing funds.
Monitoring of local need and provision provides Government with valuable intelligence and insights. To improve our understanding of demand and the impact of the services we fund, we have introduced through the victims funding strategy a core set of metrics and outcomes that are being collected across Government. The reality is, however, that this information is used to inform decisions made through the spending review process, which continues to be the right approach to setting Government budgets, as it recognises that there is a finite amount of taxpayers’ money and there are finite funds.
I would gently argue that individual Bills setting funding requirements in an unco-ordinated way is not the most appropriate or effective way to consider Government spending and prioritisation of funding in the round. I was going to say, “as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury,” but I only did that job for 11 days—maybe that still counts. I would nevertheless argue that considering funding in the round during the spending review process is the right approach. Continued flexibility is required when considering funding levels, and I do not believe that fixing funding in primary legislation is the right approach in that context. I fear I may not carry the hon. Member for Rotherham with me on this one occasion, but it was worth a try.
Sarah Champion
I always have respect for the Minister and he is right: I understand the analysis he puts forward but I do not agree with it, because there are other examples where money is attached to a Bill. Although I think the Minister will have a fight on his hands with this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 12 introduces a joint statutory duty on police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities to collaborate on relevant victim support services. As a result of the clause, we have for the first time a framework for collaboration when commissioning support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violence that amounts to criminal conduct.
The duty focuses on child and adult victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crime, as they are particularly traumatic crimes for the worryingly high number of victims each year. It does not include accommodation-based services, which are covered by separate legislation under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, as was alluded to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. Victim support services are crucial for victims to be able to cope with and recover from the impact of crime. Across the three crime types, victims typically access a range of services from health, local authority services and policing bodies. At present, services are not always co-ordinated and victims can find them to be disjointed when moving between them. As a result of the clause, we expect the relevant authorities to consider the entirety of the victim support service pathway and strategically co-ordinate and target services where victims need them most.
Clause 12 should be considered alongside clause 13, which we are shortly to debate and which requires the authorities to prepare, implement and publish a local commissioning strategy. We expect this activity to lead to increased join-up between services, a common understanding of local need and systematic sharing of information, leading to more informed decision making in commissioning. The clause also enables the sharing of relevant information to support that duty. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jess Phillips
I do not have much more to say, as I made most of my comments around clause 12 in its entirety when moving amendment 80. We recognise the good intention of the provision, but feel it has some way to go to not just be words on goatskin, which is what I am always concerned about. Words on goatskin are all well and good, but when it comes to how this legislation acts in people’s lives on the ground, I think it still has some way to go—but the intention is obviously one that we would support.
Edward Argar
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Strategy for collaboration in exercise of victim support functions
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 87 in clause 13, page 11, line 3, at end insert—
‘(aa) prepare an assessment of the needs of victims (including victims who are children or have other protected characteristics) in the area,’.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities in a police area in England to assess the needs of victims in their area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 88 in clause 13, page 11, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
‘(a) the assessment of the needs of victims (including victims who are children or have other protected characteristics) carried out under subsection (1),’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and would require the relevant authorities to have regard to their assessment of the needs of victims when preparing the strategy.
Sarah Champion
Both amendments seek to ensure that the strategy for collaboration takes into account victims’ needs. Amendment 87 would require the relevant authorities to begin the strategy of preparing an assessment of victims’ needs. That must include a specific requirement to assess the need of child victims and those with other protected characteristics, who are particularly vulnerable and must be subject to additional considerations by the relevant authorities. It is a logical place to begin and, as I stated when arguing for the joint strategic needs assessment, it would fail to be an effective collaboration if needs were not evaluated to begin with.
Amendment 88 would require the relevant authorities to consider the needs assessment when putting together the strategy to collaborate. Some partnerships may do that once the Bill is passed, but we must ensure that every region has the same standards and processes so that the needs of all victims, and particularly child victims, are met across the country. The amendment would enable the strategy to collaborate and be more cost-effective and ambitious when fulfilling the duty the Minister wants it to achieve.
Jess Phillips
I do not have much to say other than that I entirely support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment, which would require the relevant authorities in a police area in England to assess the needs of victims in their area and then take that assessment into account when devising strategies under the duty to collaborate. I already touched on that when debating an earlier amendment, so I will seek not to repeat myself—at least not too much—although, I am afraid that some of the arguments will be the same.
The Government agree that needs assessments are vital in informing local commissioning decisions, and relevant local needs assessments that indicate the needs of victims already happen regularly as part of good practice. The Ministry of Justice provides police and crime commissioners with grant funding to commission practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all types of crime in their local areas. In order to achieve that and to know which services are required, PCCs are expected to carry out needs assessments that will allow them to target the funding and ascertain the level of need and demand in their area.
There are also several other needs assessments that local commissioners carry out, which give an assessment of the needs of victims. They include, but are not limited to: the serious violence joint strategic needs assessment, which indicates levels of serious violence and the volume of victims in an area; the public health joint strategic needs assessment, carried out by local authorities and health and wellbeing boards, which sets out social care and public health needs; and safe accommodation needs assessments, which give an indication of the number of domestic abuse victims requiring safe accommodation in an area.
We have been clear with commissioners in the victims funding strategy that needs assessments are a central pillar of commissioning victim support services. To do that, the victims funding strategy sets out a clear expectation that commissioners carry out regular needs assessments using all the data required to commission appropriate services for victims in their areas, including victims with tailored needs.
Sarah Champion
The amendment is very specific about children, so would the Minister touch on that, please?
Edward Argar
I reassure the hon. Lady that I will turn to that. I have a little more to say, though not too much. To ensure that the victims funding strategy is improving commissioning practices and outcomes for victims—all victims, including adults and children—we will set up a cross-Government oversight board, which I have mentioned, to monitor delivery against the strategy. I am encouraged by the engagement with commissioners and providers to date, which indicates that the standards set within the victims funding strategy are being upheld, but we will of course continue to monitor adherence to those standards.
The duty to collaborate aims to ensure that the relevant authorities come together to utilise all the relevant needs assessments that I have set out when commissioning services for adults or children, as well as any other relevant data or information. Clause 13(3) requires the relevant authorities to have regard to any needs assessments that they have already carried out in respect of the needs of particular groups of victims when preparing their joint strategy. Statutory guidance for the duty will clarify that, when commissioning, the relevant authorities are expected to set out in their joint commissioning strategy how they have had regard to the relevant needs assessments, and how commissioning decisions aim to meet the identified needs of different groups.
We fear that placing that in legislation would be duplicative of existing practices that currently work effectively, and which our duty to collaborate will only enhance. Indeed, by virtue of the relevant commissioners under the duty working together, assessing existing needs and publishing their commissioning strategies, they will build up a clear picture of the local landscape of victims services and the local populations. The strategies will then clearly set out how they will, over the coming period, deliver a more joined-up and effective service for victims, including child victims.
I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Rotherham to identify the benefits and drawbacks of the current system. As I set out earlier, I continue to reflect on the points that she and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner made about joint strategic needs assessments, which shades into what I believe the hon. Lady is seeking to get at with the amendment.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his offer to collaborate on this. I have been working with the NSPCC, which has much more experience than I do, so we would gratefully accept the offer, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 13, page 11, line 8, at end insert—
“(d) ensure that services commissioned as part of the strategy are given contracts or grants for a minimum of three years, unless it would not be justifiable and proportionate to do so.”.
I present this as a probing amendment because I sadly know the Minister’s position. He was right to highlight earlier the eternal misery of short-term contracts as a result of short-term funding, and just how much the community invests in funding bids, some of which are successful and some of which are not. I am sure that we both agree that that money would be better spent on the services themselves.
Longer-term contracts are essential to help ease the insecure funding landscape facing the specialist domestic abuse sector. Amendment 84 would introduce a requirement that services commissioned under the duty to collaborate be delivered through sustainable contract terms of three years or more. That would enable community-based services to take root in a local area, recruit to permanent contracts, and provide women and children with the security and stability that they desperately need when fleeing domestic abuse. Some 64% of frontline workers surveyed for Refuge’s report, “Local Lifelines”, said that their services were impacted by short-term contracts. Frontline workers highlighted the challenges of delivering a service under short-term contracts due to the time and resources that it takes to implement a new service and embed the idea.
If a contract is for two years or less, it often takes the length of the contract for the service to become established within a local area. Then it stops, or the whole process starts all over again, at which point survivors must find new sources of ongoing help, which can be incredibly unsettling and traumatic for those victims. Short-term contracts force charities to spend resources rebidding for contracts rather than supporting their clients. It also presents significant recruitment challenges, as services can only offer short fixed-term, rather than permanent, posts. Given the transformative impact of community-based services on a survivor’s journey towards safety and independence, ensuring services are properly staffed and well established in their local area is vital. I know that the Minister understands that. Through an adequate, sustainable funding offer for community-based services delivered via long-term contracts, these services can take root in the community and provide the stability that women and children need.
Jess Phillips
I entirely endorse and support the amendment. As someone who was in charge of fundraising for a small community-based organisation, I know that the amount of money wasted getting in human resources experts is significant. It happened to me on a number of occasions: it would roll around to December and people would be put on notice just before Christmas—because of the financial year, staff can be given three months’ notice at Christmas, which is always a really cheerful thing to have to do as a boss of one of these organisations.
I also point out that the problem has been exacerbated by the current delays in both the policing and the court-based systems. That adds a new flavour for domestic abuse community-based services or sexual violence community-based services. Yesterday, I was interviewed by police in a case. Hilariously, the police officer said to me, “Are there any dates you might be on holiday?”, and I said, “Well, I’m going away in August,” and I thought, “Hope springs eternal—it will be August 2025 before I see the inside of that courtroom.”
The situation is that a victim could come forward, go through the process with the police and the charge could take a year, let alone the court time taking another two years. The lack of continuity of even the same service, let alone the same person, still being in place because of the way short-term contracts in this space work is exacerbated by delays in the system. We have to skin the cat we have, and that cat is one of delay in this process. Three years from complaint to end on anything that would be seeing the inside of a Crown court is standard at the moment, so the very least we should seek to do is ensure that at least three-year contracts are provided in this space.
Edward Argar
We touched on a number of the elements that I am going to talk about when we debated amendment 83, which the hon. Member for Rotherham moved earlier, so I will be relatively brief. I agree with her on the importance of sufficient funding for victims’ services and ensuring that, where we can, we provide the funding to commission services on a multi-year basis.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, is right to highlight the challenges: not only the demand pressures on a charity or a service provider but the fact that those most experienced at meeting that demand and providing the service are often the people who have to sit writing the responses to the invitations to tender or bids. I say that as someone who, before coming to this place, was a trustee of an environmental-regeneration employment charity. The challenge is having certainty of income and also a diversity of income streams, so that the charity can insure itself against any one of them suddenly saying it will no longer provide funding.
It is absolutely right to highlight the fact that individuals invest not just money but time, and that the work is often done outside office hours because they are at work during working hours and spend their evenings doing it. I visited a project in north-west London a little while ago and had exactly that conversation with some of the trustees and the senior staff there. Without a degree of certainty on funding, where that is possible, the challenge is not only the effort of constantly bidding for it but the risk of losing good people who, however passionate and however much of a vocation it is for them, often want at least a degree of predictability in their lives so that they know they can pay their bills.
Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that commissioned services are given contracts or grants for a minimum of three years. As I just alluded to, I recognise the importance of sustainable funding for victim support services and how it can affect the reliability and consistency of services. We listened to service providers, who told us that single-year funding presented the biggest challenge to them in delivering support for victims, and we have already committed to multi-year funding, where possible, outside legislation. We have committed £154 million per annum of our victims budget on a multi-year basis across this spending review period, totalling a minimum of £460 million over three years.
Multi-year funding will allow for greater staff retention, opportunity for services to innovate and invest for the long term in the services they are able to provide, and— to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—allow victims to receive a greater degree of consistency and continuity in the support they need, particularly when they have begun to build up a rapport and trust with those with whom they are working. That is why we have put multi-year funding at the centre of our victims funding strategy, in which we reaffirmed that commitment and set out an expectation for all commissioners to pass multi-year commitments on to their providers.
Sarah Champion
The amendment was probing and provided a good opportunity for me to remember how hard you fought the last time you were in this role to get multi-year funding agreements in place. It helps enormously to have you in post and to get you on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
May I gently remind all colleagues, who are all very experienced, that I did not promise anything or deliver anything? The Minister did.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 13, page 11, line 13, at end insert—
“(ba) persons appearing to the relevant authorities to represent persons providing relevant victim support services for children,
(bb) victims,”.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to consult victims and organisations providing support to child victims in preparing their strategy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 81, in clause 13, page 11, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) victims to whom relevant victim support services are being, or may be, provided.”.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to consult victims who are, or may be, receiving support services when preparing their strategy.
Sarah Champion
Apologies for getting overexcited, Mr Hosie.
Amendment 81 is supported by London’s Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, and it is worth reminding the Committee that Claire started campaigning for a victims Bill in 2014 or 2015. I pay huge tribute to her for never giving up. The fact that we are here debating it is in no small part due to her campaigning. Amendment 85 is supported by the NSPCC, to which I am grateful.
Amendment 81 would simply require that the relevant victims are engaged and consulted when authorities prepare the strategy for collaboration. We must ensure that victims themselves are engaged in the strategic planning for victim support services, because they know best. Amendment 85 seeks to make it clear that we must ensure that organisations that provide support to child victims are similarly consulted. As I have already made clear, children have very specific needs as victims. There must be a link between recognising children as victims and the duty to deliver a strategy for collaboration in the exercise of victim support functions, to ensure that commissioners include support services for children when preparing their joint commissioning strategies.
Considering children’s support needs as distinct from those of adults is vital. It is crucial for commissioners to reflect children’s needs effectively when they prepare their joint commissioning strategies. It is especially key at a time when child abuse continues to rise. At least 500,000 children a year are estimated to suffer abuse in the UK, one in 20 children in the UK have been sexually abused, and an estimated one in five children have experienced severe maltreatment. Last year, for the first time more than 100,000 cases of child sexual abuse were reported. NSPCC freedom of information data found that police in England and Wales made nearly 700 referrals a day to children’s social services about domestic abuse in 2021, totalling 245,000 cases that year.
Recognition of children in the relevant authorities’ victims’ needs analysis is welcome, and I welcome what the Minister has previously said, but the relevant authorities must have a duty to consult the providers of children’s services to ensure that those services are included in commissioning strategies. Simply including children in the victims’ needs analysis is not enough to ensure that support is in place. NSPCC freedom of information figures demonstrate that many local authorities are not accessing readily available information about child victims of domestic and sexual abuse. When asked, 50% of local authorities did not have any records of the number of child victims who had experienced either sexual or domestic abuse in their area, despite their statutory obligations to undertake a joint strategic needs assessment to improve the health and wellbeing of their communities.
It concerns me that the Bill risks undermining the important recognition that child victims must come within scope of the Bill if the duty to deliver a strategy for collaboration in exercise of victim support functions—I would love it if it could be called something snappier —does not include a duty to consult the providers of children’s services. I hope the Minister recognises that risk and therefore accepts the amendment.
Jess Phillips
I completely support the amendment and just wish to say that although I and others will talk about the lack of available support services for victims of domestic and sexual violence more broadly, there is no group more populous and more poorly served than children. The idea that children’s services would not be included seems bizarre, and the argument has been eloquently put.
Edward Argar
I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendments, which would require the relevant authorities to consult victims who are or may be receiving support services when they prepare their strategies. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Claire Waxman, whom the hon. Lady rightly mentioned. I have a huge respect for Claire Waxman. We do not always agree on everything, but she is a formidable and passionate campaigner in this space and she manages to do that and achieve results while being an incredibly nice person as well. She is incredibly successful in what she does and I wish her continued success—albeit perhaps not in every aspect, because sometimes she will push me a little too hard. We should all be grateful to her for her work.
Amendment 85 would require the relevant authorities to consult providers of support services for child victims, as well as victims directly, when they prepare their joint strategy. I will address the two parts of the amendment in turn. I agree that engagement with the providers of services for child victims can provide valuable insight into local decisions, including on how commissioning is likely to impact victims, communities and the capacity of organisations to provide support. Our view is that the Bill already meets that objective. Clause 13(2)(b) requires the authorities to consult
“persons appearing to the relevant authorities to represent persons providing relevant victim support services”.
I am happy to make it clear to the Committee that that includes the providers of services for child victims.
Furthermore, we intend for statutory guidance to set out in more detail how relevant authorities can ensure that child victims’ needs are met. That is intended to include how they can engage directly with victims if they consider it appropriate to do so, and take into account the views of providers and experts in the sector. I am happy for the hon. Member for Rotherham to give her thoughts on what that statutory guidance should contain, based on her work with the NSPCC and other organisations; as on other aspects of the Bill, I will work with her to see whether we can create something that works. Although I agree with the objective behind the first part of the amendment, we do not consider it necessary.
The second part of the amendment would require the authorities to engage directly with victims. I agree that they should take into account the views of victims when they prepare their joint strategy. That is why clause 13(2)(a) requires them to consult those representing the interests of victims and clause 13(2)(c) gives scope for them to engage directly with victims if they consider it appropriate to do so. Again, we intend for the statutory guidance issued under clause 14, which we will turn to shortly, to make that clear and set out in more detail the considerations that should be taken into account by the authorities when deciding who they should engage with, as well as our expected standards and process for consultation.
In addition, clause 13(3) requires authorities to have regard to any assessments of the needs of victims, including child victims, and the relevant victim support services that are available in the police area. The measures in the clause, taken together, ensure that the voices of victims and the expertise of victim representatives will be considered when the joint strategy is prepared. I do not believe that the second part of the amendment is necessary, given the extant clauses and subsections.
Amendment 81 would require the relevant authorities to consult victims who are, or may be, receiving support services when they prepare their strategies. I agree that is an important issue. Clause 13 already sets out that the relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities in England—must consult persons who represent the interests of victims, those who provide relevant victim support services and other persons the relevant authorities consider appropriate. That not only requires consultation with those who represent victims’ voices but gives ample scope for the relevant authorities to engage victims directly when they consider it appropriate to do so. We intend for the statutory guidance issued under clause 14 to set out in more detail what commissioners may want to take into account when they consider their duty to consult, including how to engage with victims effectively and, importantly, in a trauma-informed manner.
Engaging with victims to better understand their experiences in accessing services is undoubtably beneficial to the improvement of commissioning and outcomes for victims. Alongside allowing for direct engagement with victims themselves, clause 13 requires the relevant authorities to consult persons who represent victims. That is because some victims may prefer to be represented by another body—an advocate, a campaigner, a charity or a service provider—and we believe the legislation should be flexible enough to allow for that. We do not want to disadvantage victims who do not have the resources, autonomy or confidence to speak up for themselves. We should also recognise that there are organisations that are experienced in taking views from a representative spread of victims, feeding back to commissioners, and ensuring those views are heard and are useful in the commissioning process.
I hope I have given the hon. Lady some reassurance that we believe the clause already covers what she seeks to achieve.
Sarah Champion
I wonder whether the Minister will give a bit of clarity. A lot of the solutions he is setting out are based on the statutory guidance; will we get draft statutory guidance before the Bill receives Royal Assent, or will it only come afterwards?
Edward Argar
As with other elements, such as the draft victims code, or the draft draft victims code, and the guidance, my intention—I suspect we will come to that when we discuss independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers—is that where possible we will publish as much statutory guidance in draft while the Bill is going through the House. That is facilitated by the fact that this is a carry-over Bill, so there is more time for right hon. and hon. Members to engage with the guidance. It will also inform the latter stages of the Bill’s passage through this House and the other place.
Sarah Champion
The Minister referred to the draft draft victims code consultation, but we have been unable to find that, so will he share it with the Committee?
Edward Argar
Through the Chair and if appropriate, I will ask my officials to communicate via the Clerk where that can be found, so that it can be circulated to Committee members for their information as we continue our deliberations. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Sarah Champion
I take the Minister’s comments at face value and am glad that we have them on the record. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 13, page 11, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.”.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses when preparing their strategy for collaboration.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 16, in clause 13, page 11, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) any guidance prepared by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses on collaboration between victim support services.”.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to consider any guidance prepared by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses when preparing their strategy for collaboration.
Anna McMorrin
I will refer to amendments 15 and 16 together. The clause outlines that relevant authorities in each police area must prepare a strategy for victim support services. Such collaboration is welcome, but there is one glaring omission: the Victims’ Commissioner.
In previous amendments, we have debated proposed increased powers for the Victims’ Commissioner, who is the one who voices the concerns of the voiceless—the victims. It is therefore imperative that, in the strategy preparation, the agencies must include guidance from the Victims’ Commissioner and consult that office. Only then will victims really have an independent voice advocating for them right down to the local level, where victims will see that most genuine change and impact.
The commissioner’s office can consult on best practice from the very beginning, guiding the authorities to make the meaningful change that the Minister wants the Bill to introduce. It is essential that the Victims’ Commissioner is consulted when the relevant authorities are preparing their strategy for collaboration on victim services; that is why I moved this amendment and tabled amendment 16. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is needed in the Bill and that this oversight is simply an error that can be easily fixed.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her amendments and for her exposition of them. I agree with her on the importance of local areas reflecting the views and expertise of those representing the interests of victims when preparing and revising their strategies.
The amendment would require consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses when preparing local strategies, but I stress the existing requirement for the relevant authorities to engage with those who represent victims and providers, as well as other expert organisations. The clause deliberately does not specify any persons or organisations, to avoid being overly prescriptive.
As a—if not the—leading figure representing victims, we expect local areas to consult the commissioner when preparing their strategies, unless there is a justifiable reason not to do so. We intend the statutory guidance issued under clause 14 to set out who local commissioners might want to consider engaging with, as well as the standards and process for consultation. We believe that that will reflect whom we think should be consulted, but leaves sufficient flexibility, rather than placing a limiting or prescriptive list in primary legislation.
Amendment 16 seeks to require the relevant authorities to have regard to any guidance prepared by the commissioner. We intend the statutory guidance to set out clearly how we expect the relevant authorities to consider commissioning best practice and how to meet the needs of those with protected characteristics. That includes paying due regard to relevant research and reports published by key stakeholders, including the commissioner.
In developing the guidance thus far, the Ministry of Justice has engaged extensively with other Departments, local commissioners, experts and the victim support sector. I am grateful to all who have provided valuable input, including the Office of the Victims’ Commissioner. In light of that and given that we believe in being permissive rather than prescriptive in primary legislation, we think statutory guidance represents the appropriate balance in this space. I encourage the shadow Minister to consider not pressing her amendments.
Anna McMorrin
I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out: what will be said in statutory guidance and his explanation for deliberately avoiding a prescriptive list in the Bill. However, a reference to the Victims’ Commissioner is the core essence of what the Bill is about. Certainly part 1 is about giving a voice to victims, which is within the remit of the Victims’ Commissioner. I beg him to look at this again, and to be more prescriptive within the statutory guidance to ensure that there is a deliberate reference to the Victims’ Commissioner for those relevant authorities. Would he consider that?
Edward Argar
I am always happy to consider the suggestions put forward by the hon. Lady.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for that. I will not push the amendment to a vote, but hopefully we will work together on the statutory guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 13, page 11, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) any assessment of the victim support services consulted in carrying out their duty under section (12).”
This amendment would ensure that when preparing the strategy for collaboration, relevant authorities must have regard to any assessment of the victim support services consulted under section 12.
This is a probing amendment, which seeks to strengthen the strategy for collaboration by requiring relevant authorities to consider any assessments made under the duty to collaborate. Currently, clause 13 (3)(b) says that when preparing the strategy, relevant authorities must have regard to
“the relevant victim support services which are available in the police area (whether or not provided by the relevant authorities).”
As we have discussed, it is vital for victims’ needs to be considered, and that will take place under subsection (3)(a). However, the strategy must also take into account any review of support services that the relevant authorities may undertake under the duty to collaborate. That is key in preparing the strategy as it will help them to identify gaps in services and where local need for services is stronger.
We cannot simply suggest that authorities consider the support services available; we must ask them to be more ambitious than that. By requiring them to consider any evaluations of services, we can enable them to strengthen the options available for victims and ultimately improve the outcomes of the Bill. Wherever possible, we must ensure that the services available to victims are as strong as they can be. The best way to make that happen is by local partners taking into account local need. However, for that to take place consistently across the country, we must improve the wording of the clause so that all assessments of services are always taken into account.
Jess Phillips
I do not have anything to add to what has already been said. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment, which, somewhat like amendments 87, 88 and 89, would require relevant authorities for a police area to conduct a joint strategic needs assessment to inform the strategy for commissioning victim support services as part of the duty to collaborate. I am also grateful to her for highlighting that she has approached this as a probing amendment. I will respond to it in that vein, noting again the context of my previous comments about her broader calls for a JSNA.
The Government agree it is vital that relevant support services fit the local needs of victims, and that victims’ needs form the centre of any commissioning decision. Current systems are created so that commissioners place the victim at the heart of commissioning, enabling a bespoke approach rather than a one-size-fits-all approach set nationally.
PCCs are able to allocate the grants and funding supplied by my Department based on relevant needs assessments, which already happen as part of good commissioning processes. Those assessments enable PCCs to target funding into practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of crime, where it is most needed in their area. PCCs, local authorities and integrated care boards are also required to carry out a joint strategic needs assessment under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which should indicate the level of serious violence and the number of victims affected.
Both domestic abuse and sexual abuse are now considered forms of serious violence—and in my view, rightly so. Local authorities and integrated care boards also already carry out separate assessments that indicate the needs of victims, including the needs assessment under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which sets out the needs of victims in accommodation-based services, and the JSNA that informs the public health and wellbeing strategy.
Clause 13(3) requires PCCs, local authorities and integrated care boards to have regard, when preparing their joint strategy, to any needs assessments that they have already carried out and that reflect the needs of victims. Statutory guidance will state that relevant authorities should then set out in their joint commissioning strategy how they have had regard to the relevant needs assessments and how commissioning decisions aim to reflect and to meet the identified need.
Sarah Champion
I pause the Minister at the point of the black hole that he may well be about to backfill. If, in doing the assessment, the authorities found a big gap in provision in, say, Muslim women’s support services, would they then have to fill that gap and provide those services or would they just say, “Oh, that’s awful; we have a big gap in those services”?
Edward Argar
As I have said in previous responses, the funding is finite. There is a degree of flexibility—not total flexibility, because there are, as she will be aware, some ringfenced pots for police and crime commissioners to address specific needs. They also have their core funding. It is down to them to determine how they spend that funding and that finite pot of money, but having regard to the work that they have done in terms of needs assessments. To be blunt, they cannot spend what they do not have. They have a finite pot, so they will have to determine how that is most effectively used to meet the needs that they have identified.
The victims funding strategy, which we published in May last year, also sets a clear expectation that commissioners should carry out regular needs assessments using all the data required to commission appropriate services for victims in their area, including victims with tailored or specific needs. Due to the recent publication of the victims funding strategy—notwithstanding its genesis back when the hon. Lady and I talked about it in 2018, pre pandemic—we are still in the relatively early stages of assessing its impact and the pull-through into what happens on the ground.
For those reasons, I am not convinced that the amendment is required to clearly state that joint needs assessments must be considered at this stage. However, I understand the points that the hon. Lady made and, as always and as I have said more broadly in the context of needs assessments, I am happy to converse with her and look to work with her as we go forward.
Sarah Champion
For me, this amendment comes back to the idea that “you only know what you know”. My concern is that if the Minister, the Secretary of State, is clear that this assessment needs to be done and if gaps are found, there is the need to fill those gaps; I still do not have the assurances.
I am thinking of situations where, for example, English is not someone’s first language or they need British Sign Language, or where there are cultural issues and someone wants a culturally sensitive service. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister. The amendment layers on to others that have come previously, which may well be put to a vote at a later point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 13, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
“(5A) The relevant authorities must publish an annual report containing—
(a) information about the action they have taken to implement the strategy prepared under this section, and
(b) information about their compliance with the duty to collaborate under section 12 of this Act.”
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to publish an annual report about the implementation of the strategy and their compliance with the duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support functions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Reviewing compliance: duty to collaborate—
“(1) A police and crime panel which oversees services in a police area must keep under review how the relevant authorities which provide services in the police area provide those services in accordance with their duties under section (12) and (13) of this Act.
(2) In this section, the reference to a “police and crime panel” is to be read in accordance with Schedule 6 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
(3) In this section, “relevant authorities” has the meaning given by section 12(2).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), police and crime panels must prepare and publish an annual report setting out how the relevant authorities are fulfilling their duties under section (12) and (13).
(5) A report under subsection (4) must set out, in particular—
(a) how the relevant authorities are assessing the needs of victims;
(b) how the relevant authorities are meeting the needs of victims; and
(c) how the relevant authorities are collaborating to represent the interests of victims.
(6) The police and crime panel must send a copy of any report published under subsection (4) to the Secretary of State.
(7) The Secretary of State must then publish an annual statement on the state of victim support.”
This new clause aims to establish a review of compliance with the duty to collaborate and add in a layer of accountability to oversee this new duty.
Sarah Champion
I apologise for taking up so much of the Committee’s time; I am very grateful for everyone’s indulgence. I do it just to try to get the best Bill, one that we can all be proud of.
Amendment 86 would require the relevant authorities to publish an annual report about the implementation of the strategy and their compliance with the duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support functions, and new clause 9 aims to establish a review of compliance with the duty to collaborate and add in a layer of accountability to oversee the new duty. This is very much building on the debate that we have been having.
The duty placed on local authorities, integrated care boards and the police and crime commissioners to collaborate in their exercise of victim support functions is an important step towards ensuring that victims receive necessary support. However, although the duty to collaborate is important at the moment, there is no way of measuring the effectiveness of this model.
Jess Phillips
I was the chair of the west midlands police and crime panel, so I suppose I will say that in that role I would have been more than happy to undertake this particular piece of work. The truth is that we count what we care about and we try to ignore everything else. If I were to think about all the different strategies and timeframes for schemes that were meant to be better for victims that I have come across in my 20 years in this area, I would say that they are just sitting on a shelf gathering dust and have meant absolutely nothing on the ground. It would be a very high number—more than the number of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, but only just. The truth is that unless we have a proper scrutiny function, albeit from the Victims’ Commissioner nationally or through a local situation—as my hon. Friend said, she has basically designed a system that could work perfectly well—my worry is that we will get a lot of nice words saying, “Of course we are going to ensure that all our mental health services are trauma-informed.” It is just words; it does not mean anything on the ground. We need some level of scrutiny on specific outputs, key performance indicators, timeframes, what is improving and what needs to be improved.
This is not about criticism. Domestic homicide reviews, serious case reviews and all the systems we put in to scrutinise post-something terrible happening to somebody or some terrible crime have become a bit of a blame game that, at times, can freeze people into inaction. It should be a process of scrutiny for the good and the bad, for a genuine conversation and for Government to be able to say, “This doesn’t seem to be working. What needs to happen across the country for it to work?”, so I absolutely support the amendment.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham, as ever, for her amendments. Amendment 86 would require the relevant authorities to publish an annual report about the implementation of the strategy and their compliance with the duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support functions. New clause 9 would establish a review of compliance with the collaboration duties in clauses 12 and 13 and add a layer of accountability to oversee the new duty by requiring police and crime panels to keep under review how the relevant authorities that provide services in their area are doing so in accordance with their collaboration duties under clauses 12 and 13.
I seek to reassure the hon. Lady that the existing requirements of the duty to collaborate will achieve a high level of transparency and the Government have a plan for an effective system of oversight for this duty, which I will set out. The relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities in England—will already be under an obligation to publish, review and revise their commissioning strategies, including publishing any revised versions or revisions. This is to ensure transparency, as the strategies must contain information on how they consider they are fulfilling or intend to fulfil their duty under clause 12. We intend these strategies to be assessed by the national oversight forum, about which we have spoken previously in Committee and which was announced in our consultation response in 2022. This ministerial-led group will scrutinise the local strategies, assess the effectiveness of collaboration and how well the duty is executed. It will have an ongoing role in monitoring the performance and outputs of local strategies against the objectives that local areas have set.
Under clause 13, local areas must review and revise strategies from time to time so that they reflect the changing commissioning landscape and emerging local need. We expect strategies to be reviewed annually and revised fully approximately every four years. That is an expectation we will test in practice when we consult formally on the statutory guidance in due course. At the point of review and revision, the oversight group will have oversight responsibility to consider whether the next set of objectives set by local areas are ambitious and deliverable. I therefore contend that requiring an additional annual report as intended by amendment 86 is to a degree duplicative of the extant intentions under the clauses.
Sarah Champion
At this point, does the Minister have details of who will be on the oversight board?
Edward Argar
It is something that we continue to work through. I have alluded in previous comments to some of those whom we hope will be engaged—the Victims’ Commissioner and others—but if it is helpful, in the spirit of sharing what we have, even as a working document as we work our way through the Bill, I am open to considering sharing that as well with members of the Committee.
Edward Argar
In that context, I will gently say—and this may be a little less consensual than what I would normally say—that one of the people on the group will be the relevant Minister, but I fear that Opposition Members may have a long wait before that will necessarily apply to them. They may take a different view. On new clause 9, I agree with the hon. Lady—
Edward Argar
Not on that! I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham on the importance of ensuring appropriate and robust oversight and monitoring of the duty to collaborate. I hope to reassure her that many of her proposals are satisfied by our existing clauses and the Government’s existing plans. Where we have taken a different approach from her recommendations, I will explain our reasoning.
The purpose of the duty is to create a framework that facilitates local collaboration and leads to more targeted and joined-up local commissioning that meets local needs. The measures we are introducing to achieve that are as framed in clauses 12 and 13. As I have said, we will be setting out plans for that clear system of oversight, which we think is essential to ensuring that it meets its aims. The details of that will be set out in statutory guidance. That oversight group will have an ongoing role in monitoring the performance and outputs of local strategies against the objectives that local areas have set. As I have alluded to, under clause 13 local areas must review and revise strategies from time to time.
I turn briefly to potential membership of that group, to put a little gloss on it that might help to inform any feedback the hon. Lady subsequently wishes to give. It needs to have a representative membership that represents and scrutinises the relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities. Those people will need to have the right seniority to discuss and take decisions on issues relating to the three crime types included in the duty: domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent offences.
As well as Ministers and senior representatives from the relevant delivery authorities that have the ability to scrutinise local plans, it is important that we are able to bring different perspectives to the discussions. In the case of police and crime commissioners, that could include representatives from police and crime panels or, for example, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. We continue carefully to consider what representation may be required and I am open, as ever, to working with the hon. Lady on that.
The statutory guidance will set out clear advice on what form the national oversight structure will take and how the relevant authorities can participate and engage with it. I believe that this national oversight system will be effective, proportionate and less complex than alternative models. I am afraid I do not share the perspective that police and crime panels should take on oversight responsibilities to keep the relevant authorities under review in relation to the duty, and prepare and publish the annual report. I will set out my reasons and rationale for that.
First, the bodies that the hon. Lady would like police and crime panels to scrutinise are subject to different individual accountability arrangements. Under this duty, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to integrated care boards, PCCs and local authorities in relation to their collaboration duties under the Bill. While PCCs are scrutinised by those panels, and can be in respect of any of their functions, they, together with local authorities, are ultimately held to account at the ballot box—I suspect we would all hope to see higher turnouts in elections for those important offices, given the functions they perform, but it is of course the choice of our constituents as to whether they vote.
Secondly, it is important to stress that this is a joint statutory duty placed equally on police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities. Victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes typically access a range of services across health, local authority services and policing provision. That is the primary reason why our duty to collaborate is a joint one.
Police and crime panels are rightly focused on scrutinising the relevant PCC on any decisions and actions taken in connection with the commissioner’s role—again, including this new addition to their obligations—but they do not have scrutiny powers over local authorities or integrated care boards. The proposed clause would therefore require going beyond the role, function and powers of the panels. It would also potentially infringe the independence and respective scrutiny arrangements of the other bodies under the duty. The Government currently have no plans to review the role and powers of police and crime panels or to change their remit.
I turn to the hon. Lady’s recommendation for police and crime panels to publish and prepare an annual report setting out
“how the relevant authorities are fulfilling their duties under section (12) and (13)”,
in particular how they are assessing the needs of victims, meeting the needs of victims and collaborating to represent the interests of victims. The new clause asks police and crime panels to publish that annual report setting out how relevant authorities are fulfilling their duties, in particular addressing those key points that I have highlighted. I would argue this additional layer of oversight is, again, not strictly necessary, given the extant obligation on these authorities to publish their commissioning strategies, and given the statutory duty for those strategies to contain information on how they consider they are fulfilling, or intend to fulfil, the collaboration duty under clause 12.
Sarah Champion
The Minister has put forward a persuasive argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The purpose of clause 13 is to improve how support services for victims are planned locally. Clause 13 requires the relevant authorities to undertake certain activities as part of their duty to collaborate, as set out in clause 12.
Police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities within a police area are required, first, to prepare, implement and publish a joint local strategy, setting out how they consider that they are fulfilling, or intend to fulfil, their duty to collaborate in relation to victim support services. Crucially, by ensuring transparency and a better understanding of the aims and approaches of each commissioning area, the strategy will be expected to demonstrate how commissioning areas work together, what their approaches are to commissioning and how their decisions will meet the needs of their community.
Secondly, the strategy must be informed by certain activities, including existing assessments of victims’ needs—including children and those with protected characteristics —and the views of those representing the interests of victims and service providers, ensuring that strategies are developed with the necessary information and the right expertise. Importantly, more effective use of existing joint needs assessments should help to build an improved understanding of local need, and therefore more targeted commissioning activity and better decision making.
Thirdly, the strategy will be reviewed and revised from time to time so that it reflects the changing commissioning landscapes and emerging local need. By increasing collaboration, we expect that local strategies will lead to changes in commissioning processes, including reduced duplication through increased joint working; a common understanding of local need and effective provision; and transparency, including on how decisions are informed by consideration of needs assessments. As a result, victims should experience a more joined-up pathway, resulting in quality support enabled by better co-ordinated and targeted local use of resources and interventions, and timely support facilitated by better joining up so that victims can more seamlessly move between services.
Clause 14 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance that will support PCCs, integrated care boards and local authorities in carrying out the duty to collaborate. It requires them to have regard to this guidance when discharging their duties under clauses 12 and 13. The guidance will cover topics such as how collaboration is expected to work in practice, information on strategy development and content, and how we expect areas to monitor the impact of the duty.
The clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, such as local commissioners and providers, when drafting the guidance, so that it is useful and reflects the operational reality. The clause is important because it ensures that commissioners are clear about what is expected of them and can carry out activity in a consistent way across England. We anticipate that persons who interact with the bodies subject to the duty will also look at the guidance to understand the expectations for the bodies. Following parliamentary passage of the Bill, we expect to formally consult on the guidance and plan for implementation as soon as practically possible. I commend that clauses 13 and 14 stand part of the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Clause 13 says that relevant authorities will collaborate on a strategy on aims and approach to commissioning, and that they must engage victims and those who represent victims; again, this must mean specialist service providers for victims—and by that, I mean that those service providers must be specialist. The clause also states that authorities must base their strategy on the needs of victims. We would clarify that this must be according to need. In order for areas to understand their local need, they must consider the volume of victims, the cohort and characteristics of victims, and the impact on victims. The authorities must have all that information, as a needs assessment can only truly be made if we know the facts first; otherwise, it is based not on any understanding, but on perception.
When it comes to gendered violence, the lack of data is a massive issue. It is an issue that is beyond the parameters of this debate, but as we make new law, as we are doing today, we should try to address it. Data is really important to how we do a needs assessment because, I am afraid to say, so much is missing. Take, for example, the outrageous lack of data accessible to fully investigate and comprehend the relationship between protected characteristics and gendered violence. The Femicide Census tells us that in 79% of cases where a woman was murdered by a man during the period of 2008 to 2018, the ethnicity of the victim was not recorded. Although the Office for National Statistics provides an analysis of homicide offences by “ethnic appearance”, the data is not broken down by gender. This must change. We need to make sure that when we are putting together strategies and needs assessments, they are based not on assumptions but on facts. I fear that the current data collection situation, both nationally and locally, does not allow for that process to be as good as it could be.
We are fine for clauses 13 and 14 to stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, particularly for her comments on data. I may not quite be Mystic Meg, but I sense some possible future amendments or at least a debate on this matter when we reach Report stage. I am happy to engage with her on this in the interim, and I am grateful for her support for the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Guidance about independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 15, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) independent stalking advocacy caseworkers”.
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around stalking advocates, rather than limiting to ISVAs and IDVAs.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 56, in clause 15, page 12, line 12, at end insert—
“(c) ‘independent stalking advocacy caseworker’ means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes stalking”.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around any relevant specialist community-based services, rather than limiting to ISVAs and IDVAs.
Sarah Champion, before you speak to your amendments, let me say this: you never need to apologise to this Committee or anyone else for trying to make legislation better.
Sarah Champion
That is very decent of you, Mr Hosie. Thank you very much.
Amendments 57 and 56 attempt to ensure that the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around stalking advocates, rather than just limiting it to ISVAs and IDVAs. I hope that I will be able to make my argument to the Minister using his own words from earlier.
The Bill as it currently stands, in my opinion and that of many others, does not go far enough to ensure that victims of stalking will be supported, as it makes no specific reference to this very specific crime. Stalking is a highly complex offence, requiring criminal justice agencies to understand the patterns of obsessive controlling behaviour, which, when seen as individual occurrences, may not appear to constitute criminal practice. Victims of stalking often experience prolonged periods of victimisation, often not reporting stalking behaviour until after they have experienced more than 100 instances. Sadly, criminal justice agencies and inspectorates lack training and expert understanding of the complexities of this crime, and the specific trauma that victims of stalking experience. Furthermore, justice on stalking is not currently being delivered. In 2019-20 there were more than 1.5 million estimated victims of stalking, but just 3,506 stalkers were charged. Only 304 of those charged received custodial sentences.
The Government must prioritise raising awareness and understanding of stalking in criminal justice agencies, because victims are currently falling through the gaps. The Bill represents an opportunity for the understanding of stalking to be improved. By explicitly acknowledging the specific characteristics of stalking, services will ensure victims are not excluded from the right to safety and support.
The Suzy Lamplugh Trust says it welcomes the decision to elevate the importance and understanding of ISVA and IDVA roles under clause 15. I echo that, and it is very welcome. But while IDVAs and ISVAs do vitally important work for their specific victim groups, they are not necessarily stalking specialists, nor are they expected to be. Stalking is a complex crime, and victims must be supported by specialist advocates who have expertise in the area.
At present, the Bill neglects to include a definition for independent stalking advocates. Given that stalking is often misunderstood by criminal justice agencies, victims of stalking will once again fall through gaps in support if explicit reference to their needs is not made. It is well documented that stalking advocates have a huge impact on improving the experience of victims. Some 90% of respondents to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust’s research “Bridging the Gap” stated that their stalking advocate helped them to navigate the criminal justice system. I thank the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for its help with this amendment.
Stalking advocates support victims in a holistic way to help them to manage and cope with their situation and to recover from abuse. They carry out risk assessments and ensure that safety plans are put in place to protect victims and those around them, including any dependants, from further harm. Unfortunately, stalking advocates are underused. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust research demonstrates that 77% of stalking victims did not access a stalking advocate; 69% accessed no advocacy at all; only 4% accessed support from a non-specialist service such as an IDVA or ISVA; and just 15% of victims were referred to a stalking advocate by the police, further demonstrating low levels of understanding of stalking in criminal justice agencies.
If clause 15 made specific reference to independent stalking advocates, the guidance that the Secretary of State has committed to issue should include a definition of stalking advocates and clarity on the services they provide. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has shown that victims not supported by an advocate had a one-in-1,000 chance of their perpetrator being convicted, compared with one in four if they had a stalking advocate. The amendment would not only provide much needed support for victims, but help enable justice to be secured.
This morning, in response to new clause 19, the Minister said:
“Our concern is that the approach set out in the new clause risks excluding or minimising the importance of some of the other service types that commissioners could consider for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. As drafted, the new clause could risk creating a hierarchy.”
That exact argument applies here. I completely understand his response to me that ISVAs and IDVAs need specific training for judges to recognise their judgments and advice in courts. Independent stalking advocates receive training and qualifications such as the level 4 ISAS—independent stalking advocacy specialist—course, which is accredited by the University of Hertfordshire.
These are vital professionals who must be included in the Bill. We cannot limit clause 15 solely to ISVAs and IDVAs when so much abuse begins with stalking. We must enable victims of this preventable crime to access support at an early stage that has statutory guidance, just as those who have experienced sexual or domestic violence will be able to.
Jess Phillips
In support of amendments 56 and 57, I say gently to the Minister that a one-time Back Bencher who is now Secretary of State for Justice introduced legislation that put stalking protection orders in place. That was undoubtedly based on a harrowing case he came across as the Member for Cheltenham. In my experience of working with him on stalking, he has always been a true and brilliant ally in this space, so I could imagine him moving the amendment. We could go back to him gently for his agreement to it.
One important thing to mention is that stalking is distinct from the crimes of sexual violence and domestic abuse. Normally, I am on my feet complaining that people do not understand that stalking happens as part of domestic abuse and that someone can be a victim of domestic abuse and coercive control but then, following separation, go on to be a victim of post-separation stalking. That is largely misunderstood by criminal justice agencies.
It is important to put stalking specialists into clause 15 because there are lots of cases where people are stalked by strangers, work colleagues and housemates. When we debated the Domestic Abuse Bill, an amendment tabled by Liberal Democrat members of the Committee was about whether abuse in a student house share could be considered domestic abuse. Stalking sits distinctly in many cases involving strangers, colleagues and house shares.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I want to highlight the brilliant point made by my hon. Friend, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. Does she agree that children—girls especially, but boys as well—are often stalked, which is extremely frightening and scary for them, and that that also needs to be highlighted and addressed in the Bill?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. For any hon. Member who has experienced stalking themselves—unfortunately, we are a prime category for some of this stalking behaviour—it will not come as a surprise that, from my experience, the first threat place that people go to is to antagonise me about my sons, where they go to school and that sort of information. Children are undoubtedly used, often completely unawares, as part of a pattern of stalking, creating further stress and multiple victims in that instance. Children are often targeted and used in circumstances to attack an adult. As somebody who has run IDVA and ISVA services—in fact, the organisation I used to work for now has specific stalking advocates—I know that stalking is distinct, specific and different. The element of post-separation domestic abuse, as well as the important fact that it is a stranger-based issue, makes the argument for the need for that specialism.
Sarah Champion
The Minister argued that IDVAs and ISVAs both engage with the criminal justice sector and therefore need to be recognised as such in the Bill. In my hon. Friend’s experience, is it the same for stalking advocates?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. A case that I handled very recently was a post-separation issue, but was not at the relevant risk level. As I said earlier today, a person has to be at incredibly high risk of harm to be allocated an IDVA who will take them through the criminal justice system, or they have to be going through the criminal justice system.
In the case that I handled, a person broke up with somebody who, six months later, started turning up at her place of work. The victim then went to the police station and said, “This is my ex-partner,” but she could not point to any particular history of abuse or anything that had been criminal at the time. She said, “He’s now turning up at my place of work and sending me messages on Facebook,” but that is not at the level that will get anyone access to an independent domestic violence adviser. I immediately said, “Do you have a stalking protection order in place?” She said, “What’s a stalking protection order?” She had been to the police, but she did not have a specialist advocate with her, or even just somebody telling her what question to ask. She now has a stalking protection order in place, because she knows what one is.
There is a need for specialist advocacy in cases that will never breach the criminal space of domestic abuse or the risk level that would allow for an IDVA. That is very important, because those cases can still be criminal without ever touching the desk of one of those agencies. I therefore totally support my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and I imagine that the Secretary of State for Justice may agree with us.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for amendments 56 and 57 and grateful to her and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, for this debate. The amendments would expand the Bill’s requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs so that it also included independent stalking advocacy caseworkers. Specialist stalking services, including independent stalking advocacy caseworkers, do vital work to identify risk and provide practical guidance and safety advice for victims. They can help victims to navigate the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Lewisham East was right to highlight that this crime can affect children as well as adults, and we should not forget that.
The Government are committed to protecting and supporting victims of stalking. The hon. Member for Rotherham was right to highlight the huge impact that stalking can have and the trauma that can result, and the shadow Minister was adroit at gently reminding me of my boss’s views and work on this subject in the past. For example, the Government introduced stalking protection orders in 2020, and almost 1,000 were issued in the first 23 months. The Home Office also continues to part-fund the national stalking helpline, which is run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, to which I pay tribute, and provided £160,430 between April 2022 and March 2023. We have also provided funding for police-led projects to tackle the behaviour of stalkers and thereby provide greater protection to victims. In May, we announced awards to 10 police and crime commissioners to fund perpetrator interventions, wholly or partly, between April 2023 and March 2025.
In the Bill, we have chosen to focus on guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs because the consultation highlighted that greater consistency and awareness of ISVAs and IDVAs was particularly needed, especially given the number now working across the sector. We believe that that can best be addressed through statutory guidance. I agree that independent stalking advocacy caseworkers, or ISACs—I may just stick to the full wording—are important and can be just as effective, but we are not yet convinced that Government intervention by way of statutory guidance is necessary on the basis of the evidence that we have seen thus far. We do not feel that there is the same pressing need to drive further awareness and consistency of the roles, given the degree of consistency that exists.
I am, however, open to working with the hon. Member for Rotherham—and with the shadow Minister if she wishes to join, as I suspect she might—to continue to reflect on and consider how and whether Government support to independent stalking advocacy caseworkers can be improved. But I also believe that it will be important to assess the impact and effectiveness of the guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs, subject to the passage of the Bill, before considering whether to extend it to other groups in the same format. As I say, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member for Rotherham in that respect.
On the point about hierarchy or the lack thereof, I reassure the hon. Lady that guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs should not be taken to indicate any sort of funding or other hierarchy of them over independent stalking advocacy caseworkers or any other type of specialist support. Funding decisions for different types of support are made by local commissioners based on their assessment of the local need, and the guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs will be explicit that there should be no presumption of a hierarchy when it comes to those funding decisions.
Sarah Champion
I just want to re-read the statistic that victims not supported by an advocate had a one-in-1,000 chance of their perpetrator getting convicted, compared with a one-in-four chance for those who had a stalking advocate. The Minister knows that pretty much all my time in Parliament has been spent trying to prevent abuse. This seems a very worthy investment and a very worthy amendment to the Bill. I will grab with both hands the opportunity to meet him and understand why he does not, at this point, agree.
Sarah Champion
I am happy to go to a beach somewhere. At this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 15, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) any other specialist community-based services relevant to the criminal conduct.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 61, in clause 15, page 12, line 12, at end insert—
“(c) ‘specialist community-based service’ means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals based on a protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or the specific nature of the crime faced by the victim.”
Amendment 58, in clause 15, page 12, line 13, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (c)”.
Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 12, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Guidance under this section about service providers under subsection (1) must include provision about—
(a) the role of such providers;
(b) the services they provide to—
(i) victims, including (where relevant) victims who are children or have other protected characteristics, or
(ii) persons who are not victims, where that service is provided in connection with a service provided to a victim;
(c) how such providers and other persons who have functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, should work together;
(d) appropriate training and qualifications for such providers.”
Amendment 60, in clause 15, page 12, line 28, leave out from beginning to “must” and insert
“The service providers listed in subsection (1)”.
New clause 18—Guidance about community-based specialist domestic abuse services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about community-based specialist domestic abuse services.
(2) Guidance under this section must include provision about—
(a) the definition and role of community-based specialist domestic abuse services;
(b) the support that such services provide to—
(i) victims, including (where relevant) victims who are children or have other protected characteristics, or
(ii) persons who are not victims, where that service is provided in connection with a service provided to a victim;
(c) how such services and other persons who have functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, should work together;
(d) appropriate training and qualifications for providers of such services.
(3) Providers of community-based specialist domestic abuse services must have regard to guidance under this section when exercising their functions.
(4) Any other person who has functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, must have regard to guidance under this section where—
(a) the person is exercising such a function, and
(b) the guidance is relevant to the exercise of that function.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to anything done by any person acting in a judicial capacity, or on the instructions of or on behalf of such a person.
(6) In this section, ‘domestic abuse’ has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 1 of that Act).”
Sarah Champion
The amendments are all on specialist community-based support, which I have a great deal of time and respect for. I know that the Minister is very aware of its value, so I hope that I am pushing at an open door in support of it, even if he might have different opinions about where that support should land.
Going back to amendment 57, I repeat that the inclusion of guidance and IDVAs and ISVAs in the Bill is genuinely very welcome. I commend the Minister for that, and I mean no disrespect to him in what I will say next: there are concerns that defining only those roles will direct victims to support based in the criminal justice system rather than whichever form suits them best. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has stressed that most victims and survivors do not go into the criminal justice system, so we must ensure that support and investment beyond IDVAs and ISVAs is easily accessible.
I appreciate that the Minister has made it clear that a victim does not need to report a crime to access support. I am therefore concerned that it is a serious oversight by him not to make it clearer that specialist support that does not go through a criminal footing is equally regarded in the Bill. My amendment 62 complements and reflects the intention behind new clause 19 in ensuring that all forms of specialist support are seen as just as crucial as that provided by ISVAs and IDVAs. It also aligns with amendment 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, which I very much support. I am glad that he has brought referring victims to restorative justice services into the debate.
It must be the victim’s choice which route they pursue to cope with and recover from the crimes that have been committed against them. Since the duty on local authorities to provide accommodation-based support was enacted in the Domestic Abuse Act, providing that form of support is now an overwhelming focus within the majority of local authority commissioning strategies, at the expense of other forms. However, the vast majority of victims also want to access support in the community, with 83% wanting counselling or therapeutic support. For victims of domestic abuse accessing support, 70% would do so via community-based services. According to SafeLives, the vast majority of victims never spend time in refuge accommodation. Women’s Aid’s annual survey reported that, in a single year, 187,000 children and 156,000 women were supported by community-based services. Thank goodness they were there. I commend them. Refuge’s recent report “Local Lifelines” found that 95% of survivors supported by Refuge use community-based services.
Jess Phillips
I rise to speak to new clause 18—is that where we are at? Yes, because Sarah spoke to all the provisions together. I will make some remarks too, although I imagine they are relatively similar. I should not have called her Sarah; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham—I apologise for using her name. I did not say “you”, but I did break that particular protocol. It has been a long day.
Jess Phillips
In his remarks, the Minister said that consultation highlighted the need to define IDVAs and ISVAs, and that may well be true in the purest sense of what they were initially intended to be—certainly much more with IDVAs than ISVAs—which was about specific guidance. We had court-based IDVAs when we used to have specialist domestic abuse courts everywhere, and it is absolutely right that it becomes about the criminal justice system.
I have to say that ISVAs were not about the criminal justice system originally, and their services took a much more holistic approach. The term became what we called anyone who supports someone who comes forward about sexual violence and abuse. In domestic abuse services, of course, there were both; we had floating support, housing support and refuge support workers, as well as people who may be going through the courts, so it made sense to have a different name. That is just a potted history of IDVAs and ISVAs.
The consultation may have said that it was important to identify and define IDVAs and ISVAs and to ensure that criminal justice agencies—specifically judges and the courts—take them seriously. Who could disagree with that? However, if we were to consult any agency that runs IDVA or ISVA services, or domestic abuse and sexual violence services, not one of them would think that it should be exclusively about IDVAs and ISVAs. If we are going to lean on consultation in one regard, then the evidence here is that the sector is not against the definitions, but rather the narrowness of the definitions. Throughout the day, the Minister has talked about the danger of narrow definitions—I just point out that irony.
New clause 18 follows on from the previous debate about community-based, specialist domestic abuse services, which come in a variety of forms. Women and children seek support and help in different ways, including outreach support, floating support, formal counselling and support groups—the list goes on. By only formalising the IDVA models, we risk creating a tiered hierarchy and adversely affecting other models of community-based specialist provision. Once again, that then poses the risk of more generic services, or services that are run in-house.
What is to stop Birmingham City Council saying, “We have a load of ISVAs that work in our service. We are going to train a load of ISVAs and we will take any funding in-house”? I have great respect to Birmingham City Council—I was a member of the council for some years—but it is not a specialist domestic abuse service, and nor should it ever be trusted to be one. It is not independent; they are the people who run the housing; they are the people an ISVA will sometimes have to help a victim take to court—that happens quite regularly. Regarding Victim Support, with the greatest respect to it as an organisation, it is not a specialist sexual violence service, and yet, across the country, it does have ISVA services.
I find the creep towards the generic a worry. Actually, it is not a worry; it is a fact. I have seen it; it is happening, and it has been happening in a new commissioning environment for some time. I have outlined the evidence of the trend already, and the same warnings apply here. Crucially, victims with protected characteristics value and need access to holistic support and intersectional advocacy from organisations led by and for black and minoritised women and those providing specialist advocacy for LGBT+ and for deaf and disabled victims, and I also mentioned specialist services for victims of forces-based violence. Those organisations commonly sit outside the IDVA model but are crucial to the provision of support for such groups.
Another thing that worries me concerns allowing somebody to go into court, be that a family court or another civil court environment for non-molestation orders or other domestic abuse protection orders—there are various different orders, which are currently not worth the paper they are written on, but they exist, so let us pretend they are a solution. If someone does not have an IDVA qualification and is a floating community-based support worker from the local LGBT specialist support service, a judge will not allow that person into the court, because of the idea of that qualification. Also, how do we know that people do not call themselves IDVAs and ISVAs without the qualification? It is not like having a degree; it is a different thing. So there are some real dangers in this. I have seen these things happen. Even though I am qualified in this space, I was not allowed to sit with a rape victim in court recently, because I was not an ISVA. That seems like a—
Jess Phillips
It does seem like a hierarchy. Obviously, I won the argument on that, but that was what I was initially told. There are many examples of why this is a problem.
Studies have shown that disabled women are twice as likely to experience domestic abuse. They are also twice as likely to suffer rape and sexual assault. Yet, the charity SafeLives’s multi-agency risk assessment conference data shows that, nationally, only 3.9% of referrals are disabled victims. Disabled women are four times more likely to report abuse by multiple perpetrators and to experience abuse for longer. Disabled women are more likely to experience abuse by a family member than non-disabled women. Stay Safe East is a user-led specialist organisation supporting disabled victims, and its experience with clients mirrors those harrowing statistics.
Disabled victims may also face specific forms of domestic abuse or their circumstances or impairment being weaponised against them—for example, control of food or drink or medication, withdrawal of care, restricting access to disability equipment, restricting access to other professional advice or help, theft of benefits, and the threat that they will be put into care or have their children taken away from them. Those specific experiences and intersecting discriminations mean that organisations that can provide tailored and holistic care are crucial and wanted by victims. Likewise, in research by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, it was found that people wanted specialist services. Those services, such as Stay Safe East, are small—I do not want to speak out of turn, but I think four people work there, so it is not a big organisation. However, it is one of the only specialist domestic abuse organisations; those people are not all IDVAs, yet this is absolutely the specialist agency.
The new clause and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham are to try to ensure that judges and police forces—judges more so, but police forces too—will understand. They are quite rigid about who is allowed in, who is not and who they can take advice from. I really worry that we are about to undermine vast swathes of very professional and learned specialists just on the basis of a qualification they do or do not have.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to hon. Members for their amendments, and I will seek to respond to them all in turn.
Amendments 62 and 61 would expand clause 15 so that the Secretary of State would be required to issue guidance about specialist community-based services for victims, in addition to ISVAs and IDVAs. I understand the concerns that the clause’s focus on ISVAs and IDVAs alone could result in the Government being seen to place their focus on them above other forms of community-based support. I recognise that there are mixed views in the sector about that, and concerns have been expressed. Let me reassure the Committee that that is not the case and that the intention behind the amendments can be addressed through other means.
Edward Argar
I will refrain from biting—I almost did.
To help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere, in July 2021, we published our cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy. That was followed by a cross-Government tackling domestic abuse plan in March 2022, investing more than £230 million of cross-Government funding into tackling this hideous crime, including more than £140 million for supporting victims and more than £81 million for tackling perpetrators.
Through the commitments set out in those strategies, the Government aim to transform how systems and society respond to violence against women and girls. That is in addition to the increased funding for support services and the increased numbers of ISVAs and IDVAs that I have already referenced. I hope that that demonstrates, to some extent, how we are taking action to further support the sector.
We have chosen a narrower focus for the Bill’s measures to issue guidance than new clause 18 would. IDVAs are a particular type of community-based specialist support service for victims of domestic abuse; our focus on them is in response to the victims Bill consultation. I know that, as the hon. Members for Rotherham and for Birmingham, Yardley set out, IDVAs are only one part of the domestic abuse support landscape, as they predominantly support high-risk victims. However, as I have said in relation to similar amendments, we do not believe that Government intervention through guidance issued about all community-based specialist domestic abuse services is the right approach.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said in our debate on new clause 19 that these services offer a vast range of support, including counselling, advice, advocacy and helplines. We want to get the balance right: we want Government intervention only when it is needed and will yield a positive benefit to support services. Our general approach is to set national commissioning standards and then allow local decision making by local commissioners. National guidance, such as the victims funding strategy and the national statement of expectations, sets standards but empowers commissioners to fund services of a quality and type that meet their local needs.
Our view is that additional guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs is necessary, given the growing number of roles and the lack of consistency. However, given the wide variety of roles within all community-based services, it is less clear what guidance about their roles, training and qualifications would bring, except possibly additional complexity and work for them. The key point is that ISVAs and IDVAs are particularly involved with the criminal justice process.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley highlighted the judicial discretion in this space and the approaches adopted by judges in their courts. I will not stray into that. Although we cannot direct or guide judges because they are quite rightly independent, we can improve their confidence in the professionalism and the work of ISVAs and IDVAs through this guidance, because of that particular intersection with the criminal justice process.
I always welcome further discussion with the hon. Member for Rotherham, as I hope I have made clear in the past few days, but I encourage her not to press the amendment to a Division.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his comments. I understand but disagree with his argument, but I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 8—Assessment of numbers of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates and specialist support services—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates, and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales, having regard to the population in each region, and
(b) publish that assessment.”
This new clause would require the SoS to make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of ISVAs, IDVAs, stalking advocates and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales.
Edward Argar
With your permission, Mr Hosie, I will address clause 15 and then, once I have heard Opposition Members’ arguments, speak to new clause 8 at the end.
Clause 15 introduces a measure that seeks to improve consistency and awareness of the roles of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, who play a crucial role in supporting the needs of victims. We heard during the victims Bill consultation about the need for improved information, awareness and consistency in relation to the ISVA and IDVA roles. In particular, we were told that their remit is not sufficiently clear, which could hamper effective collaboration; that their service provision is not always consistent; and that the existing guidance is outdated and unclear in some places. However, we know that there is a crucial need to allow flexibility and innovation in how ISVAs and IDVAs support victims as an independent sector.
Clause 15 seeks to address that issue by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about ISVAs and IDVAs and placing a duty on ISVAs, IDVAs and other relevant persons to have regard to the guidance. We believe that statutory guidance can strike the right balance by raising awareness and improving consistency without stifling independence and flexibility. It will cover minimum expectations and best practice for ISVAs and IDVAs working with victims and other agencies and services, and will seek to support practical improvements in how agencies work with ISVAs and IDVAs.
We have focused on ISVAs and IDVAs, as they are some of the most common and well-known support roles for victims of sexual and domestic abuse. We recognise the value they add in reducing the attrition of victims who have engaged with the criminal justice process, and preventing them from feeling that they have to drop out at any point. That reflects their crucial role in the criminal justice system in particular. We know that those who received their support are nearly 50% less likely to withdraw from the process. It is also important, as we increase the number of ISVAs and IDVAs to over 1,000 by 2024-25, that the roles achieve greater awareness and consistency to provide the quality service victims deserve.
However, we absolutely do not intend this measure to detract from the important diversity of the wider support sector, or inadvertently to create a hierarchy of support services in which only ISVAs and IDVAs are commissioned or favoured. We are carefully working with the sector to develop the guidance to make sure we get this right. We will ensure that the guidance clearly recognises the wider support sector and makes clear to commissioners their responsibility to consider all victims. That guidance, which will be required by the clause, will therefore meet an evidenced need for a growing part of the support sector. It will be one part of the ongoing and wider work that the Government are focused on to improve support for victims.
Sarah Champion
I rise to speak to new clause 8, which is a slender amendment and my last, so I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.
For years, as we know from our debates in Committee, victims and survivors have faced a postcode lottery in support services, but access to sexual violence advocates, domestic violence advocates and stalking advocates varies hugely around the country. For the Bill to be successful, we need an accurate picture of what such services look like now. If we do not know where the gaps are, how will we fill them sufficiently?
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has done excellent mapping work across the country and shown where the gaps are in provision for domestic abuse victims, but victims of all crime face patchy services. Support services differ greatly, depending on where in the country victims access them. As my hon. Friends and I have outlined, stalking advocates are crucial for women all over the country but are rarely accessible for most victims, even though they dramatically increase the chance of prosecution.
ISVAs and IDVAs provide crucial services, but if not all victims can access them, not all victims can have their rights met. The criminal justice system is incredibly difficult to navigate. An advocate is crucial for justice to be achieved and support to be received. I urge the Minister to accept that there are huge gaps in the provision available and, by accepting new clause 8, to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review.
Jess Phillips
It would be lovely to know how many ISVAs and IDVAs there are across the country, and what that means, because we also have hospital IDVAs who do not necessarily interact with the criminal justice system at all, but are responsive in accident and emergency. It would be lovely to know that, so I agree with new clause 8—I had ticked it off eagerly and could not see the number for a moment.
I have some real concerns about the clause standing part of the Bill, in particular about the hierarchy. I will not push the clause to a vote today, as I imagine that this is an area that will evolve. I want to see the professionalism of the sector that I worked for, but perhaps the professionalism of the job that I once had should include something about the levels of pay. I guarantee that writing the level of professionalism into a particular job title will not mean that anyone who does it breaches being paid more than £30,000 a year, if they are lucky. On one side, we want professionalism, but on the other side we are happy to allow a group of, frankly, quite low-paid women to do this very difficult work that we respect enough to write into our law. I have concerns about the clause as a whole, but I will agree that it can stand part for now.
Edward Argar
I will respond briefly to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which seeks to require an assessment of the Secretary of State and that that assessment is published annually.
As the hon. Lady pointed out, understanding the needs of victims and the provision available to them is crucial to ensuring that future services are commissioned and designed to support victims adequately. However, that needs to be appropriately balanced to ensure that processes are not burdensome on the services themselves, which is routinely of concern to them.
Our approach recognises that the needs of victims, and the provision currently available, will differ locally. We therefore devolve responsibility for commissioning and funding to local bodies that can appropriately assess and consider local needs. That ensures a tailored approach to commissioning services for communities. I am pleased to reassure the hon. Member for Rotherham that there are already a range of mechanisms in place for monitoring victims’ needs and the provision of services.
Edward Argar
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 22, page 18, line 3, leave out “a disclosure or” and insert “the”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 32 to 34.
Clause stand part.
Edward Argar
I shall be relatively brisk. As with the Government amendments moved earlier, these are minor, technical amendments. They relate to the provisions on data protection. We are making these amendments across the Bill to ensure that the terminology on data protection is consistent. For example, the amendments will remove superfluous words that could be confusing, as “processing” information can cover a range of activity, including “disclosure”, which is mentioned separately. These changes primarily clarify the provisions and ensure that they work as intended; they do not constitute a policy change and are not intended to have substantive effects.
Clause 22 makes it clear that where data handling is required, the appropriate data protection legislation must still be followed. Where data processing is required under part 1 of the Bill, it is predominately for performance improvement and strategic monitoring—for example, in relation to compliance with the victims code. We do not anticipate that this will require the sharing of personal data. Nevertheless, it is vital that we ensure that the necessary protections are in place so that the collecting and handling of data is done fairly, lawfully and for specified purposes, and that nothing compromises victims’ confidentiality or jeopardises their ability to consent to access services and support. We have already engaged with the UK’s Data Protection Authority during the development of these requirements and will carry out further consultation during the development of the regulations in so far as any requirements relate to the processing of personal data.
Anna McMorrin
I rise only to agree with the Minister. I have no comments to make on the clause, because it is an important part of ensuring that the Bill works in terms of data protection.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: 32, in clause 22, page 18, line 4, leave out “disclosure or”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Amendment 33, in clause 22, page 18, line 5, leave out “a disclosure or processing” and insert “it”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Amendment 34, in clause 22, page 18, line 11, leave out “has” and insert “and ‘processing’ have”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment and Amendments 31, 32 and 33 give “processing” of information the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018. Processing includes disclosure and other uses of information, so there is no need to refer separately to disclosure.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I will now be even brisker: the Bill provides a new statutory framework for the victims code, so this clause will repeal the existing provisions, so that the updated statutory basis of the code is clear. That requires repealing the relevant provisions relating to the victims code in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Once in force, these provisions will allow a new victims code made under this Bill to come into effect, and the current victims code will cease to operate.
The clause also makes sure that other relevant legislation reflects that change. This includes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman—the Parliamentary Commissioner—to accept complaints about the victims code, and the Victims’ Commissioner, given their responsibility for overseeing the operation of the code.
Anna McMorrin
This part of the Bill refers to the code of practice for victims. We need to ensure that if this Bill progresses, much of what has been discussed is reflected in it as we move forward, so that it is improved for victims—because that is what this is about. It is about victims’ experiences and real lives. The vast majority of victims do not get their entitlements. We currently have a Bill that falls short of that, but I hope that together we can robustly improve it and ensure that victims’ lives and experiences are changed for the better.
Edward Argar
I note what the shadow Minister said. While there may be areas where we disagreed as we went through part 1 of the Bill, I am grateful thus far for the positive and constructive tone adopted by Members on both sides of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Fay Jones.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Srebrenica Memorial Week
(10 months, 1 week 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
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Srebrenica Memorial Week.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us the opportunity to hold this debate in time to mark the commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide. I also thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who are co-sponsors of this debate. Their support is a testament to the fact that this issue transcends all party divides in this House and across the country.
The Srebrenica genocide and the events leading up to it contain important lessons on which we must take this opportunity to reflect. The House is familiar with the story of the appalling atrocity. The Bosnian war from 1992 to 1995 saw the planned, systematic and industrialised murder of just under 100,000 Muslims, the displacement of 2 million people and the genocidal rape of about 50,000 women simply because of their Muslim identity.
In July 1995, the Bosnian Serb General Mladić and his forces seized the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, which had been declared a UN safe area. Over just a few days, more than 8,000 people, mainly Bosnian Muslim men and boys, were systematically murdered by the Bosnian Serb forces. The bodies were dumped in mass graves and later moved to secondary and even tertiary mass graves as the Bosnian Serb soldiers sought to cover up what they had done. There are still some people missing.
I am sure that, like me, colleagues here today remember the harrowing scenes of the war in Bosnia on our television screens. We watched neighbours turn against neighbours, friends against friends, ethnicity against ethnicity. I will not forget seeing the images of the emaciated prisoners held in the concentration camp while looking on in disbelief that ethnic cleansing, systematic mass rape and genocide were all happening not in a faraway place, but in Europe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I apologise to you, Sir Robert, and to the hon. Lady for not being able to make a speech. I wish to do so, but I have to attend the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—I have permission to leave it for a short time and then return.
The genocide convention places obligations on the UK Government not only to punish the perpetrators of such crimes, but to predict and prevent those atrocities from happening. Unfortunately, as Srebrenica showed, we keep forgetting that duty. The International Development Committee’s report, “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow”, challenged the UK Government to incorporate prevention at all stages of the policy cycle, including trade, education, supply chains and asylum policy. Does the hon. Member agree that that work needs to be done at pace to prevent an escalation because of not just what happened in Srebrenica, but what is happening now in Sudan and Nigeria?
Yasmin Qureshi
I entirely agree and thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We need to continue to work on this and take action across the board, so that these things do not happen again.
Bosnia was a horrific reminder of the vulnerability of ordinary people. It made me question how that could happen on our doorstep when the world had pledged “Never again” after the second world war. I also questioned what chance ethnic minority communities have in Europe if the xenophobic claims of ethnic superiority could prevail among white indigenous people who have been assimilated, integrated and lived together for hundreds of years. For me, Srebrenica demonstrates where the hatred and the dehumanisation of others can lead. Only when we reflect on those lessons can we truly strengthen our resolve to stand up to hatred in our own society.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I welcome the debate and commend all those who called for it. I worked in Bosnia during and after the war, and visited the site of the Srebrenica memorial to the genocide of more than 8,000 people in July 1995.
My hon. Friend refers to saying, “Never again”. Does she agree that when we say “Never again”, we must demonstrate the commitment to keeping peace in the region, opposing genocide denial and opposing the Serb separatism of Milorad Dodik and other politicians, and take pride in the work our embassy has done to support the Srebrenica memorial and to support local organisations working for peace in the region?
Yasmin Qureshi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to be vigilant. Especially in the western Balkans, as she has rightly said, issues of ethnic nationalism are arising, and the Serbians are trying to hide the fact that this event ever happened. I am grateful for the fact that the United Kingdom is the only European country to commemorate the Srebrenica genocide, although I will come later to the lack of resources and the funding cuts that have been made. I thank our Government and our country for recognising the event and for being the world leader in commemorating the Srebrenica genocide.
While much has been achieved in building a cohesive society in the UK, there is more work to be done. According to Home Office figures released last year, police recorded hate crime in England and Wales has risen consistently over the past several years. I know the Minister will agree that standing up to hatred and intolerance in the UK remains extremely necessary and should be a priority for Departments.
The Minister will be aware of the vital work done by the charity Remembering Srebrenica, which was set up 10 years ago with the support of the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. The charity has established 11 regions, as well as other bodies across the UK, and has gone from holding one memorial event at Lancaster House in 2013 to holding nearly 2,000 annual community actions in schools, town halls, mosques, synagogues, churches, community centres and police stations to bring communities together in a collective act of remembrance. Remembering Srebrenica has educated nearly 150,000 young people through its educational resource and teacher training programmes about Srebrenica, and has appointed community champions who work together to unite communities in order to work against hate and to build a safer, stronger community.
As part of the charity’s work to commemorate the genocide each year, it selects a theme that speaks to communities here in the UK. For 2023, the theme is “Together We Are One”, which is particularly potent when we remind ourselves that Bosnia and Herzegovina is well known for being a melting pot of cultures and identities in which Muslims, Christians and Jews have lived side by side for centuries. Many colleagues will know that the capital, Sarajevo, is known to have been the Jerusalem of Europe, and it is the only European city with a mosque, a Catholic church, an Orthodox church and a synagogue in the same neighbourhood.
However, after the break-up of Yugoslavia, nationalist leaders who played on identity politics rose to power across the region. Those ultra-nationalist forces promoted hatred and division with the agenda of creating a greater Serbia, but only with ethnically pure Serbs. One of the most well-known integrated societies in Europe imploded. The theme “Together We Are One” underlines why we have a responsibility to do everything we can to combat divisive rhetoric, by focusing on the things that unite us together as one.
This year’s theme also reminds us to remain vigilant against the forces of hatred that seek to “other” groups as being negatively different—the narrative of us and them, or where one group dehumanises and denies the humanity of another, and the dominant group is taught to see the target group as less than human and not belonging to their community or society.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. It is less a debate and more a commemoration and recognition of the unity that we have in this Parliament never to forget what happened in Bosnia and Srebrenica. She makes the excellent point that there is a real danger of history repeating itself. Right now, our position towards the Balkans is not alert enough to the problems faced by Bosnian citizens.
Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to take three steps? First, we need to upgrade our resources in Bosnia, with more British troops available and on the ground, and through NATO. Secondly, we need to use Magnitsky sanctions on those perpetrating crimes in the area. Thirdly, we need to ensure that we do not cut funding to the Remembering Srebrenica group, which we have by 50%. After all, is an ounce of prevention not worth a pound of cure?
Yasmin Qureshi
I entirely agree. I know that the Minister does listen, so I hope she will take back to others in the Foreign Office the point about more spending and more resources in the western Balkans to ensure that we do not have any further eruptions there. I say gently that both the first world war and second world war started in that part of the world. That is important.
Remembering Srebrenica is the charity doing the most work on this matter, but, year on year, it has had funding cuts. I wrote to the Foreign Office and to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ask for funding, but that was sadly rejected. They—especially DLUHC—have responded by saying they are not going to make any change, which is a shame because this is an important cause. The only way in which so many people are finding out about this is because of the work done by Remembering Srebrenica on the memorial, through volunteers and others across the United Kingdom. It is very much volunteer-led, but it needs resources. After this debate, I hope that the Foreign Office will consider putting in some money and that, hopefully, it will talk to DLUHC to ask it to consider funding as well.
We know that polarisation and propaganda drive groups further apart, through deepening division. We saw that played out in the years leading up to the Srebrenica genocide in 1995. Non-Serbs had to mark their houses with white flags or wear an armband. There was a systematic and careful process of dehumanising Bosnian Muslims. Anti-Muslim propaganda was instrumental in Bosnian Serbs turning against their Bosnian Muslim neighbours, who were constantly referred to as “Islamic fundamentalists”.
That is why commemorating Srebrenica is so important, so that we can stop to reflect on our own society as well and help people in our country better understand the behaviours and influences around them, which can either build or damage the cohesion of communities. We need to help equip them with skills and confidence to challenge such behaviours, and dismantle the foundations that allow intolerance to survive. We must do more to encourage people to reflect on how we can create an environment that helps find common ground with people from different backgrounds, instead of focusing on a single facet of their identity.
The work that Remembering Srebrenica does across the country in Srebrenica Memorial Week, and throughout the whole year, empowers communities to actively challenge stereotypes, the scapegoating, hate speech and dehumanising language, and to counter that by working towards creating a society that is characterised by embracing our common humanity. It is a reminder of the role that each of us, irrespective of our background, has in us all coming together as one community against hatred and division. I look forward to hearing the Minister acknowledge some of the importance of that work in her remarks and I hope that DLUHC and the Foreign Office will consider funding the charity.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Every year when we reflect on the horrors of the Srebrenica genocide, we all reiterate our commitment to stamping out the Islamophobia, prejudice and intolerance that led to the murder of the 8,000 Muslim men and boys in 1995, yet we are witnessing the ethnic cleansing of Uyghur Muslims at the hands of the Chinese Government in Xinjiang, and the persecution of Muslims in Kashmir by the Indian Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that to avoid another Srebrenica happening in Xinjiang, Myanmar, Kashmir or elsewhere, the very real threat of Islamophobia must be taken seriously and tackled on a global scale?
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank my hon. Friend and I entirely agree. I do not normally criticise colleagues, but comments were made recently by a certain Home Secretary and she needs to reflect on what she says. Those kinds of things do not help in the situation we are facing.
The events in Srebrenica have stayed with me. Indeed, they have shaped me. A few years after the genocide, I worked for the United Nations mission in Kosovo to help to rebuild the justice system and department after the war. That region of the world is personal to me. I saw the after-effects 23 years ago, when I worked in Kosovo. That is part of the reason why I have dedicated so much of my work to challenge hate and division, and that is why I set up the all-party parliamentary group on Srebrenica, with the help of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi.
After the holocaust, we said “Never again”, yet what happened in Srebrenica proved that words are not enough—they must be met with action. As we approach the 28th anniversary of this harrowing tragedy, we must all come together to unite and reaffirm our commitment to challenging hate, wherever and whenever it arises, and to take actions so that things like Srebrenica never happen again.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for sponsoring and securing this important debate with me. It is particularly fitting that we are having this debate as the President of Bosnia is here in the UK today. I very much hope that the Prime Minister will meet him later this afternoon to show the UK’s steadfast commitment to Bosnia.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) said, we are here to commemorate; this is not a debate, but an occasion for us all to share our words of continued support for our friends. We remember the Srebrenica genocide and we pay our respects to the 8,000 men and boys who were murdered in cold blood by Bosnian Serb forces in 1995. They were massacred because of the ruthless ambition of Milošević and his cronies, men’s dreams of a greater Serbia and the hatred that lived in their hearts.
The memory of those who were stolen will never be forgotten, but the trauma of what women and those who survived went through remains today. That trauma reminds us why the region matters to us. It is not a region where people have forgotten and moved on. It is a region where people live, on a daily basis, waking up and knowing that they are not saying good morning to 27 or 28 members of their family.
The United Kingdom is the only country outside Bosnia and Herzegovina that commemorates this and has an official remembrance service, and I am so proud of that. This is the second year running that we have held this debate. That demonstrates our eternal commitment to remembering the victims, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friend’s concerns about the lack of funding for Remembering Srebrenica. We would never consider cutting funding to the organisations that commemorate the holocaust. Srebrenica is a genocide that took place in Europe, and people still live with it and remember it. It is a shame that a DLUHC Minister is not here to hear those comments, because that decision is absolutely wrong.
Anthony Mangnall
It is worth putting on the record the fact that funding has been cut from £200,000 to £100,000, so we are not asking for a great deal to ensure we debate this issue. It should come as a bit of a surprise that the funding cut has come at the same time as the Secretary of State’s office is being done up at the cost of £1 million.
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend’s point stands for itself. He has my wholehearted support.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I am delighted that so many people across the House are making the case for appropriately funding Remembering Srebrenica, but it is slightly worse than has been indicated: the funding was not just cut but did not materialise for a long time. I want to thank the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who, in the brief period in which he was a Secretary of State, intervened to make the payment this time last year. The charity was relying on its reserves at that point. On a cross-party basis, we need to keep this story alive, support the charity and make sure its funding is not cut again. We need to be able to tell the stories, so the funding has to be increased to the previous level, and it needs to be provided in a timely manner.
Alicia Kearns
I agree entirely. Remembering Srebrenica does not just commemorate; as the right hon. Gentleman said, it tells stories to educate, and there has never been a more important time to educate people about what happened to the Balkans. I will come on to that point shortly.
We cannot discuss Srebrenica without discussing the Mothers of Srebrenica, who went through the most unimaginable loss. Their dignity and humanity are frankly astonishing, and their bravery and forgiveness are an example to us all, although when I meet them I struggle to understand the forgiveness they embrace in their daily lives. I wish I could take with me some of the power that they have in the way they express themselves.
After the Srebrenica genocide, two words were spoken around the world: never again. That was a sacred promise never again to allow innocent civilians to be displaced, raped, tortured and murdered, yet that is what we see in Xinjiang and Ukraine, and that is what I fear for the Balkans again. We secured international peace through the Dayton agreement, which was not easy or perfect—it locked in many of the ethnic divisions that we wish we could have eradicated—but it was preferable to war. For the past 28 years, it has represented peace.
Now Dayton and, by extension, peace are once again at risk in the Balkans. We once again see the cynical ambitions of Milošević’s cronies, dreams of greater Serbia and hatred in the hearts of leaders in that region. If we allow Dayton to be broken, we risk breaking that sacred promise. When we say, “Never again”, we mean it. That is what we need to see, but I fear the Government are repeating some of the mistakes of the 1990s, when our foreign policy was centred on Belgrade. A Belgrade-centric foreign policy will not work in the Balkans. An obsession with keeping Serbia on side, no matter what it does and regardless of its actions, intentions and words, does not work.
Regardless of our failure, we must stand strong. Not only did Serbia recently not stand with us on Ukraine, but it signed a foreign policy agreement with Putin in September. Why are we desperately running around behind somebody who embraces autocracy day after day? It is our democratic partners living up to the commitments we set that are vulnerable. We asked Bosnia and Kosovo to be democratic, follow EU accession and move towards NATO accession. They are doing that, yet we punish them with no punishment for Serbia. I will come on to that shortly, but we are currently being found wanting in deterrence diplomacy.
Milorad Dodik—I hesitate to call him the President of Republika Srpska—has made clear his intention to break the Dayton agreement and threaten the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although he has always been prone to exaggeration and theatre, his recent actions have unfortunately demonstrated meaningful intent. In the last two weeks, he has rejected the Office of the High Representative and the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, saying that their judgments do not apply to all of Bosnia. Dodik is issuing the first direct challenge to almost 30 years of peace, and he plans to test the Dayton agreement over the coming year. We must make sure that he is not able to do that and that we stand firm.
Part of the reason why Dodik is lashing out is because he is desperate. The sanctions placed on him by the UK and the United States are biting, and I thank the Government for listening and putting in place a sanctions regime when we asked for it. Public servants and Republika Srpska will soon be protesting outside his office, because he promised pay rises five months ago that have not come. The fact that he can no longer raise money on the London stock exchange—another important UK diplomatic effort—means that he is getting desperate, but now I want the EU to withhold funds from Dodik. I want the EU to join us in sanctioning Dodik and fellow secessionists. France and Germany have taken some moderate, unilateral steps, but we need to take action together.
Dodik has shouted to anyone who would listen over the last few years about his relationships with Putin and Xi Jinping, which is why it is important that the Prime Minister meets the President of Bosnia today to show that we stand with democratic allies. What has happened in Ukraine, combined with Russia’s weakness and clear lack of strategy and foreign ability, has made Dodik more dangerous. Russia may seek to open a separate front in Europe, and the reality is that Dodik acts as a stooge to give Putin a chance of distraction. A war in Bosnia and Herzegovina would serve no one but Putin, and Dodik should know that if he dances to Putin’s tune, he is likely to end up in The Hague, just as Radovan Karadžić and others did.
Anthony Mangnall
I apologise for intervening, because my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, using her expertise as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We must be absolutely unequivocal in Parliament and within the UK Government that we will not tolerate the undermining of Dayton or the redrawing of any part of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s borders. Can she make sure that, in her role as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, she makes that point to the Government and, indeed, to the Prime Minister when she is in the Liaison Committee this afternoon?
Alicia Kearns
It is so important that if I make that point, I do so with the whole support of the House, so I thank hon. Members for attending today’s debate, because it gives me the ability to speak up and say that it is not just me saying this; the whole House wants to see this.
It is our job to make sure that we create the circumstances in which reckless decisions cannot be taken by Dodik and others. We must wrap Bosnia and Herzegovina in a protective blanket to make sure that the Balkans do not experience war again. The Government must rejoin the European Union force. Chile, Turkey and other countries that are not in Europe are part of EUFOR, and we must rejoin it. As a signatory to the Dayton peace agreement, a member of the Peace Implementation Council and a UN Security Council permanent member, we have a responsibility to stand by Bosnia, but that is not enough to guarantee peace.
We know that Russia holds a veto over EUFOR. Every single year, we in this place wait and see whether Putin will decide to act in the interests of peace or to support the idea of sovereignty through violence. So far, he has renewed the mandate, but this is not sustainable. Putin could refuse to renew it at any time, and we do not have the UN mandate in place to block him militarily. The Government need to work with allies to commit to a NATO military presence in key areas across Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly the Brčko district, which Dodik has plainly said in the last weeks that he will take by force if he has the opportunity. That is a legally mandated right in the Dayton agreement, and it would send a firm message that Bosnia’s territorial sovereignty is not up for debate and will not be taken by force. By joining EUFOR now and transitioning to a NATO-led peacekeeping mission, we can play our role in maintaining peace in Bosnia. We cannot afford to be reactive when peace is at stake.
I want to place on the record my personal commitment to the Office of the High Representative, which is the ultimate arbiter of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Attacks against the office and role are designed to weaken the foundations of peace. This does not mean that we cannot criticise or critique individual decisions by the High Representative, but we must protect the institution itself, and I fear that Russian and secessionist propaganda are succeeding in undermining its role in Parliaments across Europe. As a House, we must stand behind that vital institution, because if the worst were to happen and we fail to live up to our sacred promise of “Never again”, there will be violence, not just in Bosnia, but across the Balkans.
Kosovo is critical, and the United Kingdom has a unique responsibility there. We need to call a spade a spade. What is currently happening in Kosovo is a result of foreign interference by Belgrade 18 months ago, when it committed foreign interference in Kosovo’s domestic elections. Belgrade told Kosovo Serbs not to participate in the elections. The elections were fair and free but did not have the attendance or participation that we wanted because Vučić told Kosovo Serbs not to take part.
If we then fast forward, we see mayors trying to take up their electoral positions, and the response is that western countries—the EU and the US worst of all—attack Kosovo for wanting to uphold the rights of mayors to go into their offices to do their job. We then saw a brutal attack by a Belgrade-backed, funded and armed militia on KFOR, with 26 military officers being severely wounded or hospitalised. The response was to criticise Kosovo: “How dare Kosovo have created this situation!” We know, however, that it was Belgrade-funded militias, and the situation was ultimately created by Belgrade when it said, “Do not participate in the elections.”
Worse still, we then saw Serbian counter-terrorism police go on to Kosovan territory and illegally kidnap—kidnap is always illegal under international law, yet apparently our allies did not recognise that—three Kosovan police officers, who were taken to Serbia. That is not allowed; it breaches all international law and specific agreements reached between Serbia and Kosovo. Finally, there was a response and we saw some balance: “Belgrade and Pristina must work to normalise, calm down and de-escalate.” However, Serbia was at fault, and there was no calling-out of the fact that it was arbitrary and illegal detention.
When Kosovo called on its mayors to take up their positions in the mayoral offices there was a great deal of response by the US Government. The US Government said, “Right, Kosovo, you are no longer allowed to participate in a scheduled military exercise We will no longer help you to be recognised by other countries. Good luck to you—you are not welcome in DC.” When Serbia kidnapped three Kosovan police officers, there was no punishment. In fact, Serbia took part in a military exercise with the US only a week later while the Kosovan police officers were still being held illegally. What message does that send to Kosovo, a democratic ally that has stood with and supported us on Ukraine, and done everything that we have asked of it? There were significant punishments from the US and the EU, which have now introduced sanctions against Kosovo, but nothing for Serbia.
When Serbia finally released the three police officers, it told Viktor Orbán in Hungary first and allowed him to announce it. I say to the EU, what message does it send when Victor Orbán is the person chosen by Serbia to send those messages? It is a failure of deterrence diplomacy and it is a disproportionate and unbalanced approach. The UK has an independent voice within the quint and the international arena to say no to the EU and the US. We can say to them, “You will allow us to take part in the peace talks in Kosovo, and you will not continue to take the approach that you currently are, because all you are doing is enabling the autocrats and, frankly, hitting our democratic allies with a stick.”
That is why the security picture is so severe. For too long we have failed to call out the armed Serb militias operating in the north of Kosovo. The Government are well aware, with the Fusiliers having only just returned from serving in KFOR, that there are weapons being smuggled across the border from Serbia into Orthodox churches in ambulances. When our troops become aware of that, and try to get permission to go and get them, the permissions take too long. By the time there is permission—quelle surprise—an ambulance has turned up at the church and taken all the weapons out again.
I will touch briefly on our export policies towards Serbia. I am gravely concerned about the fact that we are selling small ammunitions to Serbia. Given that the counter-terrorism police there carried out attacks and kidnapped three Kosovan police officers, how do we know that nothing we have sold to Serbia is being used in that context? I urge that a handbrake be put on all export sales to Serbia.
I call on the Government to make it clear that the United Kingdom stands by Kosovo’s territorial sovereignty and democracy. To do that, we need to expand KFOR’s mandate to ensure a more proactive approach to countering weapon smuggling and militias north of Kosovo. We need to ensure fairness and take the action required to operate a meaningful policy of deterrence diplomacy.
It is a critical moment in the Balkans. As we watched the cold-blooded murders of innocent Bosnians in 1995 we made a promise: never again. The Government must now wake up, take the initiative and ensure that sacred promise is honoured. They must recognise that the power to deter sits in this House and at King Charles Street. We can do this. I therefore urge the Government: let us rejoin EUFOR, let us commit NATO peacekeepers to Brčko district, let us transition to a NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, let us allow KFOR to take the front foot in anti-militia and anti-weapons smuggling operations in the north of Kosovo and finally, let us implement a more even-handed approach to Kosovo that prioritises the protection of Kosovan sovereignty and democracy.
I thank everyone who has spoken today, and I am grateful for being given the time to make those points. I will conclude by returning to the commemoration of all those who were massacred during the Srebrenica genocide. Their memory can never be forgotten, because this was a genocide in Europe and on European soil. It is a genocide that still marks our future, and my children’s future could still potentially be shaped by the actions that took place at that time. It is important we do everything we can in Parliament to take more people to Bosnia and Herzegovina. When you go, that country gets into your heart and your soul. I do not know how to describe it; I do not how to find the words. I will take another delegation of the Bosnia APPG next year, so I encourage all hon. Members to tell me who to reach out to.
Yasmin Qureshi
On the hon. Lady’s point about visiting the Srebrenica genocide memorial and how that affects people, I went there with a couple of my members of staff, and I have to say that they were so impacted by it. My office manager does not travel much and she started crying when she was there. She is a quite a hardened soul and I could see how much of an impact it had on her. I just wanted to confirm how going there impacts people.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the hon. Lady. I remember that my first visit to Srebrenica was with former British serving members of special forces who had not returned there since they had served in Bosnia. I saw the trauma in their faces, the pain and the knowing in them that there is a risk that violence could once more return to the places where they had hidden in a dugout for 10 days and seen children shot in the street by those who had hatred in their hearts. I took away from that experience that we could never ever allow that.
I thank the Mothers of Srebrenica and Remembering Srebrenica for all they do. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the time to discuss this matter. When we say “Never again”, we must mean it. The risk, if we do not, is far too great.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. It is also a pleasure to follow the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). I thank her for her passion and wisdom on these matters. I also thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for making sure that we secured this important commemoration. This is the first time I have been in Westminster Hall since 2017; while I was leader of the SNP, I was not permitted to be here. It is nice to be back, and to participate in something this important.
For many years, there has been a strong tradition of the third party in the House giving particular focus and priority to international causes and campaigns. In my years as the SNP’s Westminster leader, I was proud to follow that tradition, and my office continues to make an effort to engage with and reach out to international organisations and individuals who need and deserve the attention of the House of Commons. With all my experience of those organisations, though, I have no hesitation in saying that Remembering Srebrenica has been one of the most impressive and inspiring. That is why we need to take responsibility for funding the organisation appropriately.
Ever since I was elected as an MP, I have been lucky to enjoy a close working relationship with the dedicated volunteers involved in organising educational events, and events that commemorate the massacre. We must never forget, and never again should the events that we witnessed in 1995 happen on European soil. We Members of Parliament have an obligation to keep this alive, educate people and, yes, take action, as we need to now, to support our friends—our comrades—in that part of Europe.
Year after year, the work of the charity in Parliament and in communities right across these islands has made a real difference. Its work has never been more relevant. The long association that I have been lucky to have with the charity is why I am genuinely honoured to be one of its patrons. Over the past number of years, it has given me the opportunity to meet survivors of the genocide. I come away with paradoxical feelings from those very poignant meetings. On the one had, you are faced with the raw reality of man’s inhumanity, and an awareness of how it once again showed its terrible face in the acts of genocide in the Bosnian conflict, and most especially in Srebrenica. However, the other end of the human experience is equally on show in those meetings, as these survivors are the perfect demonstration of resilience, healing and, ultimately, hope. That is because despite all that they have suffered, they are still prepared to believe in and work for a world beyond the horrors that they were born into. That spirit is the essence of what makes the charity so powerful.
There can be few better examples of the grassroots movement than Remembering Srebrenica. A brief look at what it has achieved tells its own story. Since 2013, it has created a vibrant network in every part of these islands, helped by eight regional English boards, and by national boards in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. During that time, with its modest resources, it has educated no fewer than 180,000 young people about Srebrenica. It has also enabled more than 10,000 community actions to take place right across these islands each year, and created 1,450 community champions, each of them pledging to stand up to hatred and intolerance in their community.
The charity is not alone in its work, which is about a necessary and respectful remembrance of the past. It is making a positive contribution to shaping all our futures, which is why we should support it. Through its remembrance work, it ensures that prejudice does not take root in any of our communities. I am delighted that that ongoing mission is reflected in its theme for this year, which is “Together we are one”. That is a powerful message, but it is also a mission for building peace and reconciliation.
Of course, that theme is perfect for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which, as we heard, is renowned for being a melting pot of cultures and identities—a place where Muslims, Christians and Jews, among others, have lived side by side for centuries. Sarajevo is rightly known as the Jerusalem of Europe, being the only European city to have a mosque, a Catholic church, an Orthodox church and a synagogue in the same neighbourhood. We all know just how badly this theme, and a focus on genuine community building, nation building and peacebuilding, is needed right now. More than anything else, this charity understands that remembrance and commemoration is not a passive act. Instead, it is a determination that the horrors of the past will never be repeated. There is so much that we need to remember; if we fail to remember it, it can be, and sadly will be, repeated.
Of course, we remember the 100,000 Muslims who were murdered in Bosnia. I repeat: 100,000 Muslims were murdered in Europe in living memory. We also remember the displacement of 2 million people, and the genocidal rape of up to 50,000 women, simply because of their Muslim identity. That happened in Europe in living memory, and 28 years on, the horror remains as raw as ever. That rawness is exactly why we must remember. In this commemoration, we are all very conscious that we are remembering those horrific events of 28 years ago. Sadly, violence, repression and war have returned to Europe. We had hoped that we would never see such things again in our lifetime, but sadly they are here again. War is again scarring our continent and our people. As we remember Srebrenica, our thoughts are ever with the people of Ukraine and the suffering that has been inflicted on them.
I want especially to say this: after the horrors of Srebrenica, the International Criminal Court was rightly the forum where those who inflicted the genocide were prosecuted and sentenced. All of us need to ensure that the war crimes in Ukraine, and the war criminal in the Kremlin who is sanctioning them, are brought before The Hague too. That is the justice that needs to be done, and the justice that the Ukrainian people deserve.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is giving a very good speech. He is talking really about the modern-day relevance to us of having staying power in Ukraine. I remember, as a young Foreign Office lawyer, negotiating the UN-UK sentence enforcement agreement for the Balkans in 2004. We had to wait until 2021 for Radovan Karadžić to be sentenced and transferred to a UK jail. Does he agree that we will need to show the same strategic patience in Ukraine and the other areas of the world still haunted by genocide?
Ian Blackford
I am saddened to say that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The lesson from Bosnia for what we are witnessing in Ukraine, and the message to us and every one of our allies, is that we have to be in this for the long haul. We must leave no stone unturned in our support for the Ukrainian people, so that they can defeat the aggressor on their shore. That message about the lessons, and the sense of responsibility that we all have, must go out. I rue the fact that we cannot do more. And yes, my God, those responsible must be held to account for their crimes against humanity.
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, for shining a light on what is going on in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There has been an increase in tensions there since 2021, and we must remain vigilant to preserve peace and stability. There must be no return to conflict. The EU has doubled its peacekeeping forces since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I regret that, the UK having left the EU, we are not part of that peacekeeping effort. There must be a UK-EU security pact, so that we can work together and assist in negotiations.
I will conclude on this point. Despite all the lessons of history, we still far too often forget what we need to remember. Grassroots charities such as Remembering Srebrenica can help political leaders to do so much better. They can keep at the forefront of our mind the consequences of conflict, and stop us ever again going down the path that leads to the inhumanities and outrages that were inflicted on the people of Srebrenica. Those charities not only deserve but need our support. The UK Government have to go the extra mile in fully funding Remembering Srebrenica. I hope that all of us live up to the need to provide that support in the coming months and years.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a humbling experience to listen to colleagues’ contributions, and to speak in this debate. I was 12 when Srebrenica happened. One of my earliest memories of the news is of watching the news about Srebrenica with my mum, who was completely glued to it, and who tried to explain the horrors of what was happening to us children. Not long after that, I visited the fields of world war two in France on a school trip, and the graves of my ancestors—my gran’s uncles—who were killed in that conflict.
I would very much like to take up the offer made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). Bearing witness is one of the most important things that we can do, not just as parliamentarians, but as human beings. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and particularly the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), as well as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), for supporting this debate and bringing to life the importance of not just bearing witness and remembering, but taking those lessons forward. As many have said, given the war crimes that Russia is visiting on the people of Ukraine, and what is being done in Myanmar, China and Ethiopia, the sad reality is that we do not appear to be learning the lessons of Srebrenica, and of the past.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East made a number of points about the genocide that hit home. It was neighbours against neighbours, and friends against friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke, as did others, about the melting pot of cultures in Bosnia and Herzegovina—Muslims, Christians and Jews, among others, were working and living together in peace. That is the kind of society that we should all aspire to live in. The hon. Member for Bolton South East spoke about the dangers of othering minority groups. I have to say that in the UK Parliament, in 2023, we see some of that, directed against minority groups across the UK and beyond. Sadly, we see imported bigotry and hatred coming across the pond from the US, and seeping into the media in the UK. We must draw the line, and understand that what is happening today is potentially a repeat of what has happened in the past. We must all be alive to that. She also spoke about the diversity of the communities involved.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who is not in his place any more, intervened to point out how vital preventive funding is, and how important the full implementation of the Magnitsky principles is, as many of us said, to quell money laundering, which fuels dictators. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made the important point that there are murderous dictators across the world. We must be alive to that, and take real action on it.
We should provide proper funding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke about the importance of the grassroots charity Remembering Srebrenica, and about the work that he has done with it. That will strike a chord with many. If we pull funding from such organisations, we run the risk of not properly educating the next generation, who will not remember the images on the television; for them, the events will not be real. He talked about the 180,000 people who have been educated through Remembering Srebrenica. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton was reminded, in an intervention, of the cut in funding from £200,000 to £100,000. I hope that the Minister hears that.
We have a proud history of this kind of work, not just in Scotland but across the UK. Between 1992 and 1996, during the conflict in Bosnia, the Scottish Refugee Council evacuated around 400 Bosnian refugees, and opened a reception centre in Scotland; the refugees were welcomed into our communities, and across the UK. I say gently to the Minister that we must reflect on the work done then, and why that work must continue for those fleeing conflict who seek refuge.
The SNP would like the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to publish a new cross-departmental strategy on preventing mass atrocities. That new strategy should be implemented in consultation with civil society and relevant experts. I pay tribute to all those who briefed us for this debate, and who work in this area, but they can do that work only if they are properly funded, and if we engage with them fully. We should also clarify what training tools and methods can be used to prevent atrocities, including the UK’s new sanctions regime. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton talked about that; she speaks with authority as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We need to demonstrate and formalise how the UK will act in concert with like-minded international partners, particularly the United States.
We want the introduction of a new atrocity prevention toolkit that provides day-to-day guidance for those at UK posts and desks. It would support them in raising the alarm in a crisis. From my work on deaths abroad, I know about the challenges that our consular and embassy staff face. I have worked in a foreign mission for the US, and have seen the importance of the work that foreign missions do. We need to make sure that our staff on the ground are fully funded and trained, so that they can raise the alarm and can work with international partners.
Alicia Kearns
Before my election. I lobbied the Government to create an atrocity prevention centre. They have now done so, and we have the conflict centre—I do not mind the different name, as long as it does the work. It is doing some really interesting work, particularly on Ukraine. The point is that the desk officer for Mongolia has no training on what to do if they start to see the signs of genocide or ethnic cleansing—for example, if they see controls that could escalate put on ways of life or on language. It is really important that the centre is fully activated, so that when an officer anywhere in the world has the slightest inkling that something is happening, they can go to the centre, which can say, “This is how we bring in the multilaterals, and how we produce sanctions. This is the conflict, stability and security fund programme that we can put in place.” That is not happening yet, so we need to make sure that the centre is fully embraced.
Hannah Bardell
That is an incredibly powerful point. It is easy for Opposition Members to criticise, and to say, “This needs to be done better, and we need more money.” The truth is that we have a genuine desire to get into the detail of how consular officers are trained and funded, how the work is done, and how we ensure that the centre and its resources are available, as the hon. Member says, because that is the first line of defence in many situations.
I will not detain the Chamber any longer, because we have important Front-Bench speeches to come. I simply say: together we are one, and working on that is incredibly important. We must make sure that this generation and the next not only learn the lessons but put them into action, so that we can change the narrative. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, a tide of increased funding for the right wing is seeping into our media. If we want to be international leaders and set an international example, we must get our house in order.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Robert. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate, and I thank Members from across the House for this thoughtful and considered debate, in which important views have been expressed. There has been unity in remembering the genocide and wanting to learn its lessons for today. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), and for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), for their interventions.
We heard strong speeches from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), and from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). They talked about not only what happened, but what is needed today across the western Balkans. This House is at its best when we speak with one voice and in defence of core values. Despite political differences, we all share the values of democracy and stability, a commitment to preventing conflict and atrocities, and the defence of fundamental human rights.
I want to re-emphasise the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said that we need to use Srebrenica Memorial Day
“and the memory of Srebrenica to not only remember those we have lost but to educate…future generations, bring our communities together and renew our efforts to tackle hatred and prejudice wherever they lie.”
Heeding those words is integral to forging a lasting peace in the western Balkans. I want to emphasise that that is a priority for me and our team, and would be for a future Labour Government. So too would be resolutely standing up for Dayton, and standing against those who would seek to undermine it.
I have visited the region extensively in the past and continue to engage with the views and perspectives of people across Bosnia to understand how we better promote dialogue and ensure regional security. We will be taking part in meetings this week. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), is meeting the President of Bosnia today to listen directly to him.
I recognise the significance of the historic role that the UK and its armed forces played in working to secure a stable Bosnia and stability across the western Balkans more generally. The horrors of the 1990s are ingrained in the mind of many people across the country and across the House, particularly our armed forces personnel who served, such as members of my own family. I have visited Srebrenica, and I have met Remembering Srebrenica and Mothers of Srebrenica, which was one of the most profound experiences I have had while a Member of the House. Owing to my past career, I have engaged with many people who suffered in war and conflict and in horrific situations, but visiting the factory at Potočari, visiting the memorial, and in particular meeting a survivor of my own age, was a profound experience.
I remember the week the massacres happened. I was on a beach in west Wales with my friends, having a wonderful time during a holiday from school—my first trip away from home. The survivor of my own age whom I met told me that he was loaded into the back of a truck, and that all the other men in the truck were shot; he survived among a pile of bodies, rolled into a ditch and, heavily wounded, managed to escape into the forest. He has never forgotten not only the tragic loss of his family and friends, but the terrible experience he had. For me, there was such a stark contrast between my holiday and the war and the atrocities that were happening just over a thousand miles away in our own continent. Today, I think of the horrors we are seeing in Ukraine. I will never forget my visit, and I thank Remembering Srebrenica, Mothers of Srebrenica and all those who seek to educate us and warn us of those experiences.
Hannah Bardell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that incredibly powerful contribution. I have been a member of the Council of Europe for nearly six years, and one of the Council’s most powerful events was Mothers of Srebrenica talking to us and sharing their experiences. I am proud that we continue to be members of the Council of Europe and proud that the Council continues to support that work.
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree, and we should reflect not only on those who were murdered during the atrocities, but on those who suffered terrible sexual violence and rape, who have rightly been mentioned. We must remember that utterly horrific history.
This year’s campaign theme for Remembering Srebrenica is “Together We Are One”, and we need to highlight the fact that the conditions for genocide are built on a climate and a culture that allow hatred and extremism to breed, resulting in the dividing and fracturing of communities in this country, across Europe and across the world. We know that flourishing hatred and extremism can escalate from inflammatory rhetoric to attacks, persecution and, indeed, extermination, as we have seen in Bosnia, Rwanda, Ukraine and so many other conflicts around the world. We must combat that divisive rhetoric by focusing on the things that unite us as one.
I think of our dear friend and much missed colleague, Jo Cox, whom we have remembered in recent weeks. In our past careers with Oxfam, Jo and I worked on issues related to the terrible atrocities in Darfur, and here in Parliament we worked on issues related to Syria. The message that we have more in common and that we must work together is critical, and we must reflect on it.
The remains of more than 1,000 victims of Srebrenica are still unaccounted for. We must support families and others achieve a lasting closure, so I welcome the important identification work that is being done.
The war in Bosnia resulted in close to 100,000 civilians being killed, 2 million forced displacements and, as many colleagues have mentioned, the systematic rape of up to 50,000 women because of their ethnic and religious identity. If we fail to learn the lessons of atrocity prevention and, indeed, of investigating, prosecuting and bringing to justice those responsible, we will have made a grave mistake. Again, I think of Ukraine and what we need to learn in relation to that terrible situation.
Today, we see forces across Europe, and indeed across the western Balkans, seeking to sow disharmony, spread acrimony and stir up tensions. I pay tribute to the work of our envoy, Lord Peach, and of the EU’s High Representative in Bosnia, Christian Schmidt, who worked to prevent a return to the atrocities of the past. The work of the High Representative continues to warn of the real prospect of a return to conflict in the region. We have heard about the behaviour of Milorad Dodik, and indeed Russian attempts to aggravate already tense political circumstances.
On Saturday, we saw the High Representative annul two laws that the Bosnian Serb Parliament had adopted but that defied the constitution and the terms of the peace deal that ended the war in the 1990s. The High Representative concluded that:
“Recent decisions by the National Assembly of Republika Srpska directly violate the constitutional order of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Dayton peace agreement”.
It is crucial that the Government work with the High Representative and, through Lord Peach, support his efforts to prevent a return to the darkness of the past. Will the Minister outline what support we are giving the High Representative and what recent meetings Lord Peach has had with him, given the importance of maintaining the integrity of Bosnia’s institutions, particularly after recent events?
Let me be clear that those seeking to undermine stability in Bosnia must face consequences. We will continue to support the targeted measures that the Government have introduced, including sanctions. I would be grateful if the Minister set out her assessment of the effectiveness of the sanctions levelled to date. What discussions has she had with officials across the western Balkans on how we can exert further diplomatic pressure on those who are attempting to undermine the Dayton agreement and the constitutional settlement in Bosnia?
Will the Minister also say a little about outside attempts to influence the situation? We know that Dodik and Putin, and many of their aiders and abetters, share the same goals: they want to strengthen the Serbian-Russian alliances, extend Russian influence in the Balkans, block Bosnia from securing membership of the European Union and NATO and undermine the legitimacy of state institutions that have preserved the delicate balance of peace. We see huge Russian disinformation operations in the region, including in Bosnia and Serbia, and of course Kosovo and elsewhere, which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, mentioned. Does the Minister share those concerns? What are we doing to support local partners to combat disinformation and all those seeking to undermine stability and peace? Will she respond to the comments that were made about military support in the region, where that is from NATO, the EU forces, or directly from UK armed forces, and say what steps we are taking both to ensure stability now and to prepare for the situation worsening?
Today, let us reflect on Srebrenica, the lives lost and how the aggravation of ethnic tensions led to appalling evil that should never be forgotten or repeated. There are those who still deny the scale of the atrocities that occurred in the war in Bosnia and those who have avoided justice. One of the most powerful ways to hold those individuals to account is to remember Srebrenica, pay tribute to the lives lost, tell victims’ stories and ensure that the future does not come to replicate the past.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East for bringing forward this debate, and all hon. Members for their thoughtful and powerful contributions.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her work as the co-chair of the APPG for Srebrenica.
What happened in Srebrenica was one of the worst atrocities to take place in Europe since the end of the second world war. As all hon. Members have said, we must never forget it, and we must continue to learn the lessons from it. I know that the Minister for Europe would have been pleased to be here to reply to this debate, but he is travelling abroad. I am conscious that I can never do these appalling events justice by setting out our perspectives and the efforts we make in response to, but it is an honour to reply on this debate on behalf of the Government and to reiterate our collective horror at genocide and all that we will continue to do to keep that front and centre.
I am very grateful to all the hon. Members who have contributed to today’s discussion and will do my best to respond to the points raised. Hon. Members have highlighted the continuing educational work of the charity Remembering Srebrenica, which does incredibly important and effective work. I can confirm to hon. Members that FCDO officials are in contact with DLUHC on the questions of funding, so I will ask the Minister for Europe to update colleagues when he is able to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) raised a number of important questions on the issues of export controls to Serbia and whether the UK should provide support to EUFOR. I assure hon. Members again that we will respond in a timely manner on those issues.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked a number of questions about Lord Peach’s activities and meetings. I do not have the answers to those questions, but I will ensure that we provide full answers to him and other Members in due course.
This week is the commemoration of the Srebrenica genocide, in which, as colleagues have said, more than 8,000 people were murdered and more than 20,000 were driven from their homes. We honour the memory of those killed and we pay tribute to the extraordinary courage and resilience shown by their families and by survivors. We stand with those families in their ongoing fight for justice. I am proud that the UK is one of the few countries that commemorate the genocide at national level, due to the commendable work of Remembering Srebrenica UK. I confirm that the Minister for the Armed Forces will be hosting the national Srebrenica Memorial Day ceremony this evening at Lancaster House.
As we consider the events of 28 years ago, our thoughts must turn to the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have seen real progress since 1995 and many years of reform. Politicians across the country, including those from Republika Srpska, have worked together to create important institutions, including the armed forces and the tax authorities. The new state-level Council of Ministers has demonstrated energy and commitment to making further progress, recognising that reforms are required to strengthen democratic processes, to tackle corruption and to bring economic benefits to all the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The European Union’s decision to award candidate status in December 2022 has given important impetus to those efforts. The UK stands behind the Council of Ministers. We will use all the diplomatic, defence and economic tools at our disposal to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s progress towards the strong, stable and prosperous future to which its people aspire and which they deserve.
It is regrettable that we continue to see divisive and dangerous nationalist rhetoric, threats of secession and open challenges to the constitutional order established by the Dayton peace agreement. The UK is committed to a single sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina and we will continue to take action in support of that. We welcome and fully support the High Representative’s actions on 1 July, including his decision to prevent the Republika Srpska legislation that represented a flagrant attack on Dayton and the constitutional order that it created. The High Representative’s executive powers remain a crucial tool for protecting the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, strengthening the rule of law and advancing stability and judicial independence. Those people who perpetrate instability and undermine peace do not speak for the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are many Bosnians who want to build a more inclusive and cohesive society, one that leaves the divisions of the past behind. The UK supports them and will continue to those efforts.
We work in partnership with the Srebrenica Memorial Centre to develop its operational capacities. With our support, it is establishing itself as a world-leading centre for research into preventing genocide and a hub for reconciliation and inter-ethnic dialogue across the region. The British ambassador to Sarajevo will represent the Government at the annual commemoration at Srebrenica on 11 July.
We are supporting organisations in Mostar to bring citizens together and to create public spaces that are accessible and welcoming to all. We are helping the city to develop sustainably so that all its citizens can prosper in the long term. As well as helping to create inclusive, physical spaces, we are also assisting the creation of a safer and more pluralistic online and media environment; we are empowering people to recognise and object to the lies and divisive narratives that can foster hatred, and supporting independent media to create new material that challenges those insidious stories. We are bolstering the capacity of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Press Council, helping local media to lead the fight against disinformation by developing fact-checking procedures that spot it and limit its publication.
Furthermore, we are working with political parties, media and civil society organisations to decrease the use of hate speech in political discourse. When politicians seek to exploit existing divisions or drive in deeper wedges for their own gain, they are moving Bosnia and Herzegovina further away from being the safe place its citizens deserve. They are making it less stable and creating a climate of fear and instability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister hopes to meet the President later today to reiterate the sentiments and continuing commitment of the UK to these important stages of progress. Rejecting hate speech and demonstrating that commitment is only one part of building a brighter, more united Bosnia and Herzegovina and healing the fractures caused by conflict. We also continue to urge political leaders to condemn any glorification of the perpetrators of war crimes and to take action against genocide denial.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my right hon. Friend for setting out some of the areas in which the UK is investing to help Bosnia and Herzegovina to build its resistance—I recognise that that is in her brief. I remember writing the conflict, stability and security fund programme for Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2017. Unfortunately, the challenges remain, which suggests that either I did a very bad job, or the challenges were more significant than we realised.
In the list of programmes, there was very little about what we are doing to deter Belgrade. I know that that is not the Minister’s area, so I cannot ask her to answer the question directly, but this goes back again to the fact that we have a Belgrade-centred western Balkans policy. When we talk about Bosnia and Kosovo, we should also talk about what we are doing to deter Belgrade. It would be helpful to understand what we are doing on that point.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
If I may, I will ask my colleague the Minister for Europe to meet the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss that in more detail. In all foreign policy and diplomacy, there is a continuum, not a fixed point. I shall ensure that that meeting is set up.
What happened at Srebrenica was unequivocally a genocide. Two international courts—the UN international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the International Court of Justice—have both ruled that Srebrenica was a genocide, after exhaustive legal processes. Denial of that fact only punishes the survivors and the families of the victims and keeps them from finding justice and solace. Moreover, if there is to be true and lasting reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and if Bosnians are to build a society in which everyone feels safe, welcome and able to succeed, there needs to be acknowledgment of the facts of the conflict, and willingness to accept the wounds that have been caused.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton raised the question of UK efforts on atrocity prevention more widely, in Sudan and Nigeria. I can tell the House that the mass atrocity prevention hub was launched in September, and has been developing into a central co-ordination point for Government on atrocity prevention. It has now established a number of relationships with thematic and geographic teams across the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The hub is also working with partners to understand what best practice in atrocity prevention looks like, in order to develop centralised guidance and tools to support those teams, to build capacity and to embed atrocity prevention work. My hon. Friend raised how that can reach those working in every country, so that they have the chance to feed in, spot and be supported in the work they do across our embassies. I know the team will take that away to consider more fully.
As we reflect on a crime of the horror and magnitude of Srebrenica and the deep scars it continues to leave 28 years later, we can come to only one conclusion: we must do all we can to ensure something so terrible is never allowed to happen again. We owe it to the victims to create societies that are stable, inclusive and cohesive, and to fight against prejudice, hatred, fear and division, wherever we find them. That is how we will show that Srebrenica will never be forgotten.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank all right hon. and hon. colleagues for taking part in the debate, including those who had to go because of other parliamentary business. I also thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for sharing my efforts to get this debate.
I also want to put on record my particular thanks to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), because he might not be here for next year’s commemoration, as he is stepping down. From the beginning, when he because the leader of the SNP at Westminster and I approached him about this subject, he has been an absolutely tremendous supporter. It is fair to say that he was initially the only leader at Prime Minister’s Questions who would commemorate or refer to the Srebrenica genocide. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for all the support and everything he has given to the all-party parliamentary group on Srebrenica.
Ever since the fantastic Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has been in that role, we have worked very well together. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and I worked closely on another campaigning APPG—the all-party parliamentary group on hormone pregnancy tests, which dealt with Primodos. I have also worked well with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). When I approached the Minister for another campaign, her response was absolutely sterling and fantastic, and I thank her for replying to the debate today. I take heart from what she said about what the Government will do about what is happening in the Balkans. She also said she is looking at the funding. Remembering Srebrenica does work throughout the country, and we would not be here if its funding had not been cut over a number of years, so I hope the Minister will help it.
I am grateful to all Members for their support. As we say, it must never happen again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Srebrenica Memorial Week.
A5036 Park Lane Footbridge Replacement
(10 months, 1 week 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
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the replacement of the A5036 Park Lane footbridge.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. Let me say to the Minister that if he were in my position and this matter affected his constituency, he would do exactly what I am doing today; namely, proselytising for an issue that is of deep concern to my constituents.
The A5036 is the main road leading down to the port of Liverpool. It is a very busy road, with tens of thousands of vehicles going to and fro, 24 hours a day, amounting to about 40,000 vehicles a day. That is an awful lot of vehicles. At a particular point in the cycle, at around 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon, there may be something like 2,500 or 2,600 vehicles going to and fro along a stretch of about 2.5 miles. There are various junctions along that stretch and one of the main ones, which is very busy in terms of interaction with pedestrians, is the Park Lane junction with Dunnings Bridge Road, which is part of the A5036.
On the corners of that junction, we have a church, a primary school, a hotel, a social services centre and some football pitches. For as long as anyone can remember, we have had a footbridge that takes people safely from one side to the other of that major road with those thousands of vehicles, 13% of which are heavy goods vehicles. However, over the years, as such infrastructure goes, the footbridge became less robust and needed to be repaired and renewed. There was an acceptance, as far back as 2017 or perhaps earlier, that the footbridge needed to be replaced and brought up to date to meet modern standards with respect to health and safety and to accessibility for disabled people using motorised units and so on.
National Highways—it was Highways England at the time—acknowledged that really needed to be done, and it came up with three options: a “do nothing” option, a “do minimum” option and a “do something” option. I will not go into them all but, in effect, the preferred option was to provide a new footbridge. Some of the land nearby would have to be purchased, possibly via compulsory purchase, and an application went in for that. Some would be purchased from the local authority, some from a private owner and some from Our Lady of Walsingham Church—the school is directly attached to the church; the road runs directly parallel to the school and the church—and that, in effect, was agreed.
As early as 18 October 2017, a public consultation was held at Our Lady of Walsingham School, and it was agreed that the preferred solution should be option B: to replace the footbridge with a modern structure, as I described. That appears to have been what was agreed. National Highways went off and, in 2022, deposited some documents in public in relation to the compulsory purchase of the land. So as late as August or September 2022, which is less than a year ago, everything was on track. There had been some delays—surprise, surprise—because of covid. However, I and everybody in the area—the thousands of people who use the footbridge every day, including hundreds of children—were quite happy that there was going to be a replacement footbridge.
In October 2022, a lorry crashed into the bridge, which had to be closed after becoming even more dangerous and even less functional. The footbridge, which for decades—as I said, as long as anyone can remember—had been on a very busy junction for pedestrian-vehicle interaction, disappeared. There is now an opportunity: the bridge has been knocked down, so that cost has already been taken into account. Let us push on and get our new bridge. Job done—everybody will be happy. I will be happy, the school will be happy, the church will be happy, the hotel will be happy and, more importantly, the residents will be happy and their children even happier, because they will not have to cross a busy road, which is three lanes wide at points. In a way, it is serendipity that the bridge was crashed into.
Having agreed that we were going to have a new bridge, National Highways decided, after the bridge had been damaged and knocked down—potentially because of costs, but I am not absolutely sure, because the cost of replacing the bridge had already been set out in its “Statement of Reasons” report of 28 September 2021, which I have before me—that it was going to rethink whether there was an alternative method of people getting across the very busy road.
I understand that National Highways is not saying that it will not replace the footbridge, but there is a terrible suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that that is the case. I am sure the Minister will appreciate—he would appreciate it if it were in his constituency, although I am not pointing my finger at him—that people are thinking, “What’s so different now, given the massive use of the bridge?” Other junctions are less challenging, but the accident rate along that stretch of road is not the best. I could talk about the figures, but I hope the Minister will take me at my word that there have been accidents along that route for a whole variety of reasons, so everyone was perplexed by the step back from replacing the bridge.
One of the suggestions as part of the options appraisal was for a pelican crossing-type thing. Everyone was a bit concerned that, on a road of that width, that would not be practical and that it would be psychologically challenging for many people, especially children and parents with prams going to the school or coming back from church. From what I can tell from the documentation, although I am happy to be corrected, the assessment was that such a crossing would have a deleterious effect on the traffic flow—in effect, we would have a junction going four ways—given the significant number of people who need to use the junction to go to school and so forth, so a bridge would be required. That is what the options appraisal said: “Let’s have the bridge, because the alternative—a pelican crossing-type scheme—would impact the free flow of traffic.” In effect, that is what the report said. Again, the case for a new bridge is fairly compelling.
Then, lo and behold, National Highways decided that it would pull away from that and begin another consultation process, which apparently may take until the end of the year. No one has been consulted in any substantive way—I think some letters have gone out—but people have not changed their minds. It is quite clear that people locally do not want a pelican crossing across a major road.
Another piece of context is that, as the Minister knows, National Highways has consulted about a potential new road through Rimrose Valley, which would effectively replace the A5036. It is a bit more complicated than that, but in effect it would be an alternative. There is massive opposition to that, but there is obviously a recognition that the A5036 needs work doing to it in one way or another to make it more accessible to traffic, safer for pedestrians and so on, to the extent that National Highways wants to build an alternative road, which would cost the best part of £300 million and maybe £350 million, according to the latest estimates. That shows that National Highways recognises that something needs to be done.
There are all sorts of arguments about the alternatives to that, but that is not for today. Today’s debate is about a bridge across an existing very busy road—one of the busiest out there, I suspect—in an area that is full of people who would use it. For the life of me I do not know why National Highways cannot just acknowledge that it has done an assessment and an analysis, it has come up with options, and it has finalised an option—a new bridge. No one can comprehend why we are in this situation. I find it very difficult to explain why there has been a step back. I suspect that if we had not had covid, the bridge would most probably be there.
Everybody is very worried. The junction appears pretty safe, but why? Because it had a footbridge, which everybody used. People very rarely cross the road, because it is a potentially very dangerous junction. I push and push that point because the number of accidents around the junction is fairly minimal. There may be collisions between cars, but collisions with people are pretty rare. That speaks volumes—it is because people used the footbridge.
There is a compelling case for the footbridge, but now we are told that it may not be built—it will go to consultation—because it is more expensive than set out in the 2021 document, which stated:
“The approximately £3.5m scheme has been allocated £1.8m funding from the Designated Funds (Integration) and £1.7m from the Capital Structures Renewals budgets for delivery of the Works.”
It seems to me that that figure has clearly gone up. I do not know what it is now; perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me. It may have gone from £3.5 million to £4 million or £4.5 million—I do not know.
However—I say this with the best intentions—I cannot be too concerned with that at this stage. We had a bridge for decades. It was safe, people felt safe, and it gave access both ways across the main road to the school and all the other facilities. It is the best way to ensure the flow of traffic, given that 40,000 vehicles a day go through the junction and, at peak time—about 3 or 4 o’clock in the afternoon—about 2,500 vehicles whip back and forth across it. That is an awful lot. I did some calculations: 2,500 or 2,600 vehicles in an hour is virtually one every second. That is a vast number of vehicles going to and fro.
That is why I am quite exercised about the bridge. I cannot understand why we cannot get on with it. Everybody accepts that there should be one. People were settled that there was going to be a new footbridge. People are concerned about their children. I do not say that to frighten anyone; that is the reality. People felt safe with the bridge that had been there for so long. The new bridge has been assessed, and that was National Highways’ own plan. As far as I am aware, it has bought the land, but if it has not done so, it is available because it has gone through the process and the land is still owned by the local authority, the church and a private owner.
There is no opposition to the proposal; quite the opposite. Will the Minister please take this back to National Highways and tell it that we have had all the assessments, options appraisals and consultations we need? Do we really have to go through this again? Do we have to wait yet again, for another six, 12 or 18 months, for a decision to be made? Everyone—me, my constituents, the school, the church—will push and push, and we will not stop until the bridge is built. I hope the Minister gets the anxiety, tension and concern of residents, who want to get this matter sorted out. Everybody will be happy if we can move it on. If we do not, the unhappiness and resentment will persist. I ask the Minister to intervene and move this matter on as soon as possible for the sake of my constituents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for securing this debate on the replacement of the A5036 Park Lane footbridge. He is absolutely right that if it were in my constituency, I would be doing exactly the same as him. I have been doing this with the A689 in my constituency; we are looking at road safety measures at Crook and various other places where we have speeding issues. He is obviously doing his job as a constituency MP absolutely to the letter.
I will make a couple of general points before I address the issues the hon. Gentleman raised. Good transport connections are key to ensuring that road users use our transport network safely. They play a crucial role in supporting productivity, innovation and economic growth across the country. We have provided a series of devolution deals to mayoral combined authorities to ensure that transport connectivity maximises economic growth and supports thriving communities. The Government are fully committed to delivering our vision of levelling up the British economy, strengthening the bonds of our cities and unlocking England’s economic potential, particularly through the northern powerhouse, while ensuring that the Liverpool city region and the north of England play a key role in a resurgent economy.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the A5036 is an urban two-lane dual carriageway that widens out into three lanes at the current signal control junction at Park Lane and Park Lane West. It is the main access road to the port of Liverpool. We have had many discussions and debates about its potential. To the west of the junction, there was a pedestrian footbridge, which was the only crossing facility over the A5036 in the vicinity of the junction. As he said, it was at the heart of the community. National Highways was considering options for its removal as part of a broader look at structures that have been on our roads for decades and perhaps need upgrading or replacing. As he knows, the bridge was struck in October 2022 by an HGV, which resulted in its demolition, as it was deemed unsafe to try to patch it up.
Following that incident, the first priority of National Highways was to ensure that crossings could still be maintained on the road, so it installed a temporary, signal-controlled crossing for access to the west of the junction, next to the existing bus stops. National Highways has now completed the replacement of this initial crossing solution, with a signal-controlled toucan crossing for cyclists and pedestrians that has enabled the removal of the traffic management measures and temporary speed limits. That is a temporary solution, but because of the volume of traffic on the road, including the number of HGVs, it has been constructed to a permanent standard. However, National Highways accepts that the current arrangements have resulted in most pedestrians taking a detour from their usual routes in order to use the new crossing.
As I said, prior to the incident, National Highways had been considering options for replacing the bridge, which was far from ideal as it was accessed by a stepped ramp that provided really poor accessibility for vulnerable users, wheelchair users, motorised wheelchair users, mums with buggies taking the kids to school and other users. In considering the permanent options, National Highways has a duty to ensure that it invests money to deliver schemes that are safe and offer value for money. However, I can assure everyone that across all its activities, National Highways’ top priority, which it takes very seriously, is ensuring public safety.
As the scale of the works to replace the bridge has become clearer, the cost estimates have increased substantially, particularly when we reflect on the modern standards for access. National Highways is completing a review to assess the various options for providing a crossing point that will ensure that users can cross the road at this location safely. Junction improvements that provide signalised crossing points or a bridge are under consideration, but the full cost for those and the difference between the two will be outlined in the near future. I have had a word with National Highways and it will communicate the outcome of the review to local stakeholders within the next few months—I hope that it will be well before the end of the year—and it will also confirm timescales for the construction of any permanent solution.
Following that review, when the options with the costings have been put forward, I will be very happy to meet the hon. Member and National Highways, after they have had a preliminary meeting, to talk about any issues—if he is not happy with the solutions that National Highways comes forward with. I recognise that the outcome of the review will affect the community in Bootle, but it is right that we strive to reach a proper, long-term solution that is safe and delivers value for money. We will continue to work with National Highways to reach a solution and as it looks to communicate that in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Defibrillators: Public Access
(10 months, 1 week 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
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered public access to defibrillators.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I am bringing this motion before the House this afternoon to maintain the steady pressure from campaigners and parliamentarians in relation to increasing awareness of and knowledge about defibrillators in two key regards: one, where they are; and two, how to use them. This continues the fine work conducted by Members from across this House, including the members of the all-party parliamentary group on defibrillators, its chair—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) —and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as Members of the other place.
This issue was brought home to me by the experience of my constituent, Bonnie McGhee, who works in the cardiology unit at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Sadly, Bonnie lost her father to a cardiac arrest, but has since successfully raised funds for a defibrillator in his memory. Access to a defibrillator may have saved his life. The defibrillator that Bonnie funded is in the Clockhouse Community Centre in memory of her father, Jeffrey Anthony Mee. I think of Bonnie and her late father often, and today, they are especially in my thoughts.
In the UK, one person dies every three minutes from a heart or circulatory disease and, every year, 60,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occur. Research by the National Institute for Health and Care Research found that only 8% of people suffering a heart attack outside of hospital will survive. However, the same research found that the odds of survival increase to 32% if a member of the public has access to an automated external defibrillator. If someone has access to a public defibrillator and can administer a life-saving electric shock to the heart to restore its normal rhythm, that will improve the likelihood of survival for anyone who has had a cardiac arrest.
Defibrillators represent an incredible technical advance. They are lightweight, easy to use and designed only to help and not harm the patient. The issue is not about their design but their distribution and public awareness of what they are and how to use them.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate and for her excellent speech. Does she agree that community defibrillator training sessions are vital, and will she join me in thanking people such as Ryan Cawsey of St John Ambulance Cymru and Stephanie Roberts of the Gwalchmai Hotel, who make possible free defibrillator training sessions for Ynys Môn constituents?
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will come to that really important point about community training. I also thank her and agree with her comments about the charities and organisations that are already doing the groundwork to provide help and ensure that people are adequately trained.
Research from Resuscitation Council UK shows that access to AEDs is not fairly distributed across the income and ethnic distribution of England. In other words, if someone is poor and/or black, they are less likely to have access to a defibrillator, but if someone is affluent and white, they are more likely to have access. The research shows unequal access across England, with fewer in the north-east and more in London. This is a classic example of what Dr Tudor Hart called “inverse care law”, whereby people with the most needs get the least provision, and vice versa. I hope that the Minister can address that point and tell us what the Government are doing to tackle these stark examples of health inequality.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I want to mention Lucky2BHere, a charity based on the Isle of Skye that works across Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the highlands. There are now more than 150 defibrillators across the Western Isles—my constituency—which is about the length of Wales. There is one outside my constituency office in Stornoway, which I will come back to in a second. They are outside schools, and can be accessed at all times.
The work is having to be done be volunteers, who see the great need for it. Michelle Macleod, who works in my office, collapsed in 2019 after having run a relay part of a half marathon, and it was with the help of defibrillators that her life was saved. That underscores, on a personal and an office basis, exactly how important those defibrillators are in my constituency. I congratulate the hon. Member on raising this subject, so that there is greater awareness among the public and the Government about what needs to be done.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for making such an important contribution and Lucky2BHere for the work it is doing. I acknowledge his constituent, whose life was saved by this work. Volunteers are doing a lot of work to raise money for defibrillators. I have seen it happen in my constituency recently, where the Friends of Lesnes Abbey and Woods have raised money for defibrillators.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement that £1 million will be available for community defibrillators. I am sure that he will set out how that money will be used and what impact it will have. Otherwise, the money risks being more of a PR exercise than an exercise in serious public health policy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. She was very kind to mention me earlier—I brought the Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill to the House in 2020, as most Members will know. The Government accepted the need to have defibrillators in schools, which was really good.
The person who made that happen was Mark King, whose son Oliver died in March 2011 from a cardiac arrest—he was an outstanding young man who would have gone very far in the world. There have been 4,500 AEDs placed in schools, 70,000 staff have been trained in AED awareness and 47 lives have been saved. Two of the lives saved were in my constituency, because the defibrillators were in place at the right time. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, and I look forward to doing even more. Perhaps the Minister can give an indication what the next steps will be.
Abena Oppong-Asare
This is not to blow his trumpet, but I thank the hon. Member for the work he has done on the issue and for the important points that he just highlighted.
Let me go back to my point about the Minister’s announcement of the £1 million that will be available for community defibrillators. I have questions about the timing of the announcement, just a few days ahead of this debate. What will the method of distribution be for the roll-out? I am concerned that Ministers will pitch community groups against one another in a cruel competition to see who wins. The danger is that the winners are either the best organised or have the loudest voices, or else are favoured in the eyes of Ministers. This does happen with schemes of this nature. Resuscitation Council UK warns about
“defibrillators being disproportionately stored in communities that have resources, amplifying the UK’s mismatch between Automated External Defibrillator…density and Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest incidence. By instead targeting public-access devices in areas of poor health and high OHCA incidence, this initiative could increase the chance of survival in the most high-risk communities.”
There is also the issue of public awareness and knowledge. Each year, there are 60,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK, with less than one in 10 surviving. While immediate CPR and defibrillation can more than double the chances of survival, public access defibrillators are used in less than one in 10 cases. Defibrillators must be located in well-signposted, unlocked and easily accessible places that members of the community can access immediately in an emergency. They must be maintained and ready for use. By the way, the criminal justice system should throw the book at anyone convicted of vandalising public access defibrillators. Few crimes are more mindless than selfishly disabling a defibrillator that might save a stranger’s life. Does the Minister believe that the current range of punishments available to the courts for vandalising a defibrillator is adequate?
As the House will know, there is a national database of locations of defibrillators. It is called The Circuit and is maintained by the British Heart Foundation and the NHS. I pay tribute to Resuscitation Council UK and St John Ambulance for their work, but the database is not complete. The Circuit currently has more than 70,000 defibrillators mapped, but there are estimated to be between 100,000 and 200,000 devices in the UK. This means that emergency services, including the ambulance service, might not be able to direct people to a defibrillator to save someone’s life. Will the Minister explain how that can be acceptable and what the Government are doing to rectify the situation?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is right to outline the fact that many people do not necessarily know where defibrillators are located, and there is a need to ensure that that happens. Does she agree that one thing that should happen—maybe the Minister can answer this question—is the teaching of CPR, which is crucial to ensuring that people feel confident enough to use the apparatus of a defibrillator? Does she feel that the Minister should take that issue on board as well?
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Member for making such an important point. He literally took the words out of my mouth, because I was going to mention that later. He is right, because there is no point having all these defibrillators if no one knows how to use them. There are some located in my constituency and more widely, and people do not even know about them. I went to my local station recently, and some of the staff did not know that there was a defibrillator in the station. That lack of awareness is quite concerning.
I warmly welcome the Complete The Circuit campaign being run by the Daily Express and the British Heart Foundation. The campaign seeks to have every defibrillator listed. If Google Maps can list every pub and restaurant, which I know we all like, surely we should be able to see every defibrillator on our smartphones. I congratulate the Daily Express and its editor, Gary Jones, for this initiative—I think that is the first time I have ever said that.
I thank the Daily Mirror, which has run a lengthy campaign to install defibrillators in public spaces. Martin Bagot has been the driving force behind the campaign, and I know that people will be interested to know more about the current availability of defibrillators, such as the sorts of public venues that are more likely to have them and the public venues where there is an acute absence of them. Is the Minister aware of any blackspots, particularly in rural areas, where there is a lack of defibrillators? As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, if someone can find a defibrillator, will they be able to use it?
There is a strong case for a public information campaign to explain what a defibrillator is and how to use it, which should be supported by workplace training courses and much greater awareness. There are examples of defibrillators from abroad where the information is much clearer and easier to understand. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Department has made of accessibility for people who cannot read or who do not have English as their first language? Is there a case for reviewing signage and instructions to make defibrillators even more accessible?
Lastly, what about our workplace? According to information released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, there are 25 defibrillators on the parliamentary estate, including in Central Lobby and Portcullis House—do we know where they are? No. We should be shouting that information from the rooftops; it should not be released through an FOI request. How many right hon. and hon. Members know the whereabouts of those defibrillators? I do not know where the 25 are. How many of our staff know where they are? How many of us have had training in CPR or using defibrillators? This is a classic case of “Physician, heal thyself.” In other words, we in this place should model good behaviour in all things, including access to defibrillators.
There are so many tragic stories from every constituency of lives lost when a defibrillator could have saved them, and I have heard some of them through interventions. Of course, there are many stories in which people have survived because of access to a defibrillator and the quick thinking and swift action of a stranger. That is the ultimate reminder that we are interconnected by shared humanity, that we rely on the kindness of strangers and that, one day, any one of us might need a passer-by to save our lives.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I reassure the hon. Member, as Chair of the Administration Committee as well as Chair of this proceeding, that we will certainly look at her request around defibrillators on the estate. An email is being sent to the Clerk now. I remind Members who want to speak to bob up and down.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who set out some moving thoughts about the importance of altruism and caring for other people in their moment of need, and about how the Government can perhaps help communities to enable individuals to help other people.
I want to pay particular attention to two aspects of best practice in my constituency and in broader east Devon, and I will close with one ask of the Government. The two examples of great ideas relate to Devon Air Ambulance Trust and Axe Valley Runners club. I met Devon Air Ambulance Trust here in Parliament last winter. The trust let me know that it is running CPR training and training on how to use a defibrillator. It invited me along to Sidmouth rugby club to get some training on CPR and how to use a defibrillator. It was great, because I had not done much of that sort of training since being a Scout as a young lad. It was brilliant to see how much progress has been made in resuscitation and how much more can be achieved these days with technology that we did not have in the 1980s and 1990s.
The Devon Air Ambulance Trust has a “Help with all your Heart” campaign, which seeks the best possible outcomes for patients who suffer a cardiac arrest. Part of the objective is to provide more of the equipment, as well as trying to train people such as myself in how to use it. The trust has put AEDs outside its charity shops on high streets, and it is working with town councils in east Devon to enable better access to AEDs.
The second organisation that is doing great stuff in my part of Devon is Axe Valley Runners club. Earlier this week, as covered by the Midweek Herald newspaper, the club did a “defib dash”. A defib dash is a bit like orienteering, for those who know what that is. The idea is that the runners go off in groups with a map to find a number of defibrillators. They go on various routes, competing against one another, to see who can get back to the beginning having found the most defibrillators. They ran around Seaton, Axmouth, Beer, Colyton and Colyford, covering a big chunk of the Tiverton and Honiton constituency. I pay particular tribute to Heather Simmons, Claire Warner and Sarah and Ronnie Whelan, who deserve credit for that novel and creative idea.
My third and final point is the ask. It would not be necessary for community groups to come up with these fantastic initiatives if there was better understanding of where defibrillators are and how to use them. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead has mentioned the Complete The Circuit campaign being run by the Express. The absence of a complete register of AEDs is a particular issue for rural areas such as my part of Devon. We think that there are 70,000 AEDs on the national register, but our understanding is that there are between 100,000 and 200,000 AEDs in existence. We are, therefore, nowhere near having a good idea of where defibrillators are located. This is an important issue. If someone comes across somebody who has had a cardiac arrest, one of the first things that the ambulance service will do when they call 999 is direct them to the nearest AED. In a rural area such as mine, however, the service might think that the nearest AED is miles away, without knowing that there is one just a few hundred metres away from the incident. As the Express has said, we need to Complete The Circuit. We need a full and proper record of where AEDs are located.
I am a Liberal Democrat and we do not really believe in intervening in matters in which the state need not get involved. In this instance, however, I have been racking my brains for reasons why the Government might not want to legislate or intervene to require community groups to register AEDs on a national database. I have asked the chairman of Sidmouth Town Council and other community groups about the arguments against having a comprehensive register of AEDs, but I have not yet heard a sound argument why we should not require everyone who, through the kindness of their heart, buys an AED to register it so that the ambulance service can direct people to all available AEDs.
In summary, fantastic work is being done outside the House by community groups, but we need a central register and it has to be as comprehensive as possible.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles, and to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who made a really interesting speech. I like the idea of a defib dash. I do not know whether we have enough defibrillators in my constituency, but I am certainly going to go away and find out.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing and leading this important debate and on her great speech. Fewer than one in 10 people survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Tragically, that means, given that annually in the UK about 30,000 people experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, that only approximately 3,000 of them will survive. In Yorkshire each year, there are approximately 3,300 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, with a survival rate of only one in 13. Sadly, that means that more than 3,000 people in Yorkshire will not survive a cardiac arrest this year.
There are measures that can improve the chances of survival, including bystander willingness to begin CPR. I have seen that at first hand: my mum, on a number of occasions over the last few decades, has stopped, as a bystander, and she has saved more than one life. As a trained nurse, she had the confidence to do CPR. What is really encouraging is that when research has been done, ordinary members of the public—by “ordinary”, I mean without any medical training—are willing to get involved, but as I will come on to say, they do not always have the skills to do so. That sort of intervention can double or even quadruple the chances of survival.
I am pleased to say that Resuscitation Council UK found that people in Barnsley are more willing than some in other parts of the country to begin CPR if they witness someone having a cardiac arrest. Access to defibrillators and how quickly they are used can also be incredibly effective in improving the chances of survival after a cardiac arrest, with research finding that defibrillation within three to five minutes of collapse improves survival rates from around 50% to 70%. During the public engagement sessions leading up to this debate, the House of Commons research team found that more than half the people asked would feel confident to use a defibrillator without having had training. It is encouraging that 80% of people reported feeling confident to respond to an emergency situation where someone was suffering a cardiac arrest.
Although people are generally willing to help and get involved, they may not always be able to do so. Resuscitation Council UK found that defibrillators are disproportionately more present in affluent areas, where the incident rates of cardiac arrest are typically lower. Of course, no one would begrudge any area for having as many defibrillators available to them as possible, and I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in sending our thanks to those who have fundraised to source a defibrillator for their local community. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work of the Hoyland, Milton and Rockingham Ward Alliance in Barnsley, which has funded five new defibrillators for the area, three of which have been installed. That will literally be a lifeline to many in Barnsley East, and I know local people will be incredibly grateful to them.
Not everyone can rely on organisations to provide funding in that way. Less affluent areas face inequality in their cardiac arrest survival prospects, as those who live in more disadvantaged areas are more likely to suffer arrests but less likely to have access to a defibrillator. We need the Government to take urgent action to ensure that defibrillators are suitably distributed across the country, so that people are not at greater risk of dying from cardiac arrest just because of where they live. Last month, my office was pleased to support a parliamentary event by Resuscitation Council UK to highlight this and other issues associated with cardiac arrest survival and follow-up care. We were joined by cardiac arrest survivors and members of the council, who demonstrated how to administer CPR should we ever need to do so. I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to them for an informative event.
Defibrillator access and awareness in local communities, particularly in areas such as Barnsley, will save lives, so I am pleased that we are having this debate today. I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing to improve public access so that as many lives as possible are saved.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see you in the Chair again, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on the way she introduced the debate and the passion she put into it. If we could all be as passionate, we would save more lives, which is wonderful, and I thank her.
Defibrillators save lives and that is why we need to have more of them. Everyone who has spoken in the debate so far has had a story of how a defibrillator has saved someone in their community, and that is because defibrillators save lives. If we know where defibrillators are, how to use them and what to do in medical emergencies, we will save more lives and be more confident in allowing communities to be a part of the healthcare response, especially at a time when our NHS is in crisis. According to the British Heart Foundation, around 3,500 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests happen each year in the south-west of England. In Plymouth alone, 28,000 people struggle with high blood pressure, and 25,000 people in my city live with heart-related conditions. That means we need to ensure that support is available in every one of our communities, should it be required.
Without doubt, the availability of defibrillators would improve cardiac arrest survival rates, and I know this at first hand. In March I held a #MeetLuke public meeting in Compton ward, at which local residents had an opportunity to ask questions to me and local councillors. Our three local councillors—Labour, Conservative and independent—had just been asked an exciting question about cuts to local buses, but the independent councillor struggled to answer. They said they needed some air, and they quickly wanted some water. When they stood up, they fell to the ground having a heart attack. If it had not been for the quick reactions of people in that room, that person would have died. One of the councillors started doing CPR on their fellow councillor, while the other one ran to get the defib, which had been installed in a church opposite to where we were. They called 999 to get the access code to the locked cabinet, and that triggered an emergency response from the ambulance service because a defib had been activated, and a police car was sent as well as an ambulance.
If it had not been for the quick measures and thinking of Labour Councillor Dylan Tippetts and Conservative Councillor Charlotte Carlyle, the independent Councillor Nick Kelly would have died right there. We had help from doctors and first aiders in the room, but if it had not been for the defib, he probably would not have survived. As much as we pride ourselves on having political banter, everyone should be able to go home to their family at the end of the day. When I saw a defibrillator being used right in front of me and how it saved a life, it left not only a harrowing memory, but a responsibility to ensure that there is a defibrillator in every one of our communities.
Councillor Carlyle is working with the local Pearn Charitable Trust to fund more defibrillators in that community, which is admirable. In addition to Compton ward, every other ward in the patch I represent needs defibrillators, and that is especially true of our poorer communities. Richer communities have more access to defibrillators than poorer communities. That is often because of the high upfront cost of a defibrillator, so I welcome the initiative the Minister has outlined to provide funding for communities to bid for a defibrillator. However, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead about where defibrillators are located. We need to ensure that they go where the need is, not just to where people are good at filling in bids. We are aware from other areas of funding that if someone is a good bid-writer, they are more likely to succeed in the bid. That does not necessarily mean that they have a more worthy cause. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how his Department is ensuring that the funding goes to where the need is, and not just to where the most successful bids are.
Regarding availability of AEDs and the overall package, it is absolutely important to consider where the risk is. The £1 million funding announced by the Minister is welcome, but it will soon be spent and the great need for AEDs will remain. Where are the deficits? Which areas have a lower concentration and density? They will also be the areas on the map where people are at higher risk of heart disease, and that is why we need to ensure that they have AEDs.
I second the call for defibrillator guardians to register their device with The Circuit. When people dial 999, they will then be able to access a nearby defibrillator and the emergency code to unlock it. It is important that people know about that. I recently visited the O2 store in Drake Circus in Plymouth, which had just installed a defibrillator and trained all staff in how to use it. That is an incredibly welcome move. I would like big corporates to take the initiative and ensure that they are looking after not just their own staff but customers and others nearby.
I challenged local supermarkets in Plymouth on whether they had defibrillators, but not all of them did. The shopping demographic includes people of all ages. For some, leaving the house to push a trolley or carry a basket around a supermarket can be quite intense. We know that cardiac arrests happen when people go shopping. As a basic piece of social responsibility, every single supermarket should have a defibrillator and a sign on the front of the store informing people that it can be used in the event of a problem. What additional conversations is the Minister having with large chains and corporates to ensure that defibrillators are not only registered on The Circuit but visibly signposted?
I echo the call about parliamentary AEDs. There is one outside the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who will speak in a moment, and my office is situated between hers and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead. That means that I know where the nearest AED to my office is located, but I am not in my office at the moment and I do not know the location of the nearest AED. There is a challenge to onboard people. I like the idea that we should be a beacon of best practice. All staff should be onboarded when they arrive on the parliamentary estate and informed about not only where AEDs are located but how to use them. We are often confused by advice on how to use the staff training allowance provided to us by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but I think it could be put to good use with first aid training. Following the incident at my public meeting, all my staff will shortly go on a first aid course so that they can feel confident about how to respond in the event of a medical emergency. But that should be a standard for everyone in this place. We should lead by example.
Finally, there needs to be more focus in education and training. If we are faced with someone having a cardiac arrest or a suspected one, knowing what to do in those first few seconds could be the difference between that person surviving or not. As a country, we should aspire to equip each and every one of our citizens with a minimum level of first aid knowledge. Wherever someone is, they should have an understanding about how to provide basic first aid and what to do in the event of an emergency. That training should be repeated throughout their life as a refresher to top up their knowledge, so that wherever someone is, and regardless of whether they have a defibrillator near them, they know what to do in the event of an emergency.
What conversations has the Minister had with the Department for Education to make sure that our young people leave school equipped with first aid? They need to feel confident about operating an AED, especially given that there are places where young people are encouraged not to touch that thing on the wall because it is dangerous. I have heard that said a few times about defibrillators, but we want our young people to know what they should do in the event of an emergency. We should not scare them, but equip them with the knowledge about what should happen.
The defibrillator that saved Nick Kelly’s life in Plymouth was installed only a month before the public meeting. Had the meeting taken place two months previously, as I had originally intended, he would not be alive today. We owe an enormous thanks not only to the organisations, charitable groups and individuals who fundraise and host defibrillators, but to the organisations that pay for the recharging and upkeep, because it is often more prominent to buy a defibrillator in the first place, incurring a high capital cost. It is often less prominent in fundraising to pay to keep it tip-top and in good condition, so that it can be used.
I want to say a special thanks to the congregation and clergy at Emmanuel Church for taking the risk to buy a defibrillator, the benefits of which they have seen almost immediately. I hope that every single church, supermarket, public building and major location in Plymouth takes note of that, buys a defibrillator and puts the maintenance of it in its annual budget. If they do that, we will save more lives and it will help the health service to be able to respond to medical emergencies quicker when they do happen.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for securing today’s important debate on public access to defibrillators, and I congratulate her on the thorough way in which she opened it. It is always a pleasure to take part in debates that are so consensual, and I suspect we are all on the same page, which is nice for a change.
Cardiac arrests strike without warning, and usually outside the confines of a hospital, leaving people in immediate need of medical attention. We have heard from a number of speakers that fewer than one in 10 people survive, which is truly frightening. According to medical professionals, every passing minute without defibrillation reduces a cardiac arrest victim’s chances of survival by a staggering 10%. In such critical moments, defibrillators emerge as vital instruments that are capable of restoring the rhythm of a failing heart, so accessibility and knowledge of where they are located are vital. Incredibly, there is no official centralised database that records the number of defibrillators and their locations.
Thankfully, as we have heard, some organisations have launched their own maps, such as the British Heart Foundation’s Circuit, to improve access to defibrillators. The Circuit is a comprehensive national network of defibrillators, which aims to improve survival rates by mapping the locations of defibrillators across the UK, enabling prompt access during emergencies. There are currently 60,000 defibrillators registered on The Circuit, but it is estimated that tens of thousands remain unknown to the emergency services. Raising awareness about The Circuit and encouraging registration of these devices will enhance their effectiveness in critical situations.
Luke Pollard
Having the data on one database is really important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the data has to be accessible and pulled through to other devices? I just googled “defibrillators near me” on Google Maps, and there really are not any, so we need to make sure not only that the data is stored, but that it is publicly available for people, especially on their handheld devices.
Martyn Day
That is a very good point. None of us, myself included, goes anywhere without a mobile device nowadays, so that is the obvious tool of choice.
Timely defibrillation is a cornerstone of improving survival, and Scotland’s out-of-hospital cardiac arrest strategy aims to increase to 20% the rate of incidents where a PAD is applied to the patient before the arrival of the Scottish ambulance service. I encourage groups and organisations with a defibrillator to ensure that it is registered.
Early defibrillation can massively increase someone’s chances of surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but many defibrillators are never used because the emergency services simply do not know about them. “Scotland’s Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Report 2019-22” highlights:
“The number of Public Access Defibrillators (PAD) in communities across Scotland that are registered on the national defibrillator network (The Circuit) has more than doubled since 2019”.
That is good, but we need to do better. Currently around 5,000 are registered. Registration on The Circuit makes a PAD device visible to the Scottish Ambulance Service and alerts emergency call handlers that there is a pad near an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. That makes registration a vital component in that chain of survival.
I am reminded of the Gandhi quote: “You cannot help everyone, but everyone can help someone.” Each of us as an individual can play a crucial role in bridging the gap between cardiac emergencies and lifesaving interventions. The British Heart Foundation’s map of The Circuit offers a valuable resource that allows individuals to check the availability of nearby defibrillators. By using the tool, anyone can quickly identify the nearest defibrillator, which improves response times and potentially saves lives.
Of course, 80% of cardiac arrests occur at home, so it is vital that Governments continue to consider ways to increase engagement at community level. For example, the Scottish Government want bystanders who witness an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to feel able to take action. To achieve that, Scotland’s out-of-hospital cardiac arrest strategy aims to familiarise a total of 1 million people in Scotland with CPR skills; it works through increased engagement with community organisations such as sports hubs, local businesses and other community groups to raise awareness of and offer opportunities to learn CPR. I had CPR training in the past, but I think I could do with a refresher, as I suspect could many of us who have had the training. It is not done often enough; if an emergency occurred, I am not sure that I would feel as confident as I would have done a month or a couple of months after the training.
As I repeatedly point out in health debates, we cannot escape the fact that health inequality and poverty go hand in hand, and that is the case with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Those in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and 60% less likely to survive than those in less deprived areas. Deprivation also has a significant effect on the likelihood of receiving bystander CPR. Then there are geographic and demographic issues: around 11% of the population of Scotland live in rural areas; they are 32% less likely to survive or to leave hospital after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest than those living in urban areas. Over the last seven years, we have started to understand more clearly the association between measures of socioeconomic position and decreased survival rates after such incidents.
Ethnicity can also be a factor in how likely a person is to experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. For example, people from south Asian backgrounds are at up to 50% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease than white Europeans, and coronary heart disease can lead to heart attack or cardiac arrest. In addition, international studies show that women are less likely to have CPR performed on them—a pattern that we also see in the Scottish data. The misconception that breasts make CPR more challenging, fear of doing harm, fear of inappropriate touching and fear of being accused of sexual assault have been given by the public as reasons for that gender discrepancy. It is important that we work to combat those fears and embed the knowledge that CPR is a gender-neutral lifesaving technique. Those health inequalities confirm beyond doubt the importance of prioritising pads in areas of the highest risk first, as a number of other speakers have mentioned.
Availability and accessibility of defibrillators are critical factors in reducing the devastating impact of cardiac arrests. One way of making defibrillators more accessible would be to make them more affordable. Currently, charities and local authorities can claim a VAT exemption when purchasing a defibrillator, but that should be extended to anyone buying the equipment. Quite simply, the UK should follow Ireland’s example and remove the tax. However, raising awareness of initiatives such as The Circuit, encouraging greater community involvement and tackling poverty all remain essential. By embracing those measures and working together, we can create a society in which every individual has a fighting chance against cardiac emergencies, and ultimately save more lives.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for bringing forward this debate. She never ceases to bring the voice of her constituents right to the heart of this place, and today is yet another shining example her doing her community incredibly proud.
It is welcome that there is such unity and consensus on this issue. As we have heard, tremendous progress has been made towards making defibrillators accessible to the public, thanks to the many incredible charities and people who have been working hard to do so. The Community Heartbeat Trust, the Oliver King Foundation and SADS UK are just some of the organisations that are doing brilliant work to provide education and information about automatic external defibrillators, AEDs, and to ensure that more defibrillators are easily accessible in public spaces.
The British Heart Foundation’s Circuit project has ensured that thousands of defibrillators and their locations are registered online, but, as we have heard, that work needs to go further. People who experience the very worst in the heart of their communities need to know that they are able to find and access an AED when they so desperately need it. The Premier League defibrillator fund will provide AEDs to grassroots clubs, which is very welcome and will ensure that lifesaving treatment can be rolled out to even more stadiums.
As we have heard, in the UK one person dies every three minutes from heart or circulatory disease, and 60,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occur every year. Take a minute to think about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead quoted research published by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which found that just over 8% of people suffering a cardiac arrest outside hospital survive—just 8% of the 60,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. The same research found that the odds of survival increase to 32% if a bystander has access to a public AED, and some studies place that figure even higher. It is simple: AEDs save lives.
According to the British Heart Foundation, the low cardiac arrest survival rate in Britain can be attributed to a lack of access to defibrillators. This critical technology must be accessible to work. With my medical hat on, I will take a moment to explain how it works. CPR works to send the blood around the body to take oxygen to the tissues as a holding measure, but the AED is required to shock the heart and try to restart it again so that it can pump the oxygen around the body. Imagine somebody providing non-stop CPR for hours on end. Not only would that be far too long and the person would be brain dead at the end, but without an AED—without that shock delivered to the heart—CPR is actually pointless.
We must be clear: AEDs are simple, safe and effective. They are portable, have plain instructions and the user cannot give a shock accidentally or hurt somebody. From my professional experience in the emergency department, I know how important quick access to treatment is for patients in cardiac arrest. There can be no doubt that patients who are admitted to hospital after having received prompt treatment with chest compressions or, even more effective, a defibrillator have far improved chances of making a recovery. There is also an economic benefit, because the people whose chances of recovery are worse may spend a long time in an expensive intensive care bed, often not surviving at the end of it. That makes the argument for giving people a better outcome in the first place, which prevents those protracted stays in intensive care and saves money in the long run.
When the heart stops beating, every second counts, and a person’s chance of survival decreases by approximately 10% with every minute that defibrillation is delayed. That speaks to the importance of everyone knowing where the AEDs are. With our NHS in crisis and emergency care at breaking point, lives are being endangered. In December last year, the average ambulance wait for category 1 patients had increased to 10 minutes—the worst performance on record. Those stats make a very clear argument: the painful fact is that people are dying as a result of not being able to get the shock they need from a trained person, whether they arrived in an ambulance or came from an AED in the vicinity.
Category 1 patients are the most serious and life-threatening cases, including cardiac arrest. In a category 1 scenario, every second is the difference between life and death, and longer ambulance waits are costing lives. Sadly, after 13 years of Conservative governance, patients can no longer rely on an ambulance arriving in time. At the end of last year, one in 10 urgent cases waited over 11 hours for an ambulance. How can we in all conscience say to people who lost loved ones in such cases that their loss could not have been avoided, when we know full well that it could have been?
Last year, the Government committed to funding a defibrillator in every state-funded school in England by the end of the academic year. As the academic year is nearing its end, will the Minister outline what progress has been made on that commitment? The Government also committed last year to £1 million of funding to provide an estimated 1,000 public access defibrillators across communities in England. I note that the Department re-announced that policy just last week, so has there not been any progress on that commitment? Will he update us on how the application process is progressing and whether any PADs have been installed, and if they have, in which communities? It is crucial that they are placed in communities where the need is greatest to tackle growing health inequalities, which we have heard about extensively today.
It is really important that health inequalities are not allowed to widen any further through a lack of access to equipment that could save lives. That has to go hand in hand with training people in how to use them. I would be interested to know what work the Department is doing to encourage uptake in the communities that are most in need. While many of us will agree that public access to defibrillators will be a fantastic step towards saving lives, we must not forget that our country also deserves a well-funded, well-resourced and well-supported NHS. It is heartening that there is widespread, cross-party support for publicly accessible AEDs. I hope that the Government will build on the support from across the House and do what is needed to ensure that access is available.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister that if he takes up the full time he must leave two minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I assure you that, although I will try to address as many of the points and themes raised during this very constructive debate as possible, I do not intend to take the full time available to me.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on securing a hugely important debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Although I did not agree with all the points made by the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), I thoroughly agree that there is considerable consensus. What has been displayed is Parliament working at its best, with all hon. Members raising constituency cases and rightly campaigning for greater access to and awareness of defibrillators in their communities and across our country. I put on record my condolences to those who have lost loved ones due to sudden death caused by an undiagnosed heart issue.
As has been said, defibrillators provide vital treatment, with the latest research showing that the use of such devices within three to five minutes of a cardiac arrest increases the chance of survival by over 40%. It is therefore crucial that we have enough defibrillators in public spaces to provide life-saving interventions when needed. I join the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead in paying tribute to and thanking the APPG and its members for all their work in this area. She mentioned the need for steady pressure, and I think that she is absolutely right to use that phrase. It is vital that we keep that steady pressure up, not just on the Department or the NHS but on organisations up and down the country, to ensure that we have as much access to these vital AEDs as possible.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead set out very articulately and eloquently the compelling case for access to and awareness of defibrillators, and I think that she did her constituents and the House a huge service today. I would also like to thank the charities, businesses, clubs and societies that go out and fundraise for AEDs; they are doing their communities a huge service too. Investing in devices and treatments that can prevent the most serious cardiac arrythmias is a priority for the Government. The hon. Lady also rightly raised the issue of inequality. That certainly preys on my mind when considering many aspects of health. She made a very powerful case, and I hope to address that point in my contribution.
As the hon. Member for Tooting mentioned, in December the Government announced a £1 million fund to design a grant scheme for the expansion of publicly accessible AEDs in the community. That fund was designed to provide an estimated 1,000 new defibrillators in spaces across the country. Whether at a town hall, a post office or a favourite green space outside the local Co-op, having access to AEDs in easy-to-reach areas, as we know and as has been very articulately set out this afternoon, can be a lifeline that keeps loved ones with us.
The fund builds on work by the Government, the NHS and stakeholders to improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests via the use of defibrillators and cardiopulmonary resuscitation—from now on I will use “CPR”, as I do not have the health expertise of the hon. Member for Tooting. The Department of Health and Social Care will invest the funding through an independent partner—I think this directly answers the question from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead—which will be selected from the Government’s Crown Commercial Service list of approved suppliers. Successful applicants will then be asked to demonstrate that the defibrillators will be placed in areas where they are most needed.
To address the hon. Lady’s point about inequality, although Ministers will have no involvement in deciding where defibrillators are sited—it would be totally inappropriate for them to have that kind of involvement— I understand her concerns. It is inevitable to some extent that where an item of medtech is purchased by local communities, there will be a higher prevalence in more affluent areas, where it is easier to fundraise. Where there is Government funding available, it is important that wherever possible we use it to redress the balance in favour of areas that find it more difficult to fundraise. We must ensure that we target areas where there is a shortage of AEDs and do not just top up provision in areas where coverage is already good. I will certainly speak with the Minister for Social Care to see what more we can do to involve local Members of Parliament and interested groups, including the APPG, with the selected partner, to ensure that we get that right, because the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead has made a compelling case.
Abena Oppong-Asare
That is really good news to hear. Something that I also want to suggest to the Minister, which I think is really important, is about mapping areas of high need, because one of my concerns is that I am seeing community organisations fundraise for defibrillators, unaware that that fund has been available since late last year. I appreciate that these things take time and it is important that we get it right—we are not just flashing money around anyhow—but will review mechanisms be put in place to ensure that over time the funding is going to the right areas and that the right individuals are receiving the benefits of it?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is absolutely right. It is important that whenever we spend Government money—taxpayer-funded money—in this way, there is a proper evaluation process. Having said that, although looking back and asking if we got it right is key, the most important thing for me is to get it right first time. We do that by ensuring that there are clear criteria.
The hon. Lady is also right that we have to map and look at not just areas where people do not have access to AEDs, but areas of social deprivation and areas with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease or higher footfall. Those are all factors that we absolutely need to consider when designing the criteria that the independent third-party provider would scope. I am keen to work with the hon. Lady and the APPG to ensure that we are getting that right.
Alongside that—and this is the reason why the number of AEDs that will be available through the fund is an estimate—there is a plan to ask for the match funding that some organisations receive. I am conscious that some areas will be able to do that but others will struggle, which is why it can be full or partial. Potentially, however, that could double the number of AEDs available. Some communities might be able to make only a small contribution, but others could match-fund it entirely. It is important that we set criteria that make it available as widely as possible to communities, especially those less affluent areas where fundraising is difficult.
Abena Oppong-Asare
That is really good. Another thing to highlight is that, as we see in data from The Circuit, not everyone is registering their defibrillators. Is the Minister coming to the point about organisations ensuring that when they receive the funding, they register it as well?
Will Quince
Absolutely. The hon. Lady pre-empts me: I am coming on to The Circuit, because that point has been made by nearly all hon. Members, but I will first conclude my remarks about the fund.
Successful applicants will be encouraged to train or facilitate CPR training in the local community. That is an important element. To expedite the distribution of funding, and in readiness for the appointment of our partner organisation—this touches on the hon. Lady’s question—on 28 June the Department published an invitation for those organisations that wish to bid for an AED to submit an expression of interest.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Care wrote to all hon. Members informing them of the AED expression of interest and setting out how organisations can register their interest. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to ensure that community groups, organisations and local authorities across our constituencies spread the message loud and clear so that we get as many expressions of interest as possible. I urge any organisation that may benefit from a defibrillator, whether it is a sports club, a local theatre or a community hall, to register and have that opportunity. It is also important that we encourage local councillors to get involved.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked specifically about the Department for Education. I was Schools Minister at the time the decision was made and signed off. On 17 July, the Department for Education announced that it would provide defibrillators to schools in England that do not already have access to one. That is expected to be completed by the end of the 2022-23 academic year. The scheme, of which I am very proud, is the largest distribution of defibrillators to be rolled out across England to date. It will provide more than 20,000 devices, backed by £19 million of funding.
Dr Allin-Khan
The end of the academic year is in two weeks’ time, on 17 July. May I ask for an update on the progress to meet the target?
Will Quince
I have not been the Schools Minister for many months, but I will gladly ensure that the relevant Minister—or I, having accessed that information—gets it to the hon. Lady.
I remember that a key point in the design of the scheme—this touches on a point made by many hon. Members—was that providing an AED, in and of itself, is not enough. Accompanying the roll-out, we wanted to ensure that there were awareness videos about how easy it is to use an AED. We want teachers, as part of their training and in the staffroom, and pupils in assemblies to see how easy an AED is to use. In a rolling way, we hoped to create a new generation of young people who are confident in their use. As AEDs become more prevalent across communities, that can only be a good thing.
I think it was the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) who asked about CPR and first aid training. As a Back Bencher, I campaigned to have first aid included on the curriculum. The Schools Minister at the time was not very happy about that—not because he was against having it on the curriculum, but because the curriculum was already very full—but we did manage to get it included. It is important that we upskill young people so they have the confidence to act in the unlikely but possible event that they encounter someone in cardiac arrest.
The question about vandalism of defibrillators is a fair one. I had not given it any thought, but I will certainly have a conversation with my counterparts in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice and see if there is any scope to take further action in that area.
Turning to The Circuit, I would certainly like to recognise the incredibly important work that charities do in ensuring that the public have access to defibrillators. The British Heart Foundation, in partnership with Resuscitation Council UK, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives and of course the national health service, set up The Circuit, which is the national defibrillator network database that provides information on where defibrillators are located.
I heard the point that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) made about legislation, which I have some concerns about. At the moment, registration is entirely voluntary, so nobody is forced to register their defibrillator with The Circuit. However, registration enables the emergency services and community first responders to locate the nearest publicly accessible external defibrillator when they are treating someone suffering from an out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest. In those crucial moments after a cardiac arrest, we know that locating an AED quickly will help save lives.
Richard Foord
What are the arguments against making registration compulsory?
Will Quince
That is a question that I had not previously been asked. The danger of legislating in an area like this is that often there are consequences of legislation. One consequence would be that all existing defibrillators were registered as part of The Circuit, and that comes with a tick—that is a merit. However, having created legislation and having worked in Government Departments where legislation has been drafted on numerous occasions, I know that there are invariably and inevitably also negative unintended consequences that need to be considered and thought through.
For example, would registration discourage communities from taking a defibrillator? Would it discourage businesses like the one to which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport referred from putting one in their shop? We have to think through that kind of thing. What kind of pressure does it put on those organisations? Would it discourage people? If we are going to create legislation, what are the implications of not registering? Will there be a criminal sanction or a civil one? These are all things we would have to work through, and that is why legislating on something like this is complex. We have to remember that most defibrillators are bought by community groups, although in this particular case the Government support them. We would be placing a legal requirement on them for something that they are purchasing through goodwill, for philanthropic or altruistic reasons.
We have just got to be careful. I am not saying that we should not consider it, but it is not quite as simple as saying, “Let’s legislate,” and thinking that that will address the problem. What we need to do, and are doing, is to encourage as many people as possible to register because of the benefits of registration.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Would those who receive funding from the £1 million fund for the community be required to register with The Circuit? Where there is Government funding, I think we should be encouraging registration. The more people who are aware, the better.
Will Quince
I totally agree. I will check whether registering will be among the conditions for grant funding; I would like to think that it will, and I will work with the Minister for Social Care to ensure that it is. We know that there are many defibrillators that are not on The Circuit, and—short of legislating, which would not be a quick or easy solution—we have to get them on it as quickly as possible. We have to urge as many organisations and individuals as possible to register.
The hon. Lady asked what steps we are taking to promote that. I recently wrote to all local authorities to ask them to check and, if they have not done so already, to consider adding their defibrillators to The Circuit. I also asked them to reach out and share that message with parish councils, town councils, community groups, village halls, businesses and others that may have a defibrillator that is not registered on The Circuit. I am keen to work with local authorities, which have a reach into their communities that neither central Government nor the national charities could possibly have. I also urge all right hon. and hon. Members to encourage those organisations that have a defibrillator to ensure that it is registered. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to and congratulating the Daily Express on its important campaign, which I am happy to support.
I hear what the hon. Lady says about raising more public awareness about AEDs and where they are located, not on just the parliamentary estate but across communities and the country. I will continue to look at what more we can do centrally, but also by working with national and local charities, to raise that awareness.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport asked about businesses. Some organisations—such as the Premier League, which the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead referred to—are leading the way, but we want to encourage more to do so. I will give further thought to how we can encourage other businesses to do the same.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked about first aid, and particularly about CPR. Better awareness and education around first aid training is key to improving survival rates from cardiac arrest. I am pleased that NHS England has partnered with St John Ambulance to, in effect, co-ordinate skills development to significantly increase the use of AEDs by individuals in community settings. That includes a national network of community advocates to champion the importance of first aid training. The plan is to reach 60,000 people, which will help to save up to 4,000 lives each year by 2028, empowering local communities to act more quickly to save people’s lives.
Finally, I cannot speak about cardiac arrest without speaking about prevention, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport referred to. The prevention of heart disease is critical to reducing the number of sudden cardiac arrests. I will set out some of the work that NHS England is doing to reduce preventable deaths from heart disease. Currently, £2.3 billion is being spent to increase the number of centres diagnosing heart disease to at least 100 sites by March 2025. NHS England has developed a new fast-track echocardiography training scheme, which has led to 150 additional echocardiographers, with further support available in 2023-24.
The NHS health check programme, which the Secretary of State recently spoke about, is a core component of NHS England’s CVD prevention pathway. Over 15 million people are eligible for a NHS health check every five years. For every 1 million checks delivered, the NHS health check could prevent an estimated 400 heart attacks and strokes. Something like 10.8 million checks have been delivered between 2013 and December 2022, but it is important that we work hard to ensure that more people benefit from that lifesaving service and get a health check. I am keen that we make it easier and more convenient for people to do so.
I hope that today I have demonstrated the Government’s commitment to increasing the number of AEDs in our local communities. I am keen to see how we can turbocharge that and work with businesses and local communities to go much further. We can all agree that this agenda really matters. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead for highlighting this vital issue. I look forward to working with her to bring about the change in this area that we all want to see.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I invite the hon. Member who secured the debate to wind up for up to two minutes.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for his remarks about what can be done. This debate was very much about a collaborative approach. Indeed, it is one of the rare debates that I have attended where there has been much consensus.
I thank hon. Members for sharing their experiences, particularly the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who also shared some best practices on defibrillators. I am not familiar with the defibrillator dash, but it is something that we can all look into. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for her comments about the community groups fundraising for defibrillators in her constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who talked about the importance of corporates, the work that they have done in Plymouth and what can be done in supermarkets.
I thank the Minister for saying that he will consider what engagement and what encouraging conversations there can be with businesses. I am a bit concerned about the £1 million fund, in terms of inequality and little groups being missed out, particularly because we know that the groups that know how to do slick bids are the ones that are very good at getting the money. I am feeling a bit reassured by the Minister that the Government are looking at work to ensure that it is distributed equally, but I think a review needs to be done to make sure that nobody is left behind. It would also be good to get some clarification about whether those receiving funding are being required—
Abena Oppong-Asare
They are? That is good to hear.
May I take this opportunity to thank you, Sir Charles, for saying that you will look at defibrillators in Parliament in your role as Chair of the Administration Committee? I am very impressed that you have taken that on board straightaway. I also want to thank the organisations and charities that have been driving this campaign for their excellent work and briefings.
I thank Bonnie for campaigning on this issue in memory of her dad. I want every citizen, no matter where they live or what they do, to know about defibrillators, where they are and how to use them. I want us all to know how to use one, just as surely as we know how to use a cashpoint. I have had training in how to use a defibrillator—it is so easy to use. I also welcome what the Minister says about the Government’s work in schools and particularly about starting with very young people. I remember receiving first aid at school, so it is good to start this from a really young age.
All these things are possible with the political will to make them happen. I know we will keep up the fight on this issue. I thank everybody for their contributions to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered public access to defibrillators.
Levelling Up: South-west
(10 months, 1 week 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
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I will call Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. Mr Liddell-Grainger is feeling generous, so he will take short interventions.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered levelling up in the South West.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am delighted to see you. I thank the House for granting me this short debate.
The phrase “levelling up” is not a recent innovation, believe it or not. It was talked about in Parliament 150 years ago, as some hon. Members may remember. In the 1860s, for example, their noble lordships and the bishops were getting bogged down in another place debating delicate questions about rival religions in Ireland. A wise old peer intervened and said that we could only treat Anglicans and Catholics equally
“by levelling up or by levelling down”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 1868; Vol. 193, c. 183.]
I do not know whether hon. Members can make head or tail of that, but that is levelling up.
I am delighted that the Minister for Levelling Up is in her place; I am so pleased that she is replying to this debate, and I thank her for her thoughts and kindness. I doubt whether there is any political disagreement about the principles of keeping everything level. Why should there be? It means working to equalise opportunities and providing a level playing field for constituents across the UK. Right now, the only people who could possibly object to a level playing field, as we understand it, are the Australian cricket team, and I am pretty sure that Jonny Bairstow would agree with me—damned foreigners!
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which my hon. Friend plays an invaluable role, has published some maps that are very detailed indeed. They show how much money has been allocated to a huge array of projects in our constituencies all over the country. They are very large maps, covered with multicoloured markers. They remind me of the huge maps down in the depths of the RAF Uxbridge command centre on the western outskirts of London, where I have been recently—it may ring some bells. Those maps are from 83 years ago, so I am glad to see that we are still using the old tried and trusted methods.
It is helpful to keep that image in mind, because the scale of the task in levelling up is almost as heavy as it was for the battle of Britain. It is a herculean task, especially when we study those maps. As one naturally would, I immediately noticed the markers in my own constituency. Bridgwater’s transport needs have had to be reorganised with a very large grant indeed, for which I am incredibly grateful. The towns fund, for which I am also very grateful, will be used to bump up facilities in the constituency. There are also to be a new NHS training centre for Bridgwater and Minehead. These are well thought-out projects, and I am very grateful for the money. It has been a great team effort by a lot of good people.
Inevitably, my eyes wander around these vast maps. I know Somerset, and as colleagues know, I come from Devon originally. Strangely, the bits that stick out are not the places with coloured markers; they are the areas without a single flag or marker in sight, like Mid Devon. There ought to be only two possible conclusions: either those places are so prosperous that they do not need help, which colleagues well know is not the case, or they are bleak, empty deserts where nobody lives at all, which is obviously not true either—they are extremely good areas. In fact, levelling up has not reached these places either because bids have been submitted but have not made it or because there have been no bids at all.
It would not be fair to blame the Government. That is not how this works, and we know it. The rules of levelling up have not changed, from the first opportunity we went for many years ago to what we have now. If we want a project to be considered, we have to do one simple thing: work out exactly what we hope to achieve and then make a very intelligent, well thought-out bid. I get the distinct impression that sometimes—not just in my constituency, but right across the area, because I have looked at an enormous amount of bids—the intelligence is in slightly short supply. There has to be a proper business case, as the Minister is well aware.
I currently represent an area that has an exceptional district council, which has spearheaded the bids. Sedgemoor District Council has been a shining example in this and has had more bids than anywhere in the country. It understood local needs; it also got local people involved at the highest level. At the same time, it managed to mastermind national and international negotiations to bring many thousands of jobs to Bridgwater, and beyond. In fact, this affects all our constituencies.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
It is with great pleasure that I give way to my neighbour.
Simon Jupp
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s speech and the points that he is making. Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset have secured £231 million from the levelling-up fund so far. Plus, we have seen the reopening of the Dartmoor line and spades in the ground to dual more of the A303. Those four counties make up the great south-west; I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the great South West. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that although the Government are backing our region, there is still much more to do?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I am incredibly grateful for that intervention, not only because my hon. Friend has done sterling work in the south-west and is well known and revered for it but because the A303 has been a labour of love for him; I know that it has been incredibly hard. For 22 years, Sir Charles—as you know, I have been here that long, God help you—it has been a bone of contention, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) has managed to move it on further than almost any of us, and I congratulate him on that. The A303 is crucial for all of us.
That neatly brings me on to the fact that Sedgemoor smoothed the way for building Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, as my colleagues are well aware. This was a mammoth task for a local council. It did a superb job, an amazing job, on a £25 billion project, which nobody had done for a generation. Sedgemoor has also been working incredibly hard to attract the latest innovations to the town. The chances are that the latest opportunity will soon be announced. I cannot say what it is, but it is called Gravity and it is on an old bombsite outside Bridgwater; it goes to 626 acres. I think that we will hopefully be announcing good news on that soon. Again, that will help the whole south-west with a massive input—
Richard Foord
It is really good to hear about the work of Sedgemoor District Council and the excellent bid that the hon. Member put his weight behind. When I became MP for Tiverton and Honiton last year, I gave my endorsement to a bid by Mid Devon District Council to build a relief road at Cullompton. This and a railway station at Cullompton would be fantastic in easing congestion and improving people’s health. Does the hon. Member agree with me that Mid Devon District Council was right to prioritise the levelling-up fund bid for the relief road at Cullompton?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. I did say earlier that there was a lack of intelligence in some of these bids, and the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Perhaps having had a little bit more intelligence from, if I may say so, certain people could have been a little bit more helpful. It is a great shame that we did not get what was bid for. That is a great shame. But I can give an assurance that although Cullompton will not be in the new constituency, I think that it is in our interests to work together to try to get this. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been very good on this and that I and my neighbours will be having a conservation with her about it. I think that we can probably do something and add intelligence to it, if I may be so proud—who needs the education corps?
Meanwhile, just over the border, the district council—dare I say it to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord)?—limps along. Since May, it has been under Lib Dem management, but it is absolutely rudderless. The new Lib Dem leader—forgive me, but his name has escaped me—has announced that he will only work part time. Perhaps that is actually a blessing for everybody—you never can tell these days. It certainly shares out the spoils of running a council exclusively among themselves. This is why we need people who can do the job. All the councillors running the main committees are, yes, Liberal Democrats. That includes the important scrutiny committee —yes, exactly. There is considerable doubt whether the Lib Dem lady who chairs the committee is able to scrutinise anything, including her own shopping list.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
No. The Lib Dems said that they were going to scrap bigger charges for car parks. Guess what? They are putting them up. The new councillors could have reneged on their annual increase in allowances —now up to £5,600 a year. They voted to abstain, dare I say it? I do not know how you vote to abstain, but never mind. So they get paid anyway. The new council leader, whatever his name is, also picks up £16,800 for his extra responsibility of being a part-time leader—and you wonder why these bids fail. That makes £22,000 in total. “Ching”, as the cash register goes. To think that they promised to be totally transparent. The truth is that these people are not transparent at all; they are totally invisible. Levelling up demands visibility—that is something that I have learned. Very vocal, completely focused local authorities need to argue the case. It has been proved that that is how to get results.
What price for Mid Devon’s part-timers? A vital new high school is needed in Tiverton. I am grateful for the Minister’s incredible help on that. Just before Christmas last year, the Government said, “Yes, the money is ready and waiting.” It is still waiting. We know the issue, and I thank the Government for their help. Seven months later, no progress has been made. Did anybody ask? Well, I have asked, and we are getting to the bottom of it. That is what this is about. Does the part-time leader of the council, Mr Thingummybob, pick up the blower and complain? Who knows what has become of the other invisible people, including the one who was suddenly catapulted, dare I say it, closer to here, last seen with clipboards and pencils preparing a strategy.
Levelling up means many things, but usually it means the unequal treatment of rural parts of the south-west. That is most important: we are rural areas.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech and for raising this topic. He is talking about things within our rural constituencies, but may I make a point about coastal communities? Within my constituency, I have Brixham harbour, which we put in a bid for. The two bids that we put in under the Liberal Democrat administration in Torbay failed; thankfully, it is now a Conservative administration. Where there are successful stories, such as Brixham fish market, we should not rule it out because it is making money; we should recognise the potential of what it could do for the whole county, were we to invest in it and give it the support that it needs.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
A superb synopsis, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he does. Leave the Lib Dems in charge and, as I said, the intelligence goes. I am sorry that the bid was lost, but we will be back. The Minister is listening, and I know that we will get the bid, because in rural areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes we have to fight our corner. That is especially important in places such as Cornwall. We are joined by my Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), to ensure that I behave.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I backed a levelling-up bid from the then Plymouth Conservative council in St Peter’s, which is one of the lowest super output areas in the entire region. Sadly, we were turned down in that bid. I would be grateful if the hon. Member could lend his support for clarity on what a levelling-up round 3 might look like—whether it will be a “Hunger Games”-style competitive bid, or whether there will be devolution of funding so that local authorities can back the projects that they know would work in their area. Does he agree that it should be the latter, because local people know better?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I completely agree, as I have already said, about local, intelligent, highly-motivated people. Having been in Somerset now for 25 years, St Paul’s is slightly legendary. It does need help. We have to say that. Talk to the police in Bridgwater: St Paul’s is always an issue. The Minister will have heard the second part of what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, and I cannot disagree. It is vital. In the middle of Bristol is one of the most affluent areas of the south-west, but outside of Bristol it is completely different. The hon. Member’s seat has challenges. We all have to face up to that. I know the job that he does, and it is difficult.
I will move on—with more abuse, if I may. Yesterday morning, I received a self-congratulatory letter from Project Gigabit’s Minister of State telling me about the wonderful developments of bringing ultra-fast broadband to the extremities of Somerset and Devon. I had a giggle about that. There is no encouraging news for either of the counties, partly because the broadband roll-out has been left in the incapable hands of “Project Useless”, actually known as Connecting Devon and Somerset. CDS is a total cock-up. It was designed—I think that is loosely the word—by someone in a hurry and without a fully functioning brain. There does not seem to be anybody on the board capable of understanding the technology or writing a contract. How many times have we had problems? As a result, millions have been committed in public money to an organisation that could not deliver. Now Connecting Devon and Somerset is still failing to deliver, and it is two years behind schedule.
Do not bother storming round to the CDS office, because it does not have one, which is great. It is run by councillors, who are mostly part time, across the two counties, and employs only a handful of people, who are doing their best but are basically not up to the job. We need to move on. We have to sort out broadband in rural areas across all our counties. The same goes for the management of what turns out to be the worst water company in the United Kingdom. Never mind Thames Water, we have South West Water. It overpays its top team, dumps sewage in rivers, fails to invest in new reservoirs, yet wants to be treated like a paragon of virtue. It sells services in Bristol and Bournemouth as well as in Devon and Cornwall. They are up to their necks in it.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
No. Anyway, I received a jolly little email from the PR chief, which I would like to share. I will read, if I may, the first paragraph of the email I got yesterday, addressed to “Dear Mr Liddell-Grainger”, which was spelled correctly.
“I wanted to get in touch in advance of your levelling-up debate. May I congratulate you on securing this important debate? If you are planning to attend this debate on Tuesday I would be grateful if you or your team could confirm this.”
That is a water company supplying millions of people with water, yet is not sure I am turning up for my own debate. What hope have the rivers and fish of Somerset and Devon got, with people like that? If I may, I would also like to bring in potholes, the bane of all our lives.
Anthony Mangnall
I apologise for having two bites of the cherry, but since my hon. Friend has raised South West Water, does he not agree with me that, if it is failing to clean up our waterways or expand our storm overflows, and is not following the laws that we have passed in this place, namely around dividend payments, we have to ask the question, what is the point of this place, if the company is not going to follow those laws? We have to ask it not to take Parliament into contempt when it comes to enacting the stringent laws that we have passed to ensure that it cleans up our waterways.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I am very grateful for that extremely serious intervention. My hon. Friend is quite right; it is beyond the pale. South West Water is a disgrace at every level. We are rightly trying to hold its feet to the fire. It has to be brought to account. If necessary, we have to get representatives here to ensure they understand just what a shambles and disgrace the company is. It is damaging the environment, damaging confidence and damaging people’s water. It is failing at every level. My hon. Friend gave an extremely good example of how it is holding this place, us, and the elected representatives of the people of the United Kingdom in contempt. That is wrong.
But back to potholes! Potholes are the bane of all our lives. Minister, I know they do not come under the remit of levelling up, but would it not be sensible if they did? Somerset has more roads than Belgium, and who knows where Belgium is? Weak beer and people in strange hats. Minister, we need to look at giving money to pothole improvement, in Somerset and Devon, as both counties desperately need it, which is important.
Before I give up, I would like to thank one person who is a star in my constituency, Emma Thomasson. Her father-in-law was a colleague of ours, Bob Walter, who was in this place for many years. She has been working flat out to put a bid together on the west Somerset side, which could easily incorporate Devon, because it is about learning and skills, rural access, mobility and giving young people opportunities in our areas. We know it is not easy. A-level provision is not good, local buses are not good, trains—well, we will gloss over that. People like her, who are dedicated to trying to get us forward are doing really well.
I will conclude by saying this. Levelling up is a deadly serious business; I know because I have done a lot of bids. I believe that the Government are treating it seriously, having talked to many Ministers, but they cannot do it alone. We have got to work together to achieve this. It needs practical local people producing workable plans that will benefit the greatest number of residents, and provide real value for money across the whole county and country. Levelling up is something that we all know works. We know it can work in rural areas. My hon. Friends the Members for Totnes, for East Devon and for North Cornwall have made the point time and again: give us the money, give us the tools, and we will deliver the job.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and a pleasure indeed to hear such a characteristically colourful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger). I congratulate him on securing this important debate.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about what the Government’s agenda on levelling up really means for the south-west of England. I want to dispel the common misconception that levelling up is solely about north and south. It is about so much more than that. It is as relevant to Minehead as it is to Manchester, and it is as much about rural and coastal communities as it is about towns and cities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) mentioned Brixham harbour, which he has discussed with me on multiple occasions. I am very supportive of the project, so I hope that we can secure something really positive for him from future funding. Levelling up is about unlocking the potential of every place and person right across the UK, because only once we have done that that will we be able to maximise the strength of our economy, increase its resilience and, ultimately, improve the lives of everyone across the UK. That really is at the heart of levelling up.
It is not business as usual; we are changing the way the Government work with places to reverse inequality and unleash opportunity, prosperity and pride in place in all parts of the UK. We will do that by empowering local leaders and communities to deliver tangible changes through investment; boosting productivity, pay and living standards by growing the private sector; spreading opportunities and improving public services; and, finally and perhaps most crucially, restoring a sense of community, local pride and belonging. Our outlook can be distilled into one core idea: that no matter where someone is born, they should have a fair opportunity to succeed. Our message and mission are simple: stay local and go far.
Dehenna Davison
I will take a very short intervention, because I do not have much time.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Cullompton relief road has been part of the Mid Devon District Council levelling-up bid on two occasions. In both the first round and the second round, the bid was unsuccessful. How does the Minister recommend that Mid Devon District Council should pursue the relief road?
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning the Cullompton relief road, but I am afraid he has been pipped to the post, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) has raised the issue with me on multiple occasions, to the point that it is probably one of my favourite relief roads. I hear about it weekly.
There will be a third round of the levelling-up fund, which is an incredibly exciting opportunity for local areas. The Government are easing the bureaucracy and burden of bidding rounds by simplifying the funding landscape, and we are introducing further funds, such as the shared prosperity fund, to provide further input for local people and hand powers and tools back to local areas so that they can deliver on their local priorities.
Anthony Mangnall
Where bids fail, what consideration has been given to loaning the money to organisations and councils, on the basis that the Government will reclaim it in the future, to allow levelling up not just for Government organisations but for the private sector?
Dehenna Davison
My hon. Friend raises a really interesting point. As I said, we have been exploring alternative funding streams, such as the UK shared prosperity fund, but the most exciting opportunity we have is proper devolution. We are rolling out devolution deals around the country so that local powers and local cash are in the hands of local people. To me, that is the better and right approach to enable long-term strategic thinking locally, but I certainly heard my hon. Friend’s point loud and clear, and I will be happy to discuss it with him further.
Luke Pollard
I am trying to understand whether the third round of funding for levelling up will be allocated in a similar way to previous rounds. The Minister talks about devolution. I am in favour of devolution, and I think that most of us in the Chamber are, because people in Devon and the south-west know their communities better than any mandarin, no matter how good, in Whitehall. Will future rounds of levelling-up funding be allocated in parallel with devolution deals? Devon is looking at a devolution deal at the moment, but we are uncertain about the timescales for the levelling-up funding and the devolution bid. Could the Minister provide some clarity on what will come first and on how they will interact?
Dehenna Davison
As it stands, the two are separate strands, as the hon. Member will know. At level 3 devolution, there is the opportunity to access an investment fund, which is a fantastic way to fund local infrastructure projects and the like. It is up to local areas to decide what level of devolution they wish to pursue, and we are in talks with Devon, Plymouth and Torbay to explore opportunities there. As for round 3 of the levelling-up fund, we are dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, so it would be inappropriate for me to make any announcements today, but I assure Members that we will provide full detail in due course and very soon. I hope that provides the clarity that the hon. Member seeks.
I am not suggesting that levelling up is a quick fix that will happen overnight, but our levelling-up plans, underpinned by 12 ambitious missions, are set to be achieved by 2030. For that to happen, they require serious cross-Government and cross-society efforts. The first mission, for instance, has a target for pay, employment and productivity to grow everywhere, which is vital for the south-west, where average productivity lags the national average.
As I have outlined, our plans will lead to more devolution in more places across England; rebalanced spending across regions in areas such as research and development, arts and culture, and housing; investment in infrastructure and skills to grow the economy; and, crucially, a renewed focus on regeneration, supporting community initiatives and community safety.
To many, the south-west is the region of cream teas, the world’s best cider and buildings made from the famous Bath stone. It is unquestionably a beautiful part of the world, and it is no wonder so many people choose to take holidays and make trips to the south-west. In fact, the south-west attracts more visitors than anywhere else in the UK bar London—but I reckon you guys can catch up if we work hard enough!
Relying on tourism to drive the economy is a double-edged sword, especially in the south-west. While it creates plenty of jobs, many are low-paid, and while it supports countless businesses, that can price local families out of their area. For example, a full-time worker earns an average of £33.40 less per week than the UK average and more than a third of local people do not have a level 3 qualification. The unfortunate reality is that for all the region’s incredible natural beauty, it is also home to significant pockets of deprivation and disadvantage. One in 10 of England’s most deprived neighbourhoods is in the south-west. I have always firmly believed that prospects should never be determined by postcode.
The challenges in the south-west are clear, but so too are the opportunities. The region is home to world-class universities, highly skilled workers and cutting-edge small and medium-sized enterprises. Bristol and Bath are centres of advanced manufacturing and engineering, aerospace and creative industries, Plymouth is a growing centre of expertise in maritime autonomy, and in Torbay, high-potential opportunities in photonics and microelectronics have been identified.
In my Department, we recognise the potential of supporting local projects and are investing—I hope hon. Members are ready for me to rattle off my list— £131 million in them through round 1 of the levelling-up fund. From creating a new training academy for health and social care in Bridgwater, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset referenced, to supporting the University of Gloucestershire to bring empty buildings back into use, we are supporting projects that are delivering on local priorities. We are investing a further £198.6 million across nine towns in the region through the towns fund, and an injection of £96.2 million is going to the south-west through the getting building fund. Those are just some examples of the diverse opportunities and incredible local projects that we are funding.
As I have said, we need to empower local leaders and communities, which is why we are carrying out an ambitious package of devolution—the biggest transfer of power away from Westminster to local government in modern times. I am delighted that Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, and Cornwall, are in the first wave, giving local leaders the tools they need to deliver for their communities, such as increased control over transport and infrastructure.
On transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset raised the issue of potholes, that vital scourge on our society. I am pleased to say that there is an £8 billion pothole fund announced by the Government, which I hope he and his community can draw upon.
I am conscious of time, but let me again mention round 2 of the levelling-up fund, which will provide £186.6 million of funding across the south-west. The UK shared prosperity fund, which is worth more than £2.6 billion in total, is living up to the Government’s commitment to match EU structural fund receipts in each nation of the UK and in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. As I said, round 3 of the levelling-up fund will be announced very soon. I am pleased that we will be providing further funding in that way.
Levelling up is not just a slogan or a tagline; it is the central mission and commitment of this Government. We have defined the problem and drawn up a long-term plan based on measurable missions. Our focus now is on delivery. Work is under way. Funding has been allocated. Devolution deals are being negotiated. The whole of Government is being mobilised towards this goal. Decisions on transport, culture and healthcare are all being viewed through the prism of levelling up. That is no small task, but the size of the prize is clear, and I look forward to continuing to work with all hon. Members present to make levelling up a reality in the south-west.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Human-specific Medical Research Techniques
(10 months, 1 week 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
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered human-specific medical research techniques.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Sir Charles. I want to briefly address the issue of how and why we might end the practice of using animals to test potential new drugs and treatments.
Like many others, I have in the past defended the use of animal experiments. I believed that the benefits, in terms of cures and treatments for human conditions, were worth it, despite the ever-increasing protests of people associated with the animal welfare lobby. Bringing new drugs to the market can be slow and expensive. Since 1950, the cost of developing a new drug has doubled approximately every nine years. Many of those drugs fail, and a major contributor to that failure is the problem of translating the results of pre-clinical trials to human beings. Over 92% of drugs that show promise in animal tests fail to translate into safe and effective medicines for humans.
Increasingly, researchers are relying on what are known as new approach methodologies based on human biology and utilising artificial intelligence, organ-on-a-chip methods, and the advanced use of human cells and tissues. I am grateful to Animal Free Research UK for a recent briefing at the Institute of Translational Medicine at the University of Birmingham and for its support in advance of this debate. It is a key organisation that is involved in funding and promoting the use of such methods in the UK.
We are beginning to see some exciting things. At Queen Mary University of London, researchers are using human-specific techniques to study the spread of various cancers. The University of Nottingham is developing stem cell models to better understand heart disease. Great Ormond Street Hospital is working with a three-dimensional model of the infant lung to help in treating RSV, which I understand stands for respiratory syncytial virus, and bronchiolitis, which is a life-threatening lung infection.
Animal Free Research UK also partners with the lifETIME—Engineered Tissues for Discovery, Industry and Medicine—Centre for Doctoral Training on developing animal-free technologies. Young researchers are trained in the use of advanced human-specific techniques. One experiment I saw in Birmingham involves a lab model of the human cornea, which researchers hope will make tremendous advances in treating various eye conditions and in helping people who may have lost their sight already. Another crucial development is the innovative liver-on-a-chip technology, which is proving to be a much more reliable predictor than any animal test of whether a new drug could be toxic to the patient’s liver.
There is a fast-growing market for human-specific techniques. The global market for 3D cell culture technologies grew to nearly $2.9 billion this year, and it is expected to exceed $5.5 billion in four years’ time. British universities and research units are at the forefront of much of that research, but trends suggest that we could fall behind. I know from work at the new Precision Health Technologies Accelerator in my constituency in Birmingham that human-specific technologies could be a game changer. By concentrating on them, Britain could secure a strategic advantage as a global life sciences superpower. Several leading companies are based in the UK, but the United States is making huge inroads with the work it is already doing with those companies, its regulatory framework and its plans for the future.
Evidence provided to the all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science indicates that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is open to exploring alternatives to animal tests, that animal tests should not be used by default and that that should be made clear to sponsors of clinical trials. The public supports that. A YouGov poll in 2021 revealed that 65% support ending animal testing and replacing it with new methods, and 70% would like to see all animal experiments phased out by 2040. If we are to make real progress in this area, we need to adopt a strategy similar to that used for the Climate Change Act 2008; we need a human-specific technologies Act to provide a new legislative framework.
Just today I saw a letter from Professor David Main, who chairs the Animals in Science Committee, in which he suggested that we should transfer responsibility for new approach methodologies and ending animal testing from the Home Office, where it currently resides, to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. There is probably a good historical reason why responsibility resides with the Home Office, but it seems strange, if we are talking about a new technology that could make a massive difference to the British scientific community, that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is not taking the lead on the subject. I hope that the Minister—I realise this is not wholly his brief—will report that back and ask for such a change to be considered. That seems sensible, the Government having gone to the trouble of setting up the new Department.
Professor Main also makes the case for a clear strategy to underpin a human-specific technologies Act. I do not want to say exactly what should happen, but, as I say, we could learn from the experience of the Climate Change Act, so we might include an expert advisory committee to keep us up to speed with the science. We could establish a milestone by which the transition to human-specific research could be accomplished. Obviously, that would have to be agreed after consultation with industry and academia to ensure that the timescale was realistic. Of course, the Government would need to take responsibility for developing and maintaining a comprehensive action plan and for regularly reporting progress to Parliament.
It goes without saying that it will require consistent and predictable funding—I hope that is part of the new Department’s intention—and other practical assistance if we are to help the scientific community achieve the transition. The benefits in terms of animal welfare, the development of new medicines and treatments, new jobs and a leading role for the UK would all be worth it. I hope that I can rely on the Minister to assure me that the Government stand ready to make this change a reality and that we can look forward to updates in the very near future on the steps they are taking to advance these new technologies and help us put an end to wasteful, sometimes pointless and often very ineffective animal testing.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
You are putting in some shift today, Sir Charles, if I may say so.
I am grateful to be here, and very grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing today’s debate, which is on an issue close to my heart. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on human-relevant science, and although I have spoken at some length on this issue before, today I will make just three points.
First, what drew me to supporting human-relevant science was the need to safeguard and protect animals. Home Office statistics show that 3 million testing procedures involving animals took place across the UK in 2021. Also, the UK is the top user of primates and dogs in experiments in Europe; thousands of experiments are conducted every year on these sentient animals. Many people will have seen The Mirror’s film showing horrific gavage, or force-feeding; UK-bred, factory-farmed animals are force-fed chemicals directly into their stomachs without any pain relief, day in and day out. Of course, other poor creatures have been bred to be bled. All this animal suffering is quite unnecessary.
Then we have the staggering waste of animal lives. Millions of non-genetically altered animals are being bred for scientific procedures; they are killed without even being used in procedures; 1.8 million animals were killed in this way in 2017. I have previously called for laboratory animals to be included in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and I reiterate those calls today.
The stark reality is that animal experimentation is not a good enough predictor of what will happen in humans. For example, animal experimentation delayed the introduction of penicillin, failed in HIV research, and delayed the development of the polio vaccine by decades. History is littered with examples of human harm and fatalities after the application of animal data to human patients. Indeed, 92% of new medicines fail to pass human trials simply because testing on animals cannot predict human responses. Compare animal testing with, for example, the innovative liver on a chip, which can identify 87% of drugs that risk causing human liver damage, including where those drugs have passed animal tests.
That brings me to my second point, which is that human-relevant techniques work. They are based on human biology. There are also computer models, use of artificial intelligence, organ-on-a-chip technology and advanced use of human cells and tissues. Then we have rapidly developing gene-based medicine, whereby medicine is personalised to a patient’s individual DNA. It would be impossible to replicate that with animal tests. All that work is directly relevant to humans. It speeds up medical progress and gets new medicines and treatments to patients quicker, all without any inhumane treatment of animals. What is not to like?
Animal Free Research UK highlighted an excellent case in its briefing for today’s debate. It relates to diabetes, a major health issue for our nations and a cause of cost pressure to our health services. Scientists at the University of Exeter made a major advance in the treatment and prevention of diabetes by working with human cells. They made important discoveries about the changes that occur in insulin-producing beta cells. This could not have been achieved using animals, due to genetic differences between animals and humans.
My third and final point is that in addition to ending animal suffering and producing more effective and faster solutions for humans, ending animal testing would also be good for our economy. Once we look past the big business of animal research, which obviously has a vested interest in continuing with animal experimentation and blocking progress, we can start to turbocharge our economy and our place as a world leader in life sciences. In Scotland, life sciences contribute £3.4 billion to Scottish gross value added, and it is a growth sector. Given that we also have world-leading universities, and some amazing pharmaceutical companies in which efforts to undertake animal-free research are ongoing, we are really well placed. What we need is legislation to support the transition to human-relevant science. I would support a human-specific technologies Act; that would be an important step.
In conclusion, our laws are simply outdated. The regulatory requirement to test on animals before humans, despite clear and compelling evidence that it is ineffective, is simply not fit for purpose. I also note the letter written by Professor Main from the Animals in Science Committee, which calls on UK Ministers to take the initiative now on non-animal techniques.
I call on the Minister and the UK Government to mandate a rigorous, public, scientific hearing on the issue. We need to be evidence-led. That would reduce the unnecessary harm involved in animal experiments, and ultimately lead to a ban on this immoral practice. We must open up legislative paths that allow us to pursue alternatives, or risk being left behind when other countries steal our lead.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Before I call the Front Benchers, would anybody else like to make an intervention or a short speech?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
The Father of the House is shaking his head; he is here to listen. Carol Monaghan.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for securing this debate on what is clearly an important topic and a source of increasing public concern. He mentioned a poll commissioned by Cruelty Free International and carried out by YouGov in 2021, which found that seven in 10 adults believe it is unacceptable to use animals for experiments when alternative non-animal research methods are available. That is an important statistic to bear in mind throughout this debate.
Scotland is a nation of animal lovers. We often get correspondence about animals. People are very exercised about this issue. They love animals, and they want to be world leaders in protecting animal rights. The use of live animals for scientific purposes has long been a source of discomfort. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) quoted Home Office figures that point to over 3 million procedures involving animals having taken place in 2021. Worryingly, that was an increase of 6% on the previous year.
Given the importance of medical research and innovation in 2021—I think we all know about the development of the covid vaccine, in which data from animals was used before there was a move to human clinical trials—we can acknowledge that without a viable replacement, we cannot stop the use of animals in medical research immediately at the stroke of a pen. To try to be balanced, I will also say that a ban on animal research in the UK could move that research to countries with poorer regulation and actually make things worse. That is something to remember.
However, it is incumbent on the research community, the pharmaceutical companies and indeed the Government to funnel resources into the development of techniques that do not involve animals. It is worrying that the figures continue to trend upwards, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could address that increase. Opposition to the use of animals in medical research is not limited to concerns about cruelty and animal rights; there are significant questions regarding its effectiveness. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, pointed out that 90% of new medicines fail to pass human trials because animal responses cannot be used to predict human responses. Dr Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of The BMJ, reports that it is
“nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.”
If animal testing is proving a more and more unreliable method of testing medical interventions, the justification for continued and increasing use of animals in medical research appears to be limited. Considering that evidence, we must question whether sufficient urgency has been shown in the search for human-specific alternatives to the use of live animals. Last week, I spoke in the main Chamber against the continued use of fur, in particular fur for fashion purposes. I talked about the ceremonial hats worn by the King’s Guard and how much that was a symbol of cruelty. Much of last week’s debate, however, focused on fashion. Fashion is a human want, but in today’s debate we are talking about medicine and clinical intervention, which are a human need. Despite that distinction, there is a key similarity in both debates—there are alternatives.
Isolated human tissue and cells have been used as a replacement for live animals in drug discovery and development. The For Life On Earth campaign group points out that
“blood, tissues, and organ cultures are ideal test-beds”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, talked about AI and computer modelling, and how those can give us another potential alternative. Against the backdrop of the ever-developing capabilities of AI, it is an area that we must explore fully.
On many occasions, the Government have spoken about their ambition to become a “science and technology superpower”; I believe we can also be a superpower in animal rights. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk talk about a human-specific technologies Act; that is the way we should be going with regulation and legislation. Things are out of date and have not moved as quickly as the technology. It is in all our interests, be it from the point of view of animal cruelty or of effectiveness, to prioritise the move away from animal testing towards a more humane framework for medical research. We need to phase out the use of animal testing in scientific research, and to develop human-specific new approach methodologies.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I draw your attention and that of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), on securing this important debate on human-specific medical research techniques. I pay tribute to his deeply informed knowledge of the subject, and to his advocacy for the ending of animal testing. I recognise the important role of Animal Free Research in progressing that important ambition. I am glad to have the opportunity to question the Government on the subject, and to reiterate the Labour party’s message that we must work to end harmful and unnecessary animal testing once and for all.
We have heard about human-specific medical research techniques, which are sometimes termed new approach methodologies or non-animal methods. Such methods can truly be at the forefront of scientific innovation. They include, as was mentioned, 3D tissue culture, also known as organs on a chip. That tissue culture mimics organ behaviour and can be used to study biological and disease processes. Other methods include computer-based modelling, such as that done by Bit Bio, the synthetic biology spin-out from Cambridge University; I met people there recently. It also provides human cells for research, drug discovery and cell therapy.
Recently, I spoke at SynBioBeta, the synthetic biology and bio-engineering conference. The range and potential of synthetic biology and of bio-engineering to address testing and trial challenges is stunning. I was given real hope that replacements for animal testing are around the scientific corner.
I am pleased that the Government have a policy of limiting the number of animals used in science, and I am grateful for the fact that non-animal methods of research have developed and improved, thanks to the work of brilliant scientific minds, not least in our United Kingdom. We must also recognise the tireless work of animal rights activists, some of whom have been mentioned in the debate, in progressing that ambition.
Labour supports the three R’s approach—that is, working to replace, refine and reduce the use of animals in research and testing—and I pay tribute to the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research for its work with scientists to achieve that. The development of alternative methods, and the advancement of AI and advanced computer modelling techniques, or in silico models, mean that we should be able to greatly reduce reliance on animal testing.
In his passionate contribution, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) highlighted the ways in which the use of animals is not always appropriate for research on human diseases and treatments, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). I recognise that, but I note that there are a range of opinions on human-specific medical research. For example, some organisations, including some universities that undertake medical research using animals, have drawn attention to the limitations of non-animal methods, and the University of Oxford has stated that animals need to be used because of the need to understand the complexity of living bodies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, was absolutely right to say that life sciences will be key to the future prosperity of our country. That relates to the fast-growing global market for human-specific technologies. The global market for 3D cell culture technologies grew to nearly $3 billion in 2023 and is expected to almost double by 2027. I gently ask the Government to consider whether it is possible to truly address my hon. Friend’s concerns when the Department is in a perpetual state of crisis. We have had nine changes of science Minister in five years and four Chancellors in six months, and it is perhaps not surprising that, with so little a focus on our scientific future, there has been a decline in late-stage clinical trials. From 2018 to 2021, the UK fell from fourth to 10th place globally as a host for phase 3 clinical trials. That is a matter of huge concern to many scientists and clinicians in our life sciences sector, and it is also a barrier and pinch point to the recognition and adoption of new and innovative medicines. The total number of new and innovative medicines available to UK patients is lower than in other comparable nations, such as Germany.
Approaches such as human-specific medical research are vital parts of our life science sector. As well as pushing the boundaries of humanity’s collective understanding, our life sciences are a priceless platform for the UK’s future growth. Labour sees a clear path from investing in scientific research and innovative methods to creating jobs that people can raise a family on. Innovation and science are critical to building regional economies that are strong and self-sufficient. Moreover, they are critical to our NHS and to building an NHS that is fit for the future. Human-specific research techniques have the potential to deliver effective treatments for major human diseases, to reduce pressure on the NHS, and to reduce the disease burden on individuals, and we need to ensure that the NHS has the capacity to absorb such innovations. That is why one of Labour’s five missions for Government is to build an NHS that is fit for the future.
I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in his answers to the questions that have been asked. Specifically, I want to raise the latest data on funding from UKRI, which is an important funder of non-animal methods. UKRI funding fell by 6% between 2020 and 2021. That is in the overall context of the Government’s pledge to double science spending. Can the Minister explain the reason for that decrease? What impact does he believe that it will have on the UK’s ability to be world leading in human-specific medical research?
Will the Minister also set out what recent steps his Department has taken to reduce the use of animals in research, and will he commit, as Labour has, to a comprehensive review of animal testing, with a view to improving practice, limiting animal suffering, increasing transparency and with a long-term objective of phasing out animal testing entirely? Human-specific medical research techniques provide an opportunity and a challenge to our science, research and life sciences sectors, and I hope that the Minister will set out how the UK is responding to that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate on human-specific medical research techniques. I also thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his thoughtful words, and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). There has been a lot of food for thought and important points raised in some insightful contributions, and I will try to cover those. However, at the heart of today’s discussion has been what it takes to build world-leading science—science that does not just top global rankings in league tables, but changes British people’s lives for the better.
Earlier this year, the Government set out our plan to cement the UK’s place as a science and technology superpower by 2030. Backed by a commitment to increase public expenditure on R&D to £20 billion per annum by 2024-25, we are investing in the areas where we have the infrastructure, experience and insight to lead the world. Indeed, it was interesting to hear the shadow Minister talk about bioengineering, because that is one of the priority emerging technologies that the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has identified as something we want to back.
Life sciences is one of the areas that is crucial not just to grow the economy and create high-skilled, well-paid jobs today, but to ensure that British people can live longer, healthier, happier lives tomorrow. Our life sciences vision sets a strategy for the sector to solve some of the biggest healthcare problems of our generation. In May, we announced an ambitious policy package in support of the life sciences sector, backed by more than £650 million in funding, including £121 million to improve commercial clinical trials to bring new medicines to patients faster.
Clinical trials, which were raised in the debate, are not necessarily directly related to animal testing. That said, the UK led the world in trials during covid, providing both the first vaccine and the first treatment. That has wider impacts on the clinical research system, and, as we saw from the recently published review by Lord O’Shaughnessy, that provides the clear path for us to regain our world-leading position.
As the vision makes clear, research is at the heart of that. Research is critical to ensuring that we are providing the best possible care for everyone now and in the future. It is thanks to bold research by brilliant scientists that we can win the battle against life-threatening conditions by equipping our NHS with a new generation of innovative treatments. Extraordinary advances in non-invasive techniques, such as medical imaging, sensors and ex vivo analysis, promise to revolutionise human healthcare. However, to unlock that promise, many of the research questions that those technologies have opened up must be explored directly in humans. It is only by doing so that we can quickly and efficiently translate medical discoveries out of the laboratory and into our hospitals, where they can make a real difference.
UK Research and Innovation, as the UK’s national science, research and innovation funding body, plays a vital role in supporting the development of human-specific research techniques. For a number of years, UKRI has prioritised experimental medicine research, in which studies are undertaken in humans, to identify the mechanisms that drive diseases and provide early evidence for the validity of new discoveries and treatments to fight them. The Medical Research Council’s translational funding strategy pioneers that work, taking the most exciting ideas from discovery science into research using humans, with a clear focus on early clinical application.
The experimental medicine panel is a core part of that strategy, backed by an annual budget of £10 million. Since its establishment in 2020, the panel has invested more than £19 million to support 16 world-leading projects across the UK that could rapidly lead to major benefits for human health. That includes a project from Manchester Metropolitan University that aims to unpick how a region of the brain stem functions and signals to the rest of the brain. The university’s researchers hope that by using the innovative technology of deep brain stimulation, they will gain insight into the neural mechanisms that cause Parkinson’s, a particularly cruel disease, whose devastating impact will be all too familiar to many of us. That project shows just how transformative human-specific research techniques can be.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak talked about animal testing not working, and I think the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said the same. Animal studies are used as the basis for extrapolation, to indicate possible risks to humans. Very few drugs that enter human clinical trials prove to pose an unacceptable risk to humans. There are many reasons why drugs that are assessed as potentially effective and safe in animals do not progress to market, including commercial reasons, but should animal testing not occur, more potential medicines would not progress to market. Resources would be spent on potential medicines that would have been excluded through animal testing, and the risk to humans in clinical trials would be considerably higher. We have heard a lot about the three Rs, and I will come back to that point—we actively support that approach.
Let me just take the opportunity to make clear this Government’s position on animal testing. There was discussion earlier about which Department has responsibility, and, clearly, we work on this across Government. The Home Office regulates existing animal testing, but it does not oversee the ending of it. That sits with the research undertaken under the auspices of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. That is why there are dual regimes. Clearly, as we move towards more advanced research and innovation, the responsibility increasingly comes under the auspices of DSIT.
Through UKRI, the Government actively support and fund the development and dissemination of the three Rs, which were set out more than 60 years ago by two English scientists in a programme for a more ethical approach to animal testing. As we have heard, the three Rs are: replacement of the use of animals where they are not necessary for research; the reduction in the number of animals needed to obtain the same amount of information; and the refinement of testing methods to minimise the pain, suffering and distress of the animals involved.
That is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. World-renowned for its leadership in this space, the NC3Rs works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of non-animal technologies and ensures that the advances in these technologies are reflected in policy, practice and regulations on animal research.
Since its launch in 2004, the NC3Rs has committed £100 million to its research, innovation and early career awards to identify new and more ethical approaches for scientists in academia and industry. It has set out its strategy to increase the focus on animal replacement technologies, as well as championing high standards in animal research.
UKRI’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council also supports research into developing and applying innovative methodologies to study human and animal physiology, including in-silico approaches—organ-on-a-chip, as we have heard—organoid and other advanced cell culture systems. That includes a recent £4 million BBSRC and NC3Rs programme that focuses on supporting the next generation of non-animal technologies that mimic the physiological environment, enabling a whole-system/multi-system approach for discovery and translational science across the life course.
Much research can be done in non-animal models, as we have heard, but there are still purposes for which it is essential to use live animals. The dizzying complexity of whole biological systems means that they cannot always be replicated using validated non-animal methodologies. Therefore, although we very much recognise the need to replace the use of animals in scientific procedures with non-animal alternatives where we can, the carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains absolutely necessary at this time if we are to protect humans and the wider environment, whether that means improving our understanding of how biological systems work or accelerating the development of safe and effective medicines, treatments and technologies.
Steve McCabe
I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s brief—I am not trying to be difficult, and I am listening with interest to what he is saying—but I and others watching the debate will be curious to know whether it is Government policy and the Government’s intention to move to phasing out animal experiments, or is the Minister telling us that the Government think there will always be a place for animal experimentation?
Paul Scully
I have talked to the hon. Gentleman about the three Rs. Essentially, nobody wants to be using animal testing where it is absolutely not needed. If innovation, such as computer models and new research, can find new ways of edging that out, why would any Government not want to do that? It has to be based on the evidence and the best science, and done on what is best for humankind, and that is what we will keep in mind. It is not done for the sake of animal testing in itself; it is very much evidence-based, as I said. That is why the current approach is to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research and to ensure that the UK has a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards.
Our legal framework is absolutely clear: animals are only ever used in science where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to that needed to achieve that scientific benefit. Under UK law, there are three main purposes for which animals may be used in science: for basic research to understand biological processes and systems; for translational research to understand how biological systems apply to real-world applications, such as the development of medicines; and to test the safety and efficacy of medicines and chemicals.
In each of those instances, the rationale is clear. Without basic research using animals, we would limit our ability to make the kind of scientific discoveries that could transform medicine for the better. Without translational research using animals, we would limit our ability to develop new medicines not just for humans, but for animals. Without testing those medicines using animals, we would not know whether those medicines were safe or effective for use in humans or animals, unnecessarily limiting the availability of medicines to treat life-threatening diseases. Many medicines that prove ineffective in humans are detected earlier through animal testing, too, enabling us to focus valuable research funds on medicines that will be effective.
To be clear, this Government are unapologetically ambitious in our mission to make Britain a science and technology superpower. We understand just how much world-leading research matters if we are to succeed and translate that success into real benefits for our people and our NHS. That means investing in the next generation of tools and technologies that provide alternatives to animal research, and it means, where animal research remains necessary, maintaining those rigorous principles to put ethics at the heart of that research. I thank Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate, and I look forward to our working together in the months and years to come.
Steve McCabe
Thank you, Sir Charles. I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. As I said earlier, I appreciate that this is not the Minister’s main brief, so I am grateful to him. I am a trifle disappointed that, towards the end, I thought I detected a “steady as we go” message, rather than one that was actually going to progress to phasing out animal testing, which is what everyone else would like to hear. I am pleased to hear about the investment and plans that the Government are making. I will conclude by simply urging the Minister again to take back the mood of the debate, so that people realise there is an alternative.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered human-specific medical research techniques.
Written Statements
Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee: 11th Meeting
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met on 3 July 2023 in Brussels, with delegates attending in person and by video conference. I co-chaired the meeting with European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič. A joint statement was agreed.
The committee welcomed progress on the implementation of the Windsor framework and adopted new arrangements that embed the joint solutions found by the UK and EU, which are critical for businesses and people in Northern Ireland.
Both sides agreed to continue working expeditiously to deliver the framework and to maximise the potential of the relationship between the UK and the EU, as exemplified by the recently agreed memorandum of understanding on financial services.
The committee addressed other important issues including the rights of UK nationals in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. Both sides recognise the important contribution these citizens make to the UK and EU, and remain committed to upholding their rights
The committee also received an update on the work of the withdrawal agreement specialised committees since the last meeting on 24 March 2023 and adopted the withdrawal agreement annual report for the year 2022, pursuant to article 164(6) of the withdrawal agreement.
The Committee adopted two decisions:
On adding two newly adopted Union acts on sanitary and phytosanitary measures—agrifoods—and medicines to annex 2 to the framework.
On amending part I of annex I of the agreement, by amending the list of recommendations and decisions by adding two decisions of the Administrative Commission for the Co-ordination of Social Security Systems which are not listed in Part I of Annex I of the agreement and by removing three decisions which have been replaced by the two new decisions.
[HCWS911]
Establishment of Oflog and Publication of Best Value Guidance
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is today establishing the Office for Local Government (Oflog) and publishing new best value guidance for consultation.
Oflog is a new performance body focused on local government in England. It will provide authoritative and accessible data and analysis about the performance of local government, and support its improvement.
By collating, analysing, and publishing existing data about the relative performance of councils, it will help councillors and the public have the information they need to scrutinise more effectively local decisions; it will ensure council leaders can compare themselves against their peers and find examples of good practice to learn from; and it will allow central Government and their partners to identify where there might be challenges and a need to step in to give support, where appropriate.
Oflog will improve the transparency of local government performance by publishing data in a clear and accessible way on the new local authority data explorer. Initially this includes a subset of service areas for data—adult skills, adult social care, finance, and waste management. These service areas will be expanded to cover the breadth of what local authorities do, and the initial metrics will be improved over time.
Local authorities have a critical role in providing essential services and building stronger communities. Oflog will recognise and celebrate the local authorities that do this best—making sure that those local leaders get the credit they deserve and showcase the best in class so others can learn from them. Where local authorities are identified as at risk of potential failure, Oflog will convene dialogues between local authorities and expert local leaders to explore the issues in more detail. In parallel, Oflog will consider performance in areas with devolution deals so that it can reflect their progress.
The Government believe that giving local leaders increased freedoms creates improved outcomes, but we have heard from colleagues that devolution needs to be matched with accountability. Given the scale of ambition of our devolution programme it is right that we have the appropriate checks and balances in the system. Oflog will work closely with DLUHC and local partners, particularly the mayoral combined authorities, to make sure that the outcome metrics used are the most appropriate for holding devolved areas and their leaders to account for their performance.
Oflog is not an attempt to micromanage councils or establish an expensive compliance regime, nor will it require box-ticking or filling in forms. This is not about recreating the Audit Commission.
To give greater clarity to local authorities—and help to identify potential failures—we are also launching a consultation into new statutory guidance on what constitutes best value, and the standards authorities are expected to meet by Government and residents.
This new guidance sets out seven themes of good practice for running an authority to secure continuous improvement and provide value for money. These include the characteristics of a well-functioning local authority and those used to identify challenges that could indicate failure.
The guidance also sets out the models of statutory and non-statutory intervention available when standards are not upheld. We will publish the final guidance after the Department considers the results of the consultation.
Further information on Oflog can be found on the Oflog website, at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-local-government'>https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-local-government which contains the policy document “Office for Local Government—Understanding and Supporting Local Government Performance” and a link to the local authority data explorer.
Further information on the best value guidance can be found on the www.gov.uk website.
A copy of the best value guidance for consultation and the Oflog policy document will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS912]
Local Authority Funding Landscape: Simplification
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
I am today publishing this Government’s plan for simplifying the funding landscape for local authorities. This plan sets out our ambition for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the current funding system.
This publication follows the commitment within our landmark levelling-up White Paper to deliver a more transparent, simple and accountable approach to funding.
This Government are focused on continually improving the way funding is delivered, including by minimising burdens and paperwork on all organisations bidding for funds, to unlock the potential of local economies, create visible improvements within communities and ensure that more funding does not mean more bureaucracy.
By reducing administrative burdens on local authorities, this plan will support them to maximise their return on spending, generating the best outcomes for communities. This plan is one step in a long line of measures that have already been announced, to increase the impact and reduce the red tape around funding and levelling up.
The plan details three main phases for change:
Immediate simplification of existing funds and communication. This includes a new “simplification pathfinder pilot”, to test the streamlined delivery of capital funding in a small group of local authorities. We are also amending our project adjustment request process for town deals, the levelling-up fund and the future high streets fund, giving local authorities more flexibility to change projects;
A new “funding simplification doctrine”, requiring Departments to strive for a simpler and more streamlined way of delivering funding to local authorities, including considering allocative distribution approaches; and
Reforms to be implemented at the next spending review, including single multi-year departmental-style funding settlements for the trailblazer mayoral combined authorities and better join-up across interconnected policy areas and investment programmes.
Together, these reforms meet our levelling-up White Paper commitment to streamline the local funding landscape. As set out in the plan, we will continue to engage with local authorities on all aspects of funding simplification.
[HCWS910]
House of Lords
Blood Donation
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of current numbers of voluntary blood donation, and whether they intend to take steps to encourage new donors.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the Department of Health and NHS Blood and Transplant have regular discussions about how to promote donation in England, including with ethnic-minority communities. This includes a range of media marketing activity, partnerships and engagement with and investment in ethnic-minority and faith organisations. To encourage new donors, NHS Blood and Transplant conducts regular campaigns across the year, such as in National Blood Week and Black History Month in October.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
On the 75th anniversary week of the National Health Service, I seek an assurance that, with the changing nature of society, the blood transfusion service, which is so essential for so many of us, has sufficient supplies to meet any foreseeable needs. What arrangements are in place between the four nations of the United Kingdom and other countries worldwide, with so many different needs? What is our contribution to be? How are we attracting new donors?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the Welsh Blood Service is responsible for blood collection across Wales. The WBS hosts around 1,200 donation sessions a year, using around 185 venues across Wales and collecting 85,000 units of blood to support 19 hospitals in Wales. The WBS has an active national donor recruitment and retention programme. The system is slowly returning to its pre-pandemic model of collection. The WBS recognises a critical challenge in the recruitment of new donors and is about to launch a five-year strategy, which realises the importance of building and sustaining the blood supply chain for Wales. The four nations of the United Kingdom have very good blood donor services and work closely together, but blood donor services are devolved to Wales and Scotland.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I wish the NHS a happy 75th anniversary. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that there is a new drug to treat sickle cell anaemia in a crisis, which is proving to be very effective. Can we ensure that people of African and Caribbean descent are not confused and know that they still need to give blood because, although this drug is very effective, there is a significant gap in the blood supplies from those communities within the NHS?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point. We welcome the approval and introduction of crizanlizumab to help treat sickle cell patients, and we hope that this promising advance will have a major impact on the reduction of painful episodes and improve the quality of life for patients suffering from sickle cell disorders. Although this is a positive step, it is vital that people living with sickle cell disorders continue to get regular blood transfusions and red cell exchanges. This does not change the increasing need to have patients with ethnically matched blood, so my noble friend raises a good point.
She asked what we are doing. There is a range of techniques to increase awareness of the need to donate. NHSBT continues to invest and to prioritise the diversification of its donor base, and increasing the supply of Ro Kell-negative blood is one of its priorities. It is being supported through increased investment in marketing and the engagement of donors of black Caribbean and black African ethnicity, who are more likely to have this blood type.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the authority has a community grants programme designed to encourage more donations from black and minority-ethnic people. Can the Minister say a little more about how successful that has been and whether the Government intend to put more resources into it in future?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The number of regular donors of black heritage reached an all-time high of almost 20,000 in the year to April 2023. In addition, 7,427 people of black heritage gave blood for the first time between April 2022 and 2023. This year, the NHS needs 12,000 new black heritage donors, and we are working to that. The latest plan launched in National Blood Week focused on black heritage recruitment. We are making extremely good progress in England, but there is still a lot to do.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned that people may find it difficult to navigate the complex criteria for deciding whether they are eligible to give blood? Are the Government taking any steps to improve the information flow so that no one who can safely give blood is put off because they find the sign-up flow to be a barrier?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. The barrier is not just to the black community but to us all as a nation. For example, there is a myth that, if you have an ear piercing or a tattoo, you can never give blood again. I remember that, when I came back from jet-setting around the world on business, I was asked where I had been, and Canada and certain states in America were not accepted for some reason. The noble Lord is absolutely right about those barriers. If you have a piercing or a tattoo you can still give blood, albeit after a few months.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, has any assessment been made of the reasons for ruling potential donors out on medical grounds? For example, several years ago I offered to give blood, but I had to be turned down because I had contracted hepatitis in Russia—that was not a political decision. I wonder whether the rules have perhaps changed and whether that might allow more people to come forward.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord raises a good point, as he always does, but I am not a healthcare professional. You have to look at each individual on a case-by-case basis. If the noble Lord is up front with the blood and transplant service and tells it his story—albeit that it was in Russia—I do not see that as a reason not to give it another try; I cannot guarantee the outcome.
Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links (Con)
My Lords, one way of expanding the donor pool is to look at the criteria of those currently excluded. There have been five cases in history of variant CJD being transmitted in the UK by blood transfusion. Because of those five cases, the blood transfusion service stopped accepting donations from people who had received blood since 1980. As someone who received large quantities of blood as a five year-old child in 1984 following a car accident, I successfully gave blood for a time in my late teens before that ban was brought in and it stopped the practice. I know from direct experience that those whose lives have been saved by donations can have the strongest desire to contribute to the system and potentially save others. Hundreds of thousands of people are ready and willing to donate but are stopped by this rule, so do the Government expect to review this rule any time soon?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question and for describing her particular circumstances; I thank her for her donations. I will take her specific case back to the department and respond in writing.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, last October included the first ever amber alert on blood stock shortages. More than 325,000 people registered to give blood; however, only one in four of those has attended an appointment since, and only one in five has donated blood since. Have the Government investigated why the numbers registering have not translated into blood donations? What steps are being taken to ensure that people not only register but follow through to make a donation?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who raises a very good point. Yes, there was an amber alert in 2022, when blood stocks fell below two days. That is not the case any more; stocks are currently at the target levels of six days. As the noble Baroness said in her very good question, some people register but either do not attend or attend for the first time only. The department is looking at the reasons for that, but that is why it has a thorough marketing campaign to write to people using social media. In my own case, I remember being telephoned on several occasions to go to donate. It is not easy and straightforward; I cannot say to the noble Baroness that there is a magic wand to prevent people registering but not turning up. This is a case of constantly keeping social media and marketing campaigns going to make sure that we get new donors. We need a new generation of donors; the average donor is, like me, over 45.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, on that point, does the Minister accept that, while we need new young donors, you can continue donating blood well into your 70s? I declare an interest as someone powering towards their 50th donation. Might it be an idea for the National Blood Service to resurrect the mobile donation services in your Lordships’ House, because many here, and in Parliament generally, are eligible to donate?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness; she looks nowhere near 70. I took the liberty of asking that exact question before I came to the Dispatch Box, so that I could say to all noble Lords that they will be able to queue to give blood in the Palace of Westminster. I used to do it when I was a Member of Parliament. I have arranged for leaflets to go into the Library, so that all noble Lords can see where their local blood donor service is. There are a few in Westminster, but it would be good if noble Lords could do it at home in their communities.
European Union: Trade Barriers
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reduce trade barriers to food imports from the European Union.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howarth and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the trade and co-operation agreement maintains zero tariffs and zero quotas on the trade in goods between the UK and the EU, and it includes a commitment to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. The border target operating model will provide a proportionate and streamlined regime to support businesses to trade, while maintaining high levels of biosecurity. The UK and the EU are rolling out electronic certification, which will facilitate trade through reducing delays and business administration.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, but it is largely based on hope. The fact is that food imports from the EU have decreased by over 1% and our exports to the EU have decreased by nearly 6%, so consumers miss out on European products and our farmers miss out because of EU rules, regulations and bureaucracy. My noble friend Lord Howarth and I disagree on the outcome of Brexit, but we agree that the present arrangements are inadequate. When will the Government renegotiate the trade agreement with the EU?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hate to disagree with the noble Lord but the total value of imports of food, feed and drink from the EU in the three months to April 2023 was £10.6 billion, 11% higher than the three months to April 2022 and 34% higher than the three months to April 2018. Over that period, exports increased from £3.5 billion and were 4% higher than last year and 6% higher than the year before that. We are trying to introduce a system that is fair to importers and exporters and that protects our very important biosecurity.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend update the House on progress towards a sound and sustainable SPS system?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are making great progress. I can assure my noble friend that we are on the point of publishing more details on a system being brought in from October this year whereby products of animal origin will require an export health certificate. From January, they will be checked at border control points we have constructed. We are minimising the burden on business through risk categorisation, a trusted trader system and simplifying and digitising our network.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the operating model the Minister referred to stated that we will have the world’s best border by 2025 but it will not be fully operational until 2027—so good luck with that. Since 2017, we have seen a net decline and we have the biggest agrifood trade deficit with the EU we have ever had. At the same time, we have seen an enormous rise in imports of agrifood from China as part of an astonishing £42 billion trade deficit with China. Why is it government policy to make it harder to trade with Europe and easier to import from China? It makes no sense whatever.
Lord Benyon (Con)
You have to slice and dice the different products that are exported to China. We had a very good pork meat export, which was stopped because of issues relating to Hong Kong. We want a system that is focused not just on imports and exports from our closest neighbours, vital though that market is. We want to make sure we are trading fairly with the rest of the world, which is why we will have a sanitary and phytosanitary border system in place that is understood right across the world and that facilitates safe trade.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government are so firmly determined not to have an SPS agreement with the European Union, despite the fact that other third countries—for example, Switzerland and New Zealand—have such agreements? In what respect does the agreement reached in Brussels yesterday, by the Foreign Secretary and the vice-president of the Commission, on agrifood trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland differ from an SPS arrangement?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Our SPS arrangements with the EU are vital. When we were in the European Union, we had a system of trading at home and abroad which was controlled; now, we can have a bespoke system that suits our circumstances. To those who sometimes criticise the Government for doing this, the cost of getting it wrong is really quite horrific. If we had African swine fever, currently rampant in parts of Europe, or Xylella, which affects trees, the cost would be in the multimillions or even billions of pounds. I want to have Ministers facilitating trade, not sitting in COBRA trying to deal with a disaster.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the devastating effect of the Brexit changes on the Welsh mussel industry? Those products need to go from north-west Wales to the restaurants in Paris, for example, within 14 hours. Is he optimistic that the changes he is hoping to work for will relieve the problem and re-establish that industry?
Lord Benyon (Con)
For trades like that to be successful, it takes two to tango and we want to make sure that our continuing conversations with our partners in Europe are facilitating precisely that sort of trade. There will not be a delay from this side of the border.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Minister will be aware that France is 100% self-sufficient in food, whereas we import 48% of our needs. Obviously, some products we are going to have to import, but surely we could do more to be self-sufficient in dairy products, beef and potatoes. Does the Minister agree that one of the key lessons of Covid and the Ukraine war is the need for more food security?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are 74% self-sufficient in products we can grow in this country and 62% self-sufficient in all food items. We are setting in train a whole range of policies through which we are trying to assist farmers to diversify their businesses, to find new markets and to find them locally. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that we want to be as self-sufficient in other products as we are in eggs and some dairy products, for example.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I wonder what account His Majesty’s Government have taken of the impact of ending their direct payments to English farmers, and whether it has put them at a competitive disadvantage compared to their European counterparts.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not see how that can happen; 55% of the direct payments went to the 10% who constitute the largest farmers—a deeply unfair system. We are focusing on payments with environmental benefits, encouraging farmers to achieve the standards required by their buyers. For example, ARLA is demanding that farmers do not pollute and have good animal welfare systems in place, and we, through our environmental land management schemes, are supporting farmers to do that.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the operations manager at Felixstowe port, Hannah Panting, told the BBC that Defra has informed it that the health authority will have to check between 1% and 30% of EU food exports. She rightly pointed out that the unknown is very difficult to work with, and that it is nice to have a plan and know what your targets are. I think the House would agree. Can the Minister assist Hannah?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We work very closely with Hannah and other port managers—for example, on the common user charge, which is a way of alleviating very high costs on some and very low costs on others, which we think is fair—but we also work with local authorities. The local health authority is also facing a cost-recovery arrangement. We are making sure that we have a risk profile that minimises the number of stops for low-risk items, but we are absolutely focused on the problem. We will continue to work with ports and all other authorities to make sure that the impact is minimised as much as possible.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has referred on several occasions to a risk-based system for checking food imports: the border target operating model. Of course, we are moving into unknown territory here—we have not used it before—so does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for the Government to ask the Food Standards Agency to produce an objective assessment every so often of the impact of the changes in import controls on consumer food safety?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Obviously, we work with the Food Standards Agency—although it is not covered by my department—daily to make sure we have got this right in all areas of food safety. At the moment the highest-risk items are products of animal origin, for obvious reasons, and certain plants that can bring in diseases such as Xylella, which I mentioned earlier. None of the work we are doing with the Food Standards Agency is secret, so there is no problem with making it public.
Income Tax Threshold
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to adjust the threshold for the higher rate income tax of 40 per cent to account for inflation.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
The income tax higher rate threshold is still high enough to protect the vast majority of people from paying the higher rate of income tax. Around 80% of all income tax payers pay at the basic rate. The Government must ensure that the tax system supports strong public finances, and it is right that those who earn more contribute more.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply, but I remind her that paying tax at 40% used to be a sign of achievement in this world and the middle classes—the middle earners on whom the prosperity of this country depends—are getting gradually poorer, with 1 million more of them paying higher rate tax in the last two years. With the withdrawal of child benefit, the effective rate of tax between £50,000 and £60,000 is around 61%. I know the Labour Party is not standing for lower taxes either, but does the Minister really believe that the country is going to be incentivised to perform well if it is crippled by this level of taxation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, of course, the Government want to bring taxes down. It is worth reminding noble Lords that since 2010 we have nearly doubled the personal allowance and, this year, around 30% of those with income are projected to pay no income tax at all. In our current circumstances, we need to be fiscally responsible, and the best tax cut we can give people is to cut inflation.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the income tax threshold and personal allowances are frozen at the April 2021 level until 2027-28. At that time, the real value of the personal allowance—to which the Minister just referred—will be less than it was in 2013. As a result of government policies, an additional 4.2 million people are expected to pay the basic rate of income tax this year; that is, 20% plus national insurance of 12%. Can the Minister explain the rationale for extra taxes on the poorest, already hit hard with negative wage rises and rising bills? How does the Government’s hiking of the taxes of the poorest reconcile with their levelling-up, or is it squashing-down, agenda?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I could not disagree more with the noble Lord. On the personal allowance, the increases we have seen under this Government since 2010, even with the freeze in thresholds, will be more than if it had been raised in line with inflation. We have put in place unprecedented support for people after the two major shocks of Covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We need to consolidate our public finances in the face of that and it is right that everyone contributes. We have looked to change corporation tax rates while protecting the smallest businesses, and we have frozen tax thresholds. We brought down the additional rate threshold at the Autumn Statement 2022, which is a sign of those with the broadest shoulders bearing the biggest burden.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the impact of inflation on taxpayers is corrosive, and therefore the sooner the Bank of England gets inflation back to target, the better? Does she further agree that the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, along with Audrey Wise back in 1977 is perhaps the most important principle informing our tax system?
Baroness Penn (Con)
On the first point, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. As I said in answer to my noble friend, bringing inflation under control is the most effective tax cut we can give to families across the country. On the second point, I will have to check the record; it was at least a decade before I was born.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I do not suggest cuts in the tax take in our current financial condition, but I question the distribution of the tax burden. Can the Government explain why they have chosen to use the threshold rather than the tax rate? By using the tax rate, they could certainly target the higher level of tax against those with the broadest shoulders most able to carry it. By using and freezing the threshold, they have dragged into the higher tax rate many people on very middling incomes, who are now experiencing the highest increase in taxes, according to the IFS, since 1979. Those are the people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, drive our economy, but they are also the group suffering severely from the cost of living increases.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that the income tax system is still highly progressive: the top 5% are projected to pay nearly half of all income tax in 2023-24 and the top 1% are projected to pay more than 28% of all income tax. The noble Baroness is right that those on middle incomes are feeling the squeeze; that is why we are absolutely focused on supporting the Bank of England in its mandate to get inflation down.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the one tax that goes up because of inflation is receipts from inheritance tax? The latest figures show that inheritance tax receipts grew by 14% last year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has pointed out, people are dragged into the fiscal net who were never intended to pay inheritance tax on their estates—which are essentially quite modest family homes. Is there not an urgent need to address the threshold rates for inheritance tax?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Since 2010, we have introduced additional allowances for people in certain circumstances to pass on up to £1 million to their direct descendants. Inheritance tax makes an important contribution to our public finances, so any changes in that area would need to be properly funded.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the former Chancellor and current Prime Minister says that he wants to cut people’s taxes, yet under his watch the tax burden has reached a 70-year high. As other noble Lords have observed, more people are paying more income tax, wiping out the benefits of previous changes to the personal allowance. Can the Minister understand the frustration of those who work hard and pay their taxes only to see non-doms and those with £2 million pension pots given preferential treatment by this Government?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we have worked hard to put tax cuts in place for working people, which is why we have raised the personal allowance. The increase to the starting threshold for paying national insurance was raised last year by the largest single amount, helping people who are currently facing challenges with the cost of living. The noble Baroness mentioned the changes we have made to pensions tax. That is to try to keep experienced professionals in our public sector workforce, from doctors to head teachers and members of the military. Those changes were made for the right reasons and will have the right effect.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My noble friend is quite right about the need to tackle inflation above all else. In the same way as the Government are discouraging excessive wage demands because they are inflationary, is it not correct that any attempt to change the tax system to chase inflation would be equally dangerous for the economy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why, when we have looked at what support we can put in place for people, our number one aim is not to make the problem of inflation worse. We were able to do that through announcing the mortgage charter, which will provide important relief to people struggling with higher interest rates while not making the problem worse.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and others are lucky that they do not live in Scotland, where middle-income taxpayers pay even more tax, which the Scottish Government then use in areas where they have no responsibility—such as a Minister for Independence, serviced by 20 UK civil servants and paid for by our taxes? It is about time the Treasury did something about that. When will the Government do it?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the UK income tax system is more competitive than the Scottish system and that we deliver better value for money.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the Competition and Markets Authority showed that consumers were charged 6p a litre more than wholesale prices justified. Obviously, those excess profits will be taxed. Do the Government think they should be taxed at more than the current rate?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we have been clear that we will take the findings of the CMA very seriously and put in place a system to ensure that we do not see future excess profits in a similar way.
Homelessness: Homewards Initiative
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle homelessness following the launch of the Prince of Wales’s Homewards initiative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
We welcome the Prince of Wales’s Homewards initiative and his interest and support in tackling homelessness. The Government have made the unprecedented commitment to end rough sleeping. In September 2022 we published our cross-government strategy, setting out how we were investing £2 billion over three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for that helpful response. Sheffield is one of six places where the Homewards initiative is being piloted, and in South Yorkshire it seems to us that two things make this new venture distinctive and highly promising. The first is that funding is secure over the medium term, and the second is a partnership approach which encourages local agencies to co-produce solutions with built-in flexibility to allow for ongoing learning. Does the Minister think that this longer-term and partnership approach is one from which the Government might learn in their own support for homeless people?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right; Sheffield City Council has been allocated over £4 million through the rough sleeping initiatives, which will run from 2022 to 2025, to help end rough sleeping in the city. It has also been allocated £2.4 million through the rough sleeping accommodation programme, again until 2025. So these are not annual nor short-term amounts of money. The right reverend Prelate is right; these things cannot be done by government alone. We know that individual local authority areas have specific problems and that is why we are asking them to deal with these issues. I will also say that the third sector, in particular churches and community groups, are absolutely necessary in a city such as Sheffield.
Lord Watts (Lab)
During Covid, there was a massive reduction in the number of homeless people on the streets. Why does the Minister think that this has been reversed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think that over Covid, the issue was that people were frightened, scared and did not want to stay out. Since Covid, we have gone into a further economic downturn, particularly because of the dreadful war in Ukraine—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No; it has affected the economic stability of the whole world. We are working continually to try to get back to those Covid levels.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I very much welcome the commitment of the Prince of Wales to help end homelessness, particularly as the numbers of those sleeping rough are beginning to creep up again, having been reduced to near zero during Covid. I particularly welcome the commitment to make Duchy of Cornwall land available for affordable homes. Is this not an example that could be followed by government departments and other public bodies that have surplus land available?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I welcome the Prince of Wales’s initiative. Maybe other larger landowners across this country could also look at those initiatives, as well as government. We have been working to release public land for new houses through the Public Land for Housing programme which ran from 2011 to 2020. By March 2020 over 60,000 homes had been brought on to the market on surplus government land. In October 2022 the Cabinet Office published the Government Property Strategy, which intends to drive efficiency in departments’ estates to look at surplus land that can be used for housing, particularly affordable housing.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is great that the Prince of Wales has turned the spotlight on this very important issue. Pilots are all well and good but is it not a damning indictment of this Government’s failure to tackle the housing crisis that between July and October last year, 1,210 homeless families spent longer than the six-week legal limit in hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation—the highest figure in six years? How will the Government respond to this growing crisis across the country and the impact it is having on children’s development?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We are responding by offering support through initiatives such as spending £500 million on rough sleeping initiatives between now and 2025. Under the ending rough sleeping for good initiatives, £2 billion is going to local authorities over three years to look at their issues. Your Lordships need to understand that the increasing numbers are only in 5% of local authorities in this country. We need to target and help those local authorities, both with support and with money, which is what we are doing.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, last year, 129,000 young people facing homelessness, aged between 16 and 24, tipped up at their local council asking for support—which is undoubtedly an underestimate. Currently, universal credit levels for young people living independently are more than a quarter lower than for those aged over 25. Can the Minister say by what logic we financially penalise young people, whose bills, including rent and essentials, cost exactly the same regardless of their age, and does she agree that this shortfall will make them even more susceptible to eviction and homelessness?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is right, which is why, in the Government’s strategy Ending Rough Sleeping for Good, which was backed by £2 billion last year, we recognise the particular challenges facing young people with regard to homelessness. We have a single homelessness accommodation programme, which will have delivered nearly 2,500 homes by March 2025. There is also the £2.4 million for rough sleeping initiatives going towards youth services in local areas that have an issue with youth homelessness.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, there is a very high proportion of hidden homelessness—hidden but none the less very real—among Gypsies and Travellers, who do not have enough authorised sites to camp on. What are the Government doing about encouraging local authorities to fulfil their obligations to assess the lack of sites and to act on that to provide enough?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that—I know her passion for that particularly vulnerable community. Local authorities do have a responsibility to find those sites; we will continue to ensure that they do so. However, I will look at the latest figures and let the noble Baroness have them, and will let her know what we are doing extra to make sure that they are being delivered.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, in April, 8,000 Afghans were still living in hotels, 18 months after they were evacuated from Afghanistan. They have now been told that they have to leave that hotel accommodation and find private rented accommodation. If they are unable to find rented accommodation, will they be homeless, and if so, what are the Government going to do about them?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We have announced £35 million of new funding to enable local authorities to provide an increased amount of support for Afghan households and to move them from hotels into settled accommodation. At the same time, we have announced a local authority housing fund of £750 million, which will provide capital funding to councils in England to allow them to look at creative ways of getting more housing stock in, which will help the Ukrainian and Afghan arrivals. Together, therefore, we hope that we can get Afghanis into proper suitable accommodation as soon as we possibly can.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this is a welcome initiative. Has the Minister suggested to the Prince of Wales that he should allocate some of his extensive landholding to help this initiative, and possibly a little of his £24 million-a-year income?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Prince of Wales announced at the same time that he would undertake to make some of the Duchy of Cornwall land available for affordable housing.
Online Safety Bill
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1, Clauses 162 to 172, Schedule 14, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 4 to 31, Schedule 3, Clauses 32 to 37, Schedule 4, Clauses 38 to 53, Schedules 5 to 7, Clauses 54 to 68, Schedule 8, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 9, Clauses 72 and 73, Clauses 150 to 161, Clauses 173 to 177, Schedule 15, Clauses 178 to 189, Schedule 16, Clauses 190 and 191, Schedule 17, Clauses 192 to 201, Clauses 74 to 80, Schedule 10, Clauses 81 to 85, Schedule 11, Clauses 86 to 97, Schedule 12, Clauses 98 to 132, Schedule 13, Clauses 133 to 149, Clauses 202 to 216, Title.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 13, Schedule 1, Clauses 14 to 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 31, Schedule 3, Clauses 32 to 54, Schedule 4, Clauses 55 to 78, Schedule 5, Clause 129, Schedule 12, Clauses 130 to 157, Clauses 161 to 163, Schedule 14, Clauses 164 to 167, Schedule 15, Clauses 168 to 173, Schedule 16, Clause 174, Schedule 17, Clauses 175 to 191, Schedule 18, Clauses 192 to 196, Schedule 19, Clauses 197 to 217, Clauses 79 to 87, Schedule 6, Clauses 88 to 91, Schedule 7, Clauses 92 to 95, Schedule 8, Clauses 96 to 100, Schedule 9, Clauses 101 to 103, Schedule 10, Clauses 104 to 106, Schedule 11, Clauses 107 to 128, Clauses 158 and 159, Schedule 13, Clause 160, Clauses 218 and 219, Schedule 20, Clauses 220 to 235, Title.
Powers of Attorney Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Powers of Attorney Act 2023 View all Powers of Attorney Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I hope that the House will discharge the Committee, and I beg to move to that effect.
Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 View all Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the order of commitment be discharged.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 View all Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2023 - (24 Mar 2023)
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 152-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (3 Jul 2023)
15:45 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 204 - Motion A1 agreed.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motions B and C.
The Bill returns to us once again from the other place. That House has been consistently very clear, for the second time now, that it is firm in its position on the remaining three amendments. When we were last here, this House asked the Commons to reconsider its position and, unsurprisingly, it has reached exactly the same conclusion as it did previously. Indeed, it has done so by greater majorities than before and, in some cases, by the greatest majority that we have so far seen on the Bill. Therefore, I propose Motions to accept the Commons position on the Bill and give way to the elected House.
We have discussed these amendments in detail throughout the Bill’s passage. The Government’s position remains that they cannot accept amendments which would delay the implementation of this much-needed legislation or, indeed, render it entirely inoperable. The Government have been clear in both Houses that they are willing to consider providing clarity on the nature of the “reasonable steps” which unions are expected to take to fulfil their obligations under the Bill. This is a significant issue, which I know a number of Members of this House have raised throughout the Bill’s passage. However, as yet, we have not had any indication that this would be widely supported.
Amendment 2D significantly expands on previous versions of Lords Amendment 2 in a way that will not, I believe, add to the effectiveness of the regulations. The Government have already undertaken public consultations on their intentions to bring forward minimum service levels for passenger rail services, ambulance services and fire and rescue services. We will bring forward regulations for approval in Parliament in due course. This is an entirely reasonable legislative approach enabling the Government to consider all relevant factors, including our international obligations, while at the same time ensuring that minimum service levels are introduced in good time.
I remind the House that, as the Government have made clear through the passage of the Bill, employees will lose their automatic unfair dismissal protection for going on strike in contravention of a work notice only if they receive notification from the employer that they are required to work under a work notice and notification of the work that they must carry out. Finally, impact assessments will be published alongside the final regulations.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will acknowledge that the effect of his amendment would be to delay significantly the implementation of minimum service levels, given the additional and lengthy consultation and parliamentary requirements; I heavily suspect that that is probably its purpose. On behalf of the Government, I must therefore resist it today. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to put it to a vote.
This amendment remains unnecessary and would delay the implementation of this vital legislation, which is designed to protect the public from the disproportionate impacts of the ongoing strike action. I therefore ask noble Lords to support the Government’s Motions on the Order Paper today. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Collins of Highbury
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 2D in lieu—
“(5) Minimum service regulations may only be made if—
(a) the Secretary of State has published draft regulations;
(b) the Secretary of State has consulted the International Labour Organisation and given due consideration to such advice as it has proffered;
(c) the Secretary of State has conducted an impact assessment of the effect of the draft regulations on the services to which the draft regulations relate, addressing, in particular, the effect—
(i) on the general public;
(ii) on the conduct of these services;
(iii) on the conduct and effectiveness of the exercise of the right to strike in those services;
(d) the Secretary of State has conducted a consultation with the representatives of trade unions, employers and any other interested party on the draft regulations and on the matters to be addressed by the impact assessment and, in particular, on whether the draft regulations should or do sufficiently provide, so far as possible under section 234F(2)(a), for protection of workers who do not receive a work notice or fail to comply with it, and for the identification of the “reasonable steps” which a union must not fail to take under section 234E and those which it is reasonable for it not to take;
(e) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on any advice proffered under paragraph (b) and the consultation under paragraph (d);
(f) the Secretary of State has placed before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, convened for the purpose of reviewing them, the impact assessment under paragraph (c) and the report under paragraph (e) and the Joint Committee’s review has been published in a report to Parliament.””
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am proposing an unusual but reasonable step in relation to this Bill. As noble Lords have heard in previous debates on the Bill, Labour is committed to repealing what we believe to be a very bad piece of legislation. Employers, unions, the devolved nations and service users have expressed opinions against the Bill. However, my argument today will focus on the consequences of this piece of legislation, which have not, I believe, been thought through or properly addressed either by the Government or in the impact assessments.
The consequence of exercising the human right to withdraw labour is now, as the Minister confirmed, the removal of protection against unfair dismissal. The consequence for a union complying with rigorous balloting requirements for an official dispute is now to lose its protection against action in tort. We sort of knew that this was coming because the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the penalties for employees and unions who do not meet the Bill’s requirements are severe. It stated that they
“amount to a disproportionate interference with Article 11”
rights of the ECHR on assembly and association. Of course, as the committee said, the Minister responded on those human rights by saying that the Government rejected the committee’s findings and recommendations. They felt that this piece of legislation was compliant.
Since noble Lords considered this piece of legislation, last month, the ILO’s Conference Committee on the Application of Standards called on the United Kingdom Government to
“ensure that existing and prospective legislation is in conformity with the Convention”—
that is, Convention No. 87, which governs freedom of association and protection of the right to organise.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is absolutely perfect for this situation. The hubris and arrogance of this Government are breathtaking. I do not understand how they can bring a Bill that does three massive things—the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was very generous to the Government because he talked about “unintended consequences”, but I do not think that these consequences are unintended at all.
The first is that it gives Ministers more power. Over the past couple of years, we have seen the Government constantly trying to give more power to Ministers and less with Parliament—less scrutiny and democracy. That needs to be challenged. Secondly, this new law undermines workers’ rights and could even punish workers who are genuinely off sick or in hospital. Thirdly, it forces the trade unions to act on behalf of employers to make workers go to work on strike days, with severe legal consequences if they do not.
I hope the Government see the common sense in this amendment, take a step back and think about the ramifications of what they are trying to do.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion A1 for different reasons. The proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, makes it much more likely that, if implemented, the Bill will comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the ILO convention and, therefore, under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister expressed concerns about delay in implementing the Bill. There is no point in having a Bill that is speedily implemented if it does not comply with our obligations under the ILO convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that the Government see the good sense in this Motion and recognise that it is in their interests to have a Bill that is effective and lawful.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will start with three words of the Minister: “much-needed legislation”. I have not had a single email asking me to support this Bill or a single letter. No Conservative trade unionist has come to me and said, “This is a really necessary piece of legislation”. Actually, it is a nonsense of a Bill. It will not work. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is about the only way of ever getting it to work, but then we have to ask whether it should work. The fact is it should not, because it goes too near people’s rights in industrial relations.
I quote from the former Business Secretary, who is not someone I normally quote. Jacob Rees-Mogg said:
“This Bill is almost so skeletal that we wonder if bits of the bones were stolen away by wild animals and taken and buried somewhere, as happens with cartoon characters”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; col. 89.]
It is a disgrace of a Bill.
I will not delay the House for long. I am dubious about whether we should send it back yet again, because of the doctrine of the primacy of the lower House, rather than because I disagree with the amendment. But I ask the Government to stop passing legislation like this, which is a nonsense. I seldom welcome what the Labour Party says, but it will certainly be held to that word “repeal”. If it gets into government—and, you never know, it might one day—my first Written Question will be, “When will you bring forward a Bill to repeal this?”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendment, as set out so thoroughly and excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I have very little to say; I will make just three points.
First, noble Lords who have been observing will remember that on a number of occasions I have proposed amendments that try to give Parliament more say on what is going on. Having got to where we are, I am happy to subsume that objective within the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has set forward, but it remains an important and missing element in the Bill. We should not forget that.
The noble Lord also set a lot of store by the recent ILO announcement. He is right to do so, but this amendment is necessary with or without it. The announcement makes it clear to us on these Benches that the Commons should be given another chance to reassess the Bill in the light of the details coming in from the ILO.
Finally, the Minister talks about delay. The first iteration of this Bill was drafted and laid before Parliament about a year ago. If the Government really are that breathless about getting this on the statute book, they could have moved a little quicker. This is about politics, not actually doing anything real out there. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is right in that concern. Because of that, we will certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Collins, if he chooses to put this to a vote.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, we have had a very similar debate a number of times, so I can keep my response brief. I have responded to these points previously, but I will make one point on the ILO report in response to the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Pannick and Lord Fox.
The ILO did not say that this legislation did not comply with the convention; it simply said that it should and that we should ensure that it does. In my view it does, as our response to the Parliamentary Question rightly said. I have made the point many times in this House that the ILO has been clear over many years that minimum service levels can be appropriate in public services of fundamental public importance. That is why many other countries in Europe and around the world that are signatories to the ILO have had minimum service levels in place for many years. The Liberal Democrats and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, normally urge us to go the way of Europe and follow what EU countries are doing. In this case, we are doing precisely that.
I therefore hope, although without a great deal of optimism, that noble Lords will cede to the wishes of the elected House and agree to the Government’s Motions, which would then bring this Bill’s passage to a close.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will take the unusual but reasonable step of pressing this, for one good reason. The Minister talks about the ILO not saying that the Bill is non-compliant. Part of the problem is that no one knows what this law means. Trade unions do not know what reasonable steps they need to take to protect the right to strike. We heard the Minister confirm that workers who receive a work notice will lose protection from dismissal.
The Minister talks about the ILO and minimum service levels in Europe. Nobody is against minimum service levels. They are essential, but in every European country they work because they are agreed by voluntary agreement and because people consent. As soon as you remove that consent, you are in trouble. That is why employers are so against what the Government are arguing.
I know that it might feel a bit repetitive, but the ILO report is new and the Commons needs to consider it. I plead with all noble Lords: please support my Motion. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4C.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 5B, 5C and 5D to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5E.
National Security Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 155-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendment and Reason - (3 Jul 2023)
16:28 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 210 - Motion B1 disagreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motion B and ask that this House do not insist on its Amendment 122B and do agree with Commons Amendment 122C in lieu.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for meeting once again with me and speaking with the Security Minister. During the previous debate on the Bill in this place, I talked about the importance of the Bill finishing, and continued engagement is the way to achieve that. I thank him and all in this House again for their valued scrutiny of this Bill.
I will start with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I understand the intention behind it. The Government are very much alive to the risk presented by foreign interference, as evidenced by the various ways we are seeking to tackle it through this Bill. However, as I said during previous debates on this matter:
“Political parties are already required by law to take all reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible”.—[Official Report, 21/6/23; col. 227.]
The introduction of an independent review to consider the matter is not an approach the Government would support. The scope of the review the noble Lord proposes implicitly suggests that the duty should be on political parties to prevent foreign interference, not the relevant enforcement bodies with the appropriate tools and knowledge. The Government submit that this is not the way to approach concerns about the risk of foreign donations entering our political system, although we agree that work is needed in this area.
As such, I offer an alternative to today’s amendment in lieu. If noble Lords agree with the Government that the amendment before the House is not the right approach, the Government will commit to consult on enhancing information sharing between relevant agencies or public bodies to help identify and mitigate the risks of foreign interference in political donations that are regulated by electoral law. The relevant public bodies in scope of the consultation would include Companies House and the Electoral Commission, among others. This consultation would take place within a year of the Bill coming into force. It would seek views on how relevant agencies and bodies can obtain and share information relating to the provenance of a donation, which might not be available to the recipient of a donation. We consider that greater information sharing may well help in the prevention and identification of breaches of the law in relation to impermissible donations from foreign powers.
The Government also commit to tabling a report in the House at the end of this consultation which will set out conclusions and next steps. I want to be clear that the Government’s intention is not for any changes made as a result of this consultation to become a tool to be wielded against political parties where they could not have reasonably known the provenance of a donation. As I have noted before, political parties do not have the investigative capabilities of banks to trace layers of financial transactions. Rather, this consultation would look at ways in which information sharing between the relevant agencies and public bodies that do have those capabilities could support parties in mitigating the risk of foreign donations.
The rules on political donations are clear: donations from foreign powers, whether made directly or indirectly, are illegal. This consultation will allow us to consider how best to strengthen the information-sharing and enforcement system that supports those existing rules. This goes a considerable way towards addressing the noble Lord’s concerns, and in a way that will deliver real benefit. I am committing the Government to undertake this work in good faith, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to withdraw his amendment on this matter, in favour of our suggested approach.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I now have the opportunity to speak to Amendment 22D. I thank the Minister and the others involved in the discussions we have had. I give particular thanks for the involvement of the Security Minister, whom he mentioned, in the creation of what the Minister offered today.
In my reamendment, I offered an independent review, which is quite a physical way—to use a metaphor—of examining the law in this area. We have been offered a much more neurological review, to use another metaphor, because it involves going to every place where knowledge is held within government of the possibilities by which foreign powers may contribute to political parties.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister because the Government are offering something that not only places a clear moral obligation on political parties by which their honesty will be judged, but which goes further. It means that there will be standards by which their honesty will be judged, which has potential implications for political parties that they had better pay regard to. Compared with the no-action approach when we last discussed this matter, what was decided today is a generous response by the Government.
I will close with another metaphor. The right reverend Prelate, who read Psalm 24 in Prayers this afternoon, spoke of a “pure heart” and “clean hands”. I doubt very much whether these measures will purify the hearts of political parties, but it will certainly make their hands much cleaner. I therefore announce my intention not to move Motion A1.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion B1, an amendment to government Motion B. I am very pleased that the Government have finally proposed an alternative amendment, recognising that only the ISC can undertake effective scrutiny of intelligence and security work undertaken by the Government.
The ISC supports the government Motion on the basis that my Motion is also accepted. It removes the requirement for consideration of whether the ISC’s MoU needs to be updated to commence within six months. We are concerned that such a time restriction may have unintended consequences; it might inadvertently affect the ability of the ISC to oversee security or intelligence activity related to the Bill. For example, if the Government commence new security or intelligence activity as part of the Bill outside the ISC’s remit—beyond the six-month period—the Government could attempt to argue that they will not consider any commensurate update to the ISC’s MoU as considerations are required to start within six months of the Bill coming into force.
Because of the Government’s long-standing refusal to update the ISC’s MoU, and their continued arguments to justify their refusal to accept independent oversight of the committee, the committee is of the view that it will be much safer for us to remove this time limitation to avoid any possible confusion in the future. Although that sounds like a lawyer’s argument, this is a lawyer’s issue; it is something we have to be quite careful about.
While the government Motion will not remedy the significant gap in ISC oversight that already exists in relation to intelligence and security matters, it at least seeks to stop the oversight gap becoming even bigger. I hope that this reflects a turning point and the beginning of a shift in the Government’s position, including their acceptance of the need for robust, independent and democratic oversight of secret intelligence matters.
However, the House should not forget the wider problem, and we should continue to insist on a remedy. With my ISC colleagues in the other place, I have already explained repeatedly why the ISC’s MoU needs to be updated more broadly. I will not repeat those arguments now, other than to say that currently there is insufficient parliamentary oversight of the Government’s intelligence and security activities.
Intelligence and security matters are too important for there not to be comprehensive parliamentary oversight. There can be no activity by the Executive which escapes democratic oversight. The Motion is the first indication from the Government that they have begun to grasp this fundamental principle and the importance attached to it by those in this House. Despite the Motion’s significant limitations, I support it being added to the Bill, with my own Motion, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences which may negatively affect the ability of the ISC to oversee the entirety of this regime. I encourage the Government to use this as a foundation for constructive engagement on the rest of the ISC’s MoU, which, as I have explained, urgently needs updating.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to this closing part of the Bill. I declare my interest as the senior treasurer of the Conservative Party. It is not on the register of interests, because the registrar does not accept it as a declarable interest; I do not know why, but I bring it to your Lordships’ attention now.
I wish to speak because, as this debate concludes, it would be unfortunate if the reader of this debate and previous debates was left with the conclusion that political parties are in any way seeking to obtain donations from foreign parties or do not take considerable steps to ensure that foreign parties or intermediaries do not make donations to political parties. In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord West, commented that
“it is perfectly possible for companies to make significant donations to political parties despite clearly not making operating profits and therefore with limited explanations of how they can afford such donations and where the money comes from”.—[Official Report, 21/6/23; col. 237.]
However, many companies can of course raise substantial sums of money and not make operating profits— I have personal experience of that. That is not the issue; the issue is that regulated donees have to be UK-registered companies incorporated in the UK which carry on business in the UK. I know from my experience that considerable lengths are taken to ensure that those companies are companies that carry on business, by any definition, in the UK. That is a requirement of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The companies must also be registered with Companies House. Later this afternoon, we will finalise our debates on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, in which I have had a large involvement. From that, it is clear that Companies House will have substantially greater access to information on companies’ accounts digitally to assess who the persons of significant control are.
Accepting or funnelling unlawful donations is already illegal. Every donation over £7,500 is declared and you can take my word for it that any donation that one might think is, shall we say, unusual leads to lots of inquiries from the press, which is perfectly reasonable, and others such as political opponents. The Electoral Commission has 233 staff. It has resources this year of £25.5 million. It is responsible for looking after political parties, not much more than that.
It is not particularly obvious to me what more political parties could do. They are not banks; they are not HMRC. It would be inappropriate to create a very false impression. Donors do not control parties. They do not influence or determine policy. They typically give modest sums of money because they believe in supporting a party and wish it to succeed. We do not wish to slip into state funding, which would be a very dangerous route. In fact, donors to all political parties should be thanked and recognised for their contribution to civil society.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I slightly despair listening to the noble Lord. Can we just ask for a little humility from treasurers of all political parties? I am afraid there is plenty of evidence that the garden is not as perfect as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, is saying.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I beg to disagree and am happy to offer humility. I note that recently the Labour Party returned a donation from a Mr Ian Rosenblatt which it decided was inappropriate. All credit to it. It happens regularly. This is not a political issue; this a cross-political matter. As I say, every donation is listed, so there is 100% transparency. I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s proposals, which I think are extremely sensible and helpful to this argument.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
We on these Benches very much welcome the concessions that the Government have made. I disagree with the rather overoptimistic interpretation of where we are from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. In the last exchanges, the Minister said that the National Security Bill was about national security and not about donations to political parties, but donations to political parties from foreign powers are a matter of national security.
Indeed, in the last Commons debate on this, a number of rather distinguished Conservatives intervened to say how strongly they supported the amendment as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the last occasion. I recall Sir Jeremy Wright saying that he found it “very difficult to disagree” with anything in the amendment. He is currently on the ISC and was previously a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life when it was writing its report on public finance.
I have just read a paper on political finance that the Institute for Government has just published. That stresses how rapidly the context is moving and how the law needs to adjust to cope with that. It particularly stresses the extension of overseas voting rights to British citizens who have been resident abroad for a very long time, many of them dual nationals. Checking on where the ultimate source is for those things is going to be extremely difficult and probably impossible, but political parties should be on their guard against undue influence and the suggestions the Government are now making perhaps will help political parties to take further moves in that direction
I was also struck by the speech that David Davis made in the Commons last week about a donor to the Conservative Party who had given £750,000—not a modest donor, even by the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh—who had spoken openly about buying influence and “access capitalism” as part of what he expected. This was a dual national whose fortune appears to have come largely from contracts within a number of post-Soviet states.
There is a problem there, and it requires investigation, and I welcome the Government’s acceptance that there is a problem and that it needs further investigation, and we look forward to reading the text of the amendment that the Government will move in the Commons and to the further work that they will do then—we hope in co-operation with other parties—to last beyond the next election. This is an area where we need to have electoral rules that are agreed by all the participants.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
To follow my noble friend to conclude from these Benches on this part of the Bill, I wish to commend the Minister for listening and taking back to the department a very strong view from this House that more needed to be done in this area. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his persistence on this area. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. Of course, we all know that there is a distinction between the small donors—those who give small sums of money either as a member or as a supporter of a political party: in my case, in my former constituency, there were all too small numbers of small donors, regrettably, but there were those who would bake a cake for a raffle—and individuals who give really quite enormous sums to political parties. On the one hand, I understand the argument that there should not be a distinction between the two groups, if someone is of wealth and means and they believe in the same thing as someone without wealth and means. However, as my noble friend indicated, with regret I share more the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in this regard.
We would not be where we are in pursuing and being persistent with this issue if we did not know that the Electoral Commission was in effect asking us to do it. I have met the Electoral Commission frequently, and I do not think that it is relevant to highlight its resources when it has been very clear to us in saying that it does not have the powers to carry out what, ultimately, I believe it should be able to carry out—to ask political parties for due diligence as to the source of large donations. I hope that the government review will take us on that journey and provide an evidence base, on which I believe there will be a degree of consensus.
I thank the Government for their response and look forward to the review taking place, especially as it will start with the competent authorities that will have the information available to them. The Government are taking through the economic crime Bill, reforming and updating the mechanisms through unexplained wealth orders. It strikes me that that is a very good opportunity to look at some of the processes around UWOs, which are designed to be streamlined and not burdensome on authorities, to see whether they can be the model by which we would look at the requirements on political parties. On this issue, I have previously talked about the jarring position that, if a politically exposed person who is open to unexplained wealth order mechanisms, instead of giving to a political party used that money to buy a property, the relevant competent authorities would have to go through a process of due diligence for that property. However, as my noble friend said, on the concern about buying influence rather than buying a property, there is no mechanism that is open. I hope that that loophole will be closed. The Government have been clear in their guidance on the duties on the public and competent authorities to access data for unexplained wealth orders, so we should be in a better position.
Finally, as I said in the previous debate, this is likely to be the most expensive year coming up in British politics. I hope that we will have cleaner hands, but they will not be empty. Therefore, it is how we ensure that with the source of that money going into British politics, especially in the lead-up to election campaigns, the transparency is not just around the donor but around where that money is from for substantial donations. I hope very much that we have started the process of rectifying this deficiency in the British system, and I thank the Minister for starting it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by saying how much we support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am glad that the Government have listened and come to an amicable agreement with the noble Lord which takes us forward. I thank the Minister for the way he has done that and for the concession that the Government have made on the updating of the memorandum of understanding, although clearly issues remain between the ISC and the Government, hence Motion B1 tabled by my noble friend Lord West, which we support. Aside from the Motion itself, it will allow continuing discussions, and indeed perhaps negotiations, around how the memorandum of understanding can be revised or replaced, including by negotiation, hence its importance.
I think it is really significant that still, even at this late stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord West, speaking on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which gives parliamentary oversight of the activities of the security services, is not happy with where we have arrived at. I think it is incumbent on the Government to reach an agreement with the ISC. Clearly, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord West this afternoon, we are not in a situation where that has occurred. There are all sorts of issues that remain between the Government and the ISC, as has been evidenced by various things that have happened today, and the Government need to respond to those.
I will add just a couple of other points. One is that the Government gave a commitment during the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Minister gave assurances to Parliament that the memorandum of understanding was a live document that would be regularly reviewed and updated. Are the Government of today completely ignoring that commitment that was made to Parliament? If so, we are in a really difficult situation, because it means that parliamentary oversight is undermined by the fact that Ministers making pledges to Parliament can just be ignored in the future by the Government. I say—we often say, all of us say—that we will not press an amendment, on the basis that the Minister, speaking from the Dispatch Box, makes commitments that are read into the record. That is an important part of parliamentary scrutiny. Ministers are asked to do that and Members of Parliament in the other place and noble Lords withdraw amendments. But here we have an example of where the Intelligence and Security Committee is saying that pledges and commitments were made to Parliament that the memorandum of understanding would be regularly updated and the Government have not done that or are still not in agreement with the ISC. I think that is a really important point.
For the avoidance of doubt, I remind your Lordships again that I do not seek to compel the Prime Minister to go to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall just say what I believe, and your Lordships will have to make up their own minds. Given that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the oversight body for this Parliament, I would have thought that if the ISC were regularly asking the Prime Minister to attend, the Prime Minister would go—not because he is compelled to go but because it is an important part of that parliamentary oversight and the Prime Minister of our country negotiating and liaising personally with the Intelligence and Security Committee is of real importance. So I say to noble Lords, as others have heard me say before, that all of us would be surprised by the fact that no Prime Minister has been since 2014; nearly 10 years. It has been nine years, in case I am quoted as not being accurate, since a Prime Minister has been. So I gently say that, while I do not seek to compel the Prime Minister, I politely ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, whether the Home Office has suggested to the Prime Minister that, in his diary, he might consider going to see the Intelligence and Security Committee when he can.
My noble friend Lord West’s amendment raises several important issues, but the most significant is that we need to send a message through supporting it that the ISC is still not at one with the Government. That is a serious issue and needs somehow to be resolved. I believe that supporting my noble friend’s amendment will continue to put pressure on the Government to ensure that they come to an arrangement with the ISC in the end, such is its importance. If my noble friend chooses to test the opinion of the House, we will be happy to support his Motion B1.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very much for his words and his engagement on a number of matters throughout the Bill, and for not pressing his Motion. I also thank other noble Lords who have participated in this very short debate, including my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who brought a very useful perspective on the current state of play with regard to political party donations. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that donations from foreign powers are already illegal and suggest that the word “consult” means that all political parties will be consulted.
On Motion B, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that he does not seek to compel the Prime Minister to come to the ISC. That is certainly not the tone of the remarks he has made in a number of debates in this House. It seems to me that he does seek to compel the Prime Minister to attend the ISC. He will know that I have answered before the question as to whether the Home Office and No. 10 Downing Street have had discussions on this subject. I will not answer it again. I have nothing else to say on Motion B, as I have already spoken to it. I ask this House not to insist on its Amendment 122B and to agree with the House of Commons in its Amendment 122C.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 122B and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 122C in lieu.
(2) Consideration under subsection (1) must begin before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
Lord West of Spithead
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 122D as an amendment to Amendment 122C—
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Coaker has put it far better than I have. I am afraid that there has been a breakdown in trust between the ISC and the Government, although the Minister on the Front Bench has been very helpful in this area. This is such an important issue, and we cannot get our minds around what has gone wrong. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Road Fuel Prices
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, cost of living pressures are affecting people right across Britain. In that context, we welcome the Government commissioning the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate soaring fuel prices last July. The CMA has finally recommended measures to improve fuel price transparency and stop inflated fuel prices being passed on to hard-hit consumers. The fuel finder open data scheme is welcome, but given that retailers have been inflating the prices, how do the Government expect the CMA’s voluntary scheme to work? When will the Government end the painful wait for consumers and bring forward the legislation that is needed to enforce it?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Government have stood for this gouging behaviour by the supermarkets over the past year. In rural areas such as Somerton and Frome, and Mid Bedfordshire, people find themselves facing the highest prices and the least competition, and will benefit the least from the comparison scheme. I have two questions for the Minister. Is it fair that supermarket bosses will get bonuses based on gouged profits, and will the Minister review the rural fuel duty relief scheme, which gives a 5p-per-litre reduction, to see whether it can be extended to rural areas not presently covered?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, let me thank both noble Baronesses for their support for the report and the Government’s action. First, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, putting the open data scheme and monitoring function on a statutory footing will require parliamentary time, but the Government will work as quickly as possible to do so. I note that she welcomed the fact that in the meantime we have asked the CMA to create an interim voluntary scheme encouraging fuel retailers to share accurate, up-to-date prices. Of course, we expect all fuel retailers to co-operate with the CMA by providing that information fully and promptly. We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows, but we need the primary legislation to be passed by both Houses first. We will consult on the secondary legislation in advance of primary legislation being approved in the digital services Bill. The noble Baroness will know that taxation and fuel duty are matters for the Treasury and the Chancellor, and I would not want to predict what he might do on that.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow up on a question asked in the other place yesterday. It follows a visit I made recently to Northern Ireland, where I was struck by how much lower fuel prices were. I understand that is largely because of the fuel price checker. The Minister in the other place was asked yesterday why the Government had taken so long to introduce something similar in the rest of the UK; can the Minister here today answer that point?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I just said to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, we will legislate as soon as we can. We will consult on the secondary regulations in the autumn, but we cannot implement them until we have the primary legislation through. There are of course a number of existing fuel price checkers, but the problem is that they are not updated frequently enough and are not compulsory, so not all retailers have to take part in them. When we have the powers, there will be a compulsory scheme and all retailers will be expected to comply.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the excessive prices that have been charged have had a disproportionate impact on rural motorists and have added to the cost of deliveries of foodstuffs and other items? Is that something that the Government will keep a watchful eye on?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. For many rural areas, where filling stations perhaps do not get the throughput of customers, prices tend to be higher anyway. It is certainly something we want to keep an eye on to make sure that rural customers are not disadvantaged.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the supermarket premium is apparently about 6p per litre, but that is nothing compared to the prices charged in motorway service stations, where it is often a further 18p to 20p above that. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, referred to the 6p as gouging. If that is gouging, what is the situation with motorway service stations and what are the Government going to do to fix it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Those of us who use motorway service stations are often baffled as to why fuel is so expensive in them. This is something that we will want to keep a close eye on; again, price transparency—that is, motorists having the ability to check what fuel might be available just by taking an exit and going to a service station that is relatively close to a motorway—would be much more beneficial.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, do not seem to understand the problems of ordinary people. As far as fuel is concerned, whenever fuel costs go up for industry, prices go shooting up. When fuel costs go down, prices are very slow to come down. Now, we have the banks putting up interest rates for borrowers but not offering high-interest returns for savers. There are so many examples of where ordinary people are suffering. The regulators seem to do nothing about it; they seem more interested in the interests of the industries than in those of consumers. Is it not about time that we had some kind of directive for the regulators to look after consumers’ interests?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but I think that he is being a little unfair. The CMA is a regulator, of course; this particular regulator very much had the interests of the consumer at its heart when it produced this report, which has widespread support and backing from all parts of the House. The Government will act on its recommendations, so that is a case of a regulator acting in consumers’ interests. The CMA is designed to produce competition, which is the best thing that can operate for the consumer.
The other example mentioned by the noble Lord is slightly off topic, but much more attractive interest rates are offered by a number of smaller financial institutions. It really is a question of the consumer shopping around, but plenty of information and online resources are available for someone to find the best return on their money. No doubt the noble Lord has lots that he wants to invest; if he looks at the various websites, he will be able to invest it well. Obviously, he is a well-known Scottish Member so is bound to have plenty of funds to invest.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about motorway services, a number of continental countries have signs along the motorway telling drivers what the price of petrol will be at the first, second, third and fourth service stations along their route. That provides a competitive element and is supposed to have been very successful in managing prices. Are the UK Government looking at such a scheme?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good suggestion. I am not aware of that being contemplated or what powers we would need to implement it, but I will certainly ask officials to have a look at it.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 153-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (3 Jul 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before we begin Third Reading, I will make a statement on legislative consent.
The Government remain committed to delivering better outcomes for those most affected by the Troubles by providing more information in a more timely manner to more people than is possible under current mechanisms. We have, however, been unable to secure legislative consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is of course not sitting currently. It is important to note that the Government are working tirelessly to see the return of effective, locally elected and accountable devolved government, which is the best way for Northern Ireland to be governed. However, I also acknowledge the possibility —if I can put it that way—that, even if an Assembly were sitting, it may have chosen not to provide legislative consent in this case.
The Government have also not secured legislative consent from the Scottish Government. We are therefore, regrettably, proceeding without consent, as this legislation requires a UK-wide approach. As the Government, we must make difficult and realistic decisions about how we can best deliver for families in Northern Ireland. I reassure noble Lords across the House that the Government will continue to engage with all Northern Ireland parties and the Scottish Government on this matter.
Clause 42: Tort, delict and fatal accident actions
Amendment 1
Lord Caine
“(8A) This section does not apply to a relevant Troubles-related civil action if, or to the extent that, section (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation)(1) applies to the action (prohibition of civil claims alleging invalidity of interim custody orders).”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides that Clause 42 does not apply to proceedings to which subsection (1) of Clause (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) applies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I committed to tabling an amendment at Third Reading in response to widespread concerns raised by the House over the 2020 Supreme Court ruling concerning the validity of interim custody orders made under Troubles-era internment legislation. We debated these issues at length during the amending stages, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Godson for raising these matters and for the constructive manner in which they engaged on the amendments that I tabled late last week.
To be clear, it has always been the Government’s understanding that interim custody orders, made by Ministers of the Crown under powers conferred on the Secretary of State, were perfectly valid. To restore clarity around the legal position and ensure that no one is inappropriately advantaged by a different interpretation of the law on a technicality, I have tabled amendments that retrospectively validate all interim custody orders made under Article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, as well as paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. This has the effect of confirming that a person’s detention under an interim custody order was not unlawful simply because it had been made by a junior Minister rather than by the Secretary of State personally, as was always the understanding of successive Governments.
The amendments would also prohibit certain types of legal proceedings, including civil cases, applications for compensation as a result of miscarriages of justice, and appeals against conviction which rely on the 2020 ruling from being brought or continued. To align with other prohibitions in the Bill, the continuation of pending claims and appeals in scope would be prohibited immediately from commencement.
There is a specific exemption in the Bill for certain types of ongoing criminal appeals, where leave to appeal has already been granted or where there has been a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission by the time of the Bill’s commencement. Importantly, this exception would not allow for the payment of compensation flowing from the reversal of such convictions. I make it clear that this amendment would not lead to convictions already reversed being reinstated. I hope the House will join me in welcoming the legal clarity that these amendments bring. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments in response to amendments tabled by me and the noble Lord, Lord Godson, which were supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I thank the Minister and his officials very much for the constructive way in which they engaged with us to produce this complex amendment in response to our simpler but plainly inadequate amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who is not in his place. He supported the amendment on the basis of the well-understood Carltona doctrine.
I have also been asked to mention the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is in the interesting position of being the only living Minister who was in Northern Ireland at the time and directly involved with this and a number of other ICOs. I thank him and many other noble Lords for their help with these amendments. They will do a great deal to restore the Carltona principle to its proper place and it will put right a decision of the Supreme Court which was no doubt reached in good faith but which was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister, of which I have given him notice. The first is in relation to the commencement date for the two new clauses. They are described as coming into force two months after Royal Assent. I understand what he says about those extant criminal appeals. It seems that delaying this for two months risks there being some further appeals which will go forward on the rather unfortunate premise that the relevant ICOs were unlawfully entered into. Can he clarify that?
Secondly, the second proposed new clause contains an order-making power, for regulations under Section 55(2), which is consequential on the section and allows a Minister to amend this Act. They are subject to the affirmative procedure, but I am concerned, as the House always is, by powers of this scale. I seek an assurance from the Minister: although I know that the current Secretary of State will not be amending the Act to, in any way, take away with the left hand what it has given with the right, it would be useful to have on record the assurance that the Bill does not intend to amend its provisions in any substantial way, particularly those that are the subject of these amendments.
I welcome these amendments and thank the Government very much for their co-operation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments, but mention has been made of the Supreme Court judgment in R v Adams [2020] UKSC 19, which caused the difficulties that these amendments are designed to address.
On 26 June, on Report, my noble friend Lord Faulks referred to Policy Exchange as having
“consistently and cogently argued that the decision flew in the face of the well-established Carltona doctrine”.
That has been explained as the doctrine that the powers of the Secretary of State may be exercised on their behalf by junior Ministers or officials. My noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell expressed concern that the Carltona judgment
“has been thrown into doubt by this judgment”,
which he described as “this very extraordinary ruling”. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that he was
“astonished, frankly, that such a legal error could have been made”.—[Official Report, 26/6/23; cols. 502-6.]
The judgment of the five judges of the Supreme Court was given by the late Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, a distinguished and much-respected jurist. In his judgment, Lord Kerr recognised the role and importance of the Carltona principle. His reasoning was that the principle did not apply in the Gerry Adams case, because of the specific wording of the relevant statutory provision, which expressly distinguished between the making of the detention order and the signing of the order. The statutory provision said that the order could be signed by the Secretary of State, a Minister of State or an Under-Secretary of State. Lord Kerr’s conclusion was that the distinction expressly drawn in the statutory provision between the making and the signing of the order necessarily meant that only the Secretary of State could make the order.
My point is that it is simply wrong to accuse Lord Kerr of ignoring the Carltona principle or throwing it into doubt. The judgment, whether or not you agree with it—different views are, of course, permissible—was based on an analysis of the express terms of the relevant statutory provision. I am concerned that this House should not unfairly impugn the reputation—the well-deserved, high reputation—of the late Lord Kerr.
If I understood the Minister’s opening remarks correctly, he said that the amendment restores the legal position, as it had been widely understood by Ministers, prior to the Supreme Court judgment. With respect, that is not quite right, because Lord Kerr’s judgment refers to the legal advice that was given to the Attorney-General in July 1974 by JBE Hutton QC, later Lord Hutton of Bresagh. Mr Hutton, as he then was, advised Ministers through the Attorney-General. I quote from paragraph 6 of the judgment of Lord Kerr that
“a court would probably hold that it would be a condition precedent to the making of an ICO that the Secretary of State should have considered the matter personally”.
I repeat: I support the amendment, but I hope it is appropriate to put those matters on record.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in welcoming the amendment put forward by my noble friend the Minister that reverses the effects of R v Adams, thus restoring the Carltona principle and stopping compensation wrongly being paid for what was an entirely lawful action by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. I also join in the tributes paid earlier to Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who retired from this House a fortnight ago and was one of the most formidable critics of the Supreme Court’s judgment in that case, thus showing his own remarkable independence of mind, which was characteristic of his career here and on the Bench.
There has been much objection in this House to the Bill’s immunity provisions, as if they were somehow unique and unprecedented. However, immunity has already been widely granted to terrorists, such as the early release for prisoners, which was a key element of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, implemented by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. There were also 187 comfort letters issued to those on-the-runs between 2000 and 2014. The issuing of these letters was further pressed on Tony Blair as Prime Minister by Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach in December 1999, along with the cessation of extradition requests.
There has also been widespread use of royal pardons: 418 were issued in Northern Ireland between 1979 and 2002, including many for convicted terrorists. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill of November 2005 further sought to fulfil commitments made by the British and Irish Governments in 2003, with its offer of judicially based immunity for offences committed before 10 April 1998—that is, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
These are all extraordinary departures from the normal rules of law. Privately, Tony Blair admitted to Members of this House that they had ripped up the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. This was not just for terrorists but for security force personnel as well, which is why the investigation into Bloody Sunday was an inquiry led by a judge, not a criminal investigation led by the police.
This Bill seeks to implement a legacy programme that is even-handed and counters the relentless tide of anti-state revisionists and revisionism. That is why I believe it deserves our support.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s amendments and I will confine my remarks to them. First, I observe that this shows how quickly the Government can move when they decide to legislate in respect of Northern Ireland to remedy an obvious injustice. Therefore, I hope that, on future occasions when we raise issues of concern that have support in Northern Ireland, the Government will be loath to use the argument that parliamentary time does not permit.
Secondly, people from right across all communities and all parties in Northern Ireland—except Sinn Féin, of course—will breathe a sigh of relief at the prospect that the godfather of terrorism over many decades, Gerry Adams, will not, on a technicality, be able to benefit from the largesse of the British taxpayer, when so many widows and the thousands of families that he and his organisation caused such suffering to, have struggled with very little compensation or recompense for many years. That injustice will be put right in this House and this Parliament. That will be warmly welcomed by those who really believe in true justice.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, Clause 42, to which this amendment applies, deprives those who suffered loss or damage as a consequence of the Troubles of the ability to bring or continue any civil action after 17 May 2022—some 14 months ago. A relatively small group of UK citizens from every part of these islands is to be deprived of their rights not only to bring a civil action but to inquests and to full human rights-compliant criminal investigations by virtue of the restrictions still placed on the investigative powers of the ICRIR by this Bill.
The long title of the Bill is amended by one of the amendments. It describes the purposes of the Bill as being to
“promote reconciliation by establishing an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, limiting criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and police complaints”.
The purpose of the Bill is clearly stated, but at no stage has the Minister explained how it is expected that limiting criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and the investigation of police complaints will promote reconciliation. I am unaware of anyone who thinks it will.
The real purpose of the Bill is to protect the Government from having to pay damages for those occasions on which investigation reveals that the state acted in breach of its duties to protect life. At its simplest, if somebody was murdered, and the state had prior knowledge and did not intervene or prevented proper investigation—and we know that these things happened right across our communities—a cause of action is disclosed. Now, in addition to the provisions of these amendments, there will be no right of action for bereaved and grieving families. That is the first purpose: to stop civil actions. The second purpose is to control access to information so that some people will never be able to prove what happened in cases involving state actors. The third purpose is to protect those veterans—they are few—both police and military, who may have committed the greatest crime, that of murder, from being subjected to due process. This Bill, as everyone has said, has been roundly and consistently condemned in the UK, by the Council of Europe, by the European High Commissioner for Human Rights, by the UN and by many others. It is a terrible breach of our international legal obligations.
Internment without trial was introduced on 9 August 1971 and continued until 5 December 1975. About 340 people were detained initially, often just scooped up by the Army because of their age and where they lived. About 100 were released within 48 hours; 17 people died in the rioting which followed and an estimated 7,000 Catholics had to flee their homes when they were attacked by loyalists. Initially, internment was carried out under regulations made under the special powers Act. All those detained were from the Catholic community. The interpretation of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972—introduced that November—by the Supreme Court is the subject of today’s government amendment. Overall, 1,981 people were detained without trial, 1,874 from the Catholic/nationalist/republican community and 107 from the Protestant/unionist/loyalist community. That began in 1973. It is generally accepted that internment without trial was a major recruiting agent for the IRA, and the Government said decades ago that they would never introduce it again.
It is also generally accepted in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that Gerry Adams was in the IRA and that he served on the IRA army council. As one who, as a young woman, lost my baby when I was caught in an IRA bomb explosion, I fully understand the revulsion at the idea that he and others who were involved in violence might now be able to recover even more money as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision in this case. A briefing on the Supreme Court judgment by Richard Ekins KC and Sir Stephen Laws is helpful in defining the justification for and the parameters of the amendment. Ekins and Laws describe how the process worked. Detention began with the making of an interim custody order, which was an exercise of a power conferred by the 1972 order on the Secretary of State. The order specified that only the Secretary of State, a Minister of State or an Under-Secretary of State could sign an interim custody order.
They went on to say that
“detention under the 1972 Order only began with the making of an interim custody order. Detention was only able to continue for more than 28 days when the Chief Constable had referred the matter to the Commissioner (a former judge or senior lawyer) who would consider the matter afresh. If the Commissioner was satisfied that the person in question was involved in terrorism, the Commissioner would make a detention order. When Mr Adams escaped from custody, his continuing detention, beyond the period of the interim custody order, had been authorised by a Commissioner who had made a fresh decision”.
This amendment seeks only to address the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is not about the merits of detention without trial. It is about whether the Carltona principles should have applied to prevent the Secretary of State having to consider each application personally. It is also about stopping the significant number of civil actions lodged after the Supreme Court judgment.
Internment without trial should never have happened, but this amendment is not about that. For that reason, while I will not oppose these amendments, I look forward to the Minister giving the assurance sought by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as to the extent of the exercise of powers anticipated to make secondary legislation under the powers conferred by the Bill.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I broadly welcome these government amendments. This is a complex matter, as the interventions this afternoon have illustrated, but I am glad that the Minister has managed to find a solution that is, broadly speaking, acceptable to all, subject to the comments made for the record by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
I have only one question for the Minister regarding these Third Reading amendments. I assume that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice was also consulted and that it is happy with these proposals. Could the Minister perhaps confirm that that is the case?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, this is the third occasion on which your Lordships have had the opportunity to discuss what has become an increasingly complex issue. I am delighted that it is probably the last as, should there be any more, it would get even more complicated.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that Lord Kerr was a very eminent judge. Many of us remember him and the great work that he did. However, there has clearly been a problem with this particular judgment, and the principle of junior Ministers signing orders on behalf of the Secretary of State, even if it applied all those years ago, must be sustained. So I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to this short debate. We will not be opposing this amendment.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am as always very grateful to those who have contributed. In direct response to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I can assure her that the DoJ in Northern Ireland was consulted on these amendments.
I am grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for the very constructive way in which he has engaged on these matters. With respect to commencement, it is the Government’s intention that this should commence at the same time as the Clause 42 prohibition in the Bill relating to the ending of civil proceedings: that is, two months after Royal Assent, which is the normal commencement date. We believe that a consistent approach is important, particularly when bringing forward an amendment that is about ensuring legal clarity.
The Government believe that there is little or no prospect of compensation claims being hurried through in the two months between Royal Assent and commencement. To give an illustrative example of the pace of such claims, there has to date, to our knowledge, been no payment of compensation to anyone bringing a claim as a direct result of the Supreme Court judgment in 2020; nor are the Government aware of any of these cases being close to awarding compensation. This includes the significant cohort of civil claims in this area, which remain at a relatively early stage.
On the issue of consequential powers raised by the noble Lord and by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in her remarks, the power exists for the new provisions. I assure the House that this is solely for the purpose of consequential amendments and not to be used to alter fundamentally the policy intent of the provisions within the amendments, or their scope in bringing relevant proceedings to an end. It is intended to be very limited indeed.
Lord Caine
“Interim custody orders: validity
(1) This section applies in relation to the functions conferred by—(a) Article 4(1) of the 1972 Order, and (b) paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 1 to the 1973 Act,(which enabled interim custody orders to be made, and which are referred to in this section as the “order-making functions”).(2) The order-making functions are to be treated as having always been exercisable by authorised Ministers of the Crown (as well as by the Secretary of State).(3) An interim custody order is not to be regarded as having ever been unlawful just because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions in relation to the order.(4) The detention of a person under the authority of an interim custody order is not to be regarded as having ever been unlawful just because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions in relation to the order.(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not limit the effect of subsection (2).(6) This section and section (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) apply only in relation to an exercise of any of the order-making functions which was conduct forming part of the Troubles (see, in particular, section 1(2)); and for this purpose any exercise of any of the order-making functions must be assumed to have been conduct forming part of the Troubles unless the contrary is shown.(7) In this section and section (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation)—“1972 Order” means the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1632 (N.I. 15));“1973 Act” means the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973;“authorised Minister of the Crown” means a Minister of the Crown authorised to sign interim custody orders—(a) by Article 4(2) of the 1972 Order (in the case of such orders under that Article), or(b) by paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 1 to the 1973 Act (in the case of such orders under that paragraph);“interim custody order” means an interim custody order under—(a) Article 4 of the 1972 Order, or(b) paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 to the 1973 Act;“order-making functions” has the meaning given in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for Article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the corresponding provision in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 to be read as having allowed junior Ministers to make interim custody orders (which was understood to be their effect at the time when the powers were in force).
“Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation
(1) On or after the commencement day, a civil action may not be continued or brought if, or to the extent that, the claim that is to be determined in the action involves an allegation that—(a) the person bringing the action, or another person, was detained under the authority of an interim custody order, and(b) that interim custody order was unlawful because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions in relation to the order.(2) On or after the commencement day, criminal proceedings relating to the quashing of a conviction may not be continued or brought if, or to the extent that, the grounds for seeking to have the conviction quashed involve an allegation that— (a) the person bringing the proceedings, or another person, was detained under the authority of an interim custody order, and(b) that interim custody order was unlawful because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions in relation to the order.(3) If criminal proceedings relating to the quashing of a conviction are pre-commencement proceedings—(a) subsection (2) does not apply to the criminal proceedings;(b) section (Interim custody orders: validity) does not prevent the court from quashing the conviction on the ground that an interim custody order was unlawful because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions.(4) On or after the commencement day, no compensation for a miscarriage of justice is to be paid in respect of a conviction that has been reversed solely on the ground that an interim custody order was unlawful because an authorised Minister of the Crown exercised any of the order-making functions.(5) Regulations under section 55(2) which make provision that is consequential on section (Interim custody orders: validity) or this section—(a) may amend this Act (including this section);(b) (whether or not they make such amendments) are subject to made affirmative procedure, unless they are instead made in accordance with section 55(5) (the affirmative procedure) or 55(6) (the negative procedure).(6) In this section—“commencement day” means the day on which this section comes into force;“compensation for a miscarriage of justice” means compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;“pre-commencement proceedings” means proceedings—(a) for which leave was given before the commencement day, or(b) which follow from a referral made by the Criminal Cases Review Commission before the commencement day.”Member’s explanatory statement
This prohibits civil and criminal proceedings and payment of compensation for miscarriages of justice which are based on interim custody orders made by junior Ministers having been unlawful.
Lord Caine
“(4A) Where regulations under this Act are subject to made affirmative procedure, the statutory instrument containing them must be laid before Parliament after being made.(4B) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (4A) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(4C) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(4D) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (4B), that does not— (a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This sets out the made affirmative procedure for Parliamentary scrutiny of regulations under Clause 55 which make provision in consequence of Clause (Interim custody orders: validity) or (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation).
Lord Caine
“(3A) Sections (Interim custody orders: validity) and (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) extend to Northern Ireland only.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for the two new Clauses in Lord Caine’s name to extend only to Northern Ireland (like the 1972 Order and 1973 Act, to which the new Clauses relate).
Lord Caine
“(aa) section (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation)(5);”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for subsection (5) of Clause (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) to come into force on royal assent (as it relates to the power to make consequential provision which comes into force then).
Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for the two new Clauses in Lord Caine’s name to come into force two months after royal assent (except for subsection (5) of Clause (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation) which is dealt with by the amendment of Clause 60(1) in Lord Caine’s name).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the other amendments of Clause 60 in Lord Caine’s name.
Lord Caine
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on Clauses (Interim custody orders: validity) and (Interim custody orders: prohibition of proceedings and compensation).
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 156-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (3 Jul 2023)
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Bill now be read a third time.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, following the expedited passage of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, my noble friend Lord Callanan assured the devolved Governments that they would be closely engaged throughout the passage of this second Bill. Our officials have been sure to keep their counterparts in the devolved Administrations informed and we have met a number of times at ministerial level to discuss key issues.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Northern Ireland Civil Service is facing a number of challenges in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the subsequent lack of an Executive, one of which being that it is not possible to engage the legislative consent process for this or any other Bill. Given the importance of this Bill, the official level of support for its provisions and the desire to ensure a united response against economic crime, we will proceed to legislate for the whole of the UK without the formal legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have written to the Northern Ireland Permanent Secretaries to keep them informed.
However, I am pleased to confirm that on 20 June the Welsh Senedd voted to grant legislative consent to the Bill. Last week, on the Scottish Parliament’s last sitting day before the Summer Recess, the Scottish Parliament also voted to grant legislative consent to the Bill. I thank colleagues and officials in all three Administrations for the constructive way in which they have worked during the development and passage of this Bill to design measures that will be as effective as possible in tackling economic crime across all parts of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 1
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Duty to deliver information about exemption from Part 21A
In section 853H of the Companies Act 2006 (duty to deliver information about exemption from Part 21A), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The statement under subsection (2) must specify— (a) whether the company falls within the description specified in section 790B(1)(a) or a description specified in regulations under section 790B(1)(b), and(b) if it falls within a description specified in regulations under section 790B(1)(b), what that description is.””Member’s explanatory statement
A company that is exempt from Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 (information about persons with significant control) has to confirm that it is exempt in each confirmation statement. This new clause would require it to explain why. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149)
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I will now speak briefly to the government amendments, which deliver on the undertakings I made on Report, first in response to concerns raised about the robustness of the people with significant control—PSC—framework and secondly to close a gap in the register of overseas entities information requirements. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in particular, for raising these issues. I also welcome the contributions of my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton and of the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Lord Cromwell and Lord Clement-Jones.
The majority of the amendments fall into the former category of the PSC framework. I reassure noble Lords that, although the number of amendments is higher than we might have liked to table at Third Reading, the majority are minor consequential or tidying-up amendments, and a lot of the new material is in fact a refashioning of existing rules to make them work in the new context of a central register, rather than locally held PSC registers. These amendments improve this by requiring companies to collect additional and more useful information, and by improving the mechanisms through which companies collect the information and report it to Companies House.
Currently, companies must record various “additional matters” in the PSC register. The Bill as drafted removed the regulation-making power through which these additional matters are prescribed. Amendments 26 and 32 preserve those requirements in the context of a centrally held PSC register. Amendment 26 means that a company will notify the registrar if the company knows, or has cause to believe, that a person has become a PSC but the company has not yet had confirmation from them. Amendment 32 means that a company must give notice to the registrar if it knows or has cause to believe that the company has no PSC. This will provide a hook for the registrar to query the statement that a company has no PSC, if she has intelligence to suggest otherwise.
The Bill as drafted removed an important measure to ensure that personal information is protected appropriately. Amendments 14, 17, 20, 22 and 25 ensure that protection mechanisms remain in place, otherwise a person who is at serious risk of violence or intimidation could be reported as a PSC without ever knowing, meaning that they may not have had the opportunity to apply for their personal information not to be displayed publicly.
To improve accuracy and transparency, and to make it easier to monitor and prosecute non-compliance, Amendment 1 requires a company that is exempt from the PSC requirements to explain why it is exempt in each confirmation statement. Amendment 15 improves existing provisions of the Companies Act 2006 which require companies to investigate and obtain information about their PSCs.
Amendments 33 and 34 widen the scope of a regulation- making power in the Bill so that the power can amend relevant parts of the Companies Act 2006 and to make consequential amendments to other parts of the Act. This is to ensure that the legislation is coherent, by avoiding having similar provisions spread across primary and secondary legislation.
Amendment 39 creates a reasonable excuse defence relating to the offence of failing to comply with information notices. This aligns the drafting of the offences with other similar offences.
All other amendments are consequential. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.
I turn to Amendment 9. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, tabled an amendment seeking to close a gap in the register of overseas entities’ information requirements relating to overseas entities acting as nominees. The Government agreed that this gap exists, and I thank the noble Lord and Transparency International for bringing it to our attention. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord was not quite right, but I hope that this amendment addresses his concerns. It amends Schedule 1 to the Economic Crime Transparency and Enforcement Act 2022 to ensure that, where there is a nominee relationship, this is declared. It then inserts a new definition of beneficial ownership into Schedule 2 to the 2022 Act: “registrable beneficial owners”. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this amendment and agree that it closes the gap that we discussed on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for these amendments. As he said, I described at Report the loophole in the register of overseas entities that allows people to hide the true ownership of UK properties through nominee arrangements. As the Minister described, he tabled Amendment 9, as he undertook to do, which effectively closes that loophole. I am not sure what conclusion to take from the fact that my original 11-line amendment has turned into one that runs to three pages—it presumably says something about my amendment drafting skills—but I am most grateful.
The other amendments that the Minister tabled relate to the register of persons with significant control. These new amendments tighten the rules and will improve the ability to identify PSCs. In particular, I welcome the requirement for the information to be filed on a centrally held register, rather than locally held registers managed by the companies themselves. The requirement to explain why a company is exempt from the PSC requirements is also an important improvement.
I was slightly confused as to what happens if a company has become aware that it has a PSC but the PSC has not yet confirmed their status or information. Amendment 20 appears to deal with that situation; it requires the company to notify the registrar if it knows, or has cause to believe, that a person has become a registrable person but has not yet had confirmation. However, that seems to conflict with the explanatory statement to Amendment 17:
“This means that a company will only need to notify the registrar of a person with significant control if the person has confirmed their status and information about them”.
Amendment 20 says that the registrar must be notified of an unconfirmed PSC but Amendment 17, or at least the explanatory statement to it, seems to say exactly the opposite. Can the Minister please explain which is right and how the two work together? More importantly, can he reassure me that a PSC will not be able to avoid being notified to the registrar simply by failing to confirm their status or information.
I put on record that, while I welcome and support the amendments, I do not believe that they deal with the problem of nominee shareholders not having to declare themselves as such. The new amendments are not an alternative to the amendment that the House passed on Report that required shareholders to state whether or not they are acting as a nominee, and if so who for. I hope that the Government will continue to consider that amendment and look at it favourably in the other place, or at the very least meet with me and others to see whether we can find a workable compromise. It should not be possible for bad actors to hide behind nominees, and there should be consequences for those who act as nominees to conceal such bad actors.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his officials for their helpful and constructive engagement throughout this process; they have been extremely generous with their time. In particular, I thank them for having addressed a number of issues, including the one we have just talked about, throughout the progress of the Bill. The level of engagement from all Ministers involved has been exemplary—if only all Bills were managed so constructively. I also thank all noble Lords who have been so generous in their support of the various amendments that I have proposed. When the Bill started in this House, it was generally seen to be a good Bill, and I think that it emerges from this House in even better shape.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, there are times when your Lordships’ House is confronted with so many Third Reading amendments that it can be somewhat irksome, but this is not one of those occasions. This is a useful and helpful response from the Minister and his team to the debate we had on Report, and for that I thank them.
I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that these amendments do not replace those that we passed on Report, which I similarly hope the Minister and his team will continue to consider as we go forward.
Transparency of ownership and the registration of overseas entities are important to this. The point we have made on a number of occasions about keeping the whole Bill under review and looking at how it works once it becomes an Act will be vital. It is clear that we cannot second-guess all the reactions we will get out there, so having the fluidity and agility to deal with that will be important.
Although it is slightly confusing, I will offer my thanks and congratulations at this point, so that I do not do so twice. First, I congratulate the Ministers on getting legislative consent so smoothly. For many of the Bills that I have been working on of late, legislative consent never seems to come. However, unlike many of those Bills, this is one where all the House agreed on its objectives, so all we were discussing were the ways in which we could achieve those objectives. In that regard, I thank the Ministers for the great amount of time and effort they have devoted to listening to, and having meetings with, Members across your Lordships’ House and for seeking ways of accommodating our helpful suggestions. Particular thanks are due to the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Sharpe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who made appearances in Grand Committee.
Similarly, the whole Bill team, and organisations such as Companies House, have given up a lot of their time to speak with us, so thanks should be given to them. There have been many contributions from the Cross Benches and the Benches opposite. I will not single out anyone for praise, except to say that it has been a great pleasure working with everyone on the Bill; I felt that we were all pulling in the same direction.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their camaraderie on the Bill. I thank my noble friends Lady Bowles, Lady Kramer, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Oates on our Benches. Finally, thanks go to Sarah Pughe in our Whips Office, who has kept us all in order.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter on the amendments tabled at Third Reading; it was very much appreciated. All of us involved fully understand the importance of transparency of ownership in Companies House and the register of overseas entities, issues we have revisited many times throughout consideration of the Bill.
Ensuring that complex, opaque structures cannot be built to hide economic wrongdoing is central to what we need this Bill to do. I appreciate the approaches taken in working with colleagues across the House to make sure that this important and complex Bill is as effective as possible at preventing economic crime and enforcing consequences for those who commit or facilitate it. However, as we have heard, other areas of the Bill need to be changed, as this House has agreed and as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, noted, particularly through his own amendments. I hope that Ministers will also hear those points as the Bill heads back to our colleagues in the other place.
I thank all the officials, whose diligence, work, unfailing response and willingness to talk to us throughout has been exemplary. I thank the Ministers for their patience and commitment to working with all parties across the House, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Sharpe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. We are very grateful for that commitment. I give special thanks to Clare Scally, who works in our office. Her tireless support and endless patience working through the various amendments is to be commended. She has kept us on the straight and narrow going through the various changes, which have been welcomed, in the main. I particularly thank my noble friends who have engaged in the debate, especially my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lord Coaker, who have given so much of their insight and expertise to help us move forward.
As we have heard today, there is no doubt that this Bill is in a better place than when we started. However, all of us, hand on heart, know that there is still much more to do, particularly in tackling the sheer scale of economic crime in this country. Many people who were not aware of that now are, and I believe that the demand for action will grow. I hope that our improvements to the Bill will have a swift impact on its legislative journey and really help the many victims who must remain at the heart of our considerations.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, before I conclude, I would just like to cover the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. If my memory is correct, Amendment 17 prevents the publication of a PSC whose identity has not been verified, so there is no conflict between the two. It is only right that people whose identity has not been verified is published. What is important about these additional amendments is that they ensure that you have to ascertain that you have no PSCs, or if the PSC has not been identified then the registrar is able to make further inquiries. They are not inconsistent and make a sound change to the Bill very much along the lines the noble Lord was recommending in the first place.
I thank the Opposition Front-Benchers, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds—a formidable Front Bench, if I may say—and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank them for their engagement and constructive scrutiny of the Bill, as well as the enormous amount of time they dedicated to the various meetings ahead of each set of debates. It was a very valuable collaboration and I believe together in this House, we have formed a significant piece of legislation that all the peoples of the United Kingdom will benefit from.
I thank some of the other key contributors to this Bill. Many other noble Lords have been instrumental in the improvements made during its passage through this House, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Alton of Liverpool. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I spent many hours working through this Bill, and if ever asked to point to the value of this great Chamber, it is exactly those constructive debates that I would point to. I am extremely grateful for his input and strong sense of collaboration.
Thanks must also go to my noble friends Lady Stowell of Beeston, Lady Morgan of Coates, Lord Leigh of Hurley—I have rightly described him as a “guru of finance”— Lord Sandhurst, and others for their input and constructive challenge. I also thank my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton, who has also engaged extremely constructively with me during this process, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. Over recent months, we have had robust discussions and debates and I genuinely thank them for their engagement.
I must also thank the Whip, my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow; the formidable team of Whips and officials; and my ministerial colleagues—my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Minto, and my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy—who have all done an excellent job when representing this Bill in the House in all debates over the last few months. The Bill is significant both in size and scope, spanning several departments.
This brings me to all the officials working across multiple departments behind the scenes supporting the ministerial team as we engaged and debated with noble Lords on the detail of the Bill; I extend true personal thanks and the thanks of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I thank Louise Smyth, the registrar of Companies House, who will be taking many of the actions we are passing through this House in order to make Companies House function more effectively. She and her entire team have engaged consistently throughout this process, and we wish her the greatest of success in implementing this dramatic programme.
I thank the analysis, company law and corporate transparency team in my own Department for Business and Trade, headed especially ably by the deputy director, Matt Ray, and his head of policy, Steve Webster. I thank the criminal finances and asset recovery unit in the Home Office, excellently led by Maria Hannan. I thank Paul Rowlands, Lucy Chisholm, the hard-working legal teams in both departments—I can certainly attest to that—and the expert drafters from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, particularly Diggory Bailey and Camilla Grundy. I thank my private office team, in particular, Emily Tranter and Simon Moore, who have supported me so much over these last few months. Finally, I thank the Bill team: Tom Ball, the Bill manager, and his fantastic team of Nicola Wallace, Anna Gray, Corrie Monaghan, Tim Holland, Sophie Curry, Monique Sidhu, Michael Tam and Carolin Grassmann. Everyone involved has demonstrated impressive levels of expertise, and I think I can speak for all Ministers when I say that we felt in safe hands. I am grateful for their proactive, patient and professional support throughout.
Finally, I thank the House authorities for managing the large number of amendments made in this House, and the parliamentary staff, the doorkeepers and clerks for their professionalism and continued support to the Bill and to your Lordships’ House.
To conclude, this Bill is a milestone piece of legislation, which will deliver major reforms to the framework for corporate criminal liability, improving the ability to hold corporations liable in their own right for economic crimes; the first serious reform of limited partnership law since 1907; the most significant changes to our system for setting up and maintaining companies since the 1850s; the first national legislation from any Government to take action against SLAPPs; and the legislative underpinning to tackle the new threats facing us in 21st century through action on crypto assets and improved data-sharing.
Economic crime affects every single one of us in different ways and at different scales. This Government are determined to tackle economic crime and drive out dirty money, protecting British citizens. We are ensuring that public agencies, law enforcement and the private sector have the tools needed to deliver greater protections for members of the public and businesses. As I have said on multiple occasions, the Government have been determined throughout that the Bill strikes the right balance in all areas between tackling criminality and avoiding undue burdens on the law-abiding majority. I remain keener than ever to get this important legislation on the statute books, and look forward to implementing the reforms that it contains when we reach Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 222, line 31. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 17 inserting a new section 790LCB into the Companies Act 2006. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 17 inserting a new section 790LCB into the Companies Act 2006. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
Clauses 68, 136 and 166 ensure that certain documents are withheld from public inspection. My amendments to those Clauses protect similar documents delivered under regulations under section 1067A(5)(a) and (6) of the CA 2006. My amendments are therefore consequential on those regulation-making powers, which were added at earlier stages.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my first amendment to Clause 68.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my first amendment to Clause 68.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my first amendment to Clause 68.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“Registrable beneficial owners: nominees
(1) The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 is amended as follows.(2) In Schedule 1 (required information)—(a) in paragraph 3(1), for paragraphs (e) and (f) substitute—“(e) whether the individual is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 or paragraph 2(2) of that Schedule;(f) if the individual is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2—(i) a statement as to which of the conditions in paragraph 6 of that Schedule is met and why, and(ii) a statement as to whether that condition is met by virtue of the individual being a trustee;(fa) if the individual is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2, a statement as to which of the conditions in paragraph 6A of that Schedule is met and why;”;(b) in paragraph 4, for sub-paragraph (f) substitute—“(f) whether the government or public authority is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 or paragraph 4(2) of that Schedule;(fa) if the government or public authority is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2, a statement as to which of the conditions in paragraph 6 of that Schedule is met and why;(fb) if the government or public authority is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2, a statement as to which of the conditions in paragraph 6A of that Schedule is met and why;”;(c) in paragraph 5(1), for paragraphs (g) and (h) substitute—“(g) whether the entity is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 or paragraph 3(2) of that Schedule;(h) if the entity is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2—(i) a statement as to which of the conditions in paragraph 6 of that Schedule is met and why, and(ii) a statement as to whether that condition is met by virtue of the entity being a trustee;(ha) if the entity is a registrable beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2, a statement as to which of the conditions in paragraph 6A of that Schedule is met and why;”. (3) In Schedule 2 (registrable beneficial owners)—(a) in paragraph 2—(i) the existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1);(ii) in paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph, for “(see Part 2)” substitute “by virtue of paragraph 6”;(iii) after that sub-paragraph insert—“(2) An individual is also a “registrable beneficial owner” in relation to an overseas entity if the individual is treated as a beneficial owner of the overseas entity by virtue of paragraph 6A.”;(b) in paragraph 3—(i) the existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1);(ii) in paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph, for “(see Part 2)” substitute “by virtue of paragraph 6”;(iii) after that sub-paragraph insert—“(2) A legal entity other than a government or public authority is also a “registrable beneficial owner” in relation to an overseas entity if it is treated as a beneficial owner of the overseas entity by virtue of paragraph 6A.”;(c) in paragraph 4—(i) the existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1);(ii) in that sub-paragraph, for “(see Part 2)” substitute “by virtue of paragraph 6”;(iii) after that sub-paragraph insert—“(2) A government or public authority is also a “registrable beneficial owner” in relation to an overseas entity if it is treated as a beneficial owner of the overseas entity by virtue of paragraph 6A.”;(d) after paragraph 6 insert—“Persons treated as beneficial owners where entity holds land as nominee6A_ A person (“X”) is to be treated as a beneficial owner of an overseas entity (“Y”) if one or more of the following conditions are met.Y holds land in England or Wales as nominee for XCondition 1 is that Y—(a) is registered in the register of title kept under the Land Registration Act 2002 as the proprietor of a qualifying estate within the meaning of Schedule 4A to that Act,(b) became so registered in pursuance of an application made on or after 1 January 1999, and(c) holds the qualifying estate as nominee for—(i) X, or(ii) an entity of which X is a beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 6.Y holds land in Scotland as nominee for XCondition 2 is that—(a) Y—(i) holds an interest in land by virtue of being entered, on or after 8 December 2014, as proprietor in the proprietorship section of the title sheet for a plot of land that is registered in the Land Register of Scotland,(ii) is, in relation to a lease that was recorded in the General Register of Sasines or registered in the Land Register of Scotland before that date, by virtue of an assignation of the lease registered in the Land Register of Scotland on or after that date, the tenant under the lease, or(iii) is the tenant under a lease that was registered in the Land Register of Scotland on or after that date, and(b) Y holds the interest in land referred to in paragraph (a)(i), (ii) or (iii) as nominee for— (i) X, or(ii) an entity of which X is a beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 6.Y holds land in Northern Ireland as nominee for XCondition 3 is that Y—(a) is registered in the register kept under the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.)) as the owner of a qualifying estate within the meaning of Schedule 8A to that Act,(b) became so registered on or after the day on which that Schedule came into force, and(c) holds the qualifying estate as nominee for—(i) X, or(ii) an entity of which X is a beneficial owner by virtue of paragraph 6.”;(e) in paragraph 8, for “paragraphs 2(b) and 3(c)” substitute “paragraphs 2(1)(b) and 3(1)(c)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that where an overseas entity holds certain interests in land as a nominee for another person that person is treated as a beneficial owner for the purposes of the register of overseas entity. It also deals with less direct relationships. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 187).
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my first amendment to Clause 68.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my first amendment to Clause 68.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a cross-reference.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“9_ In section 790C (key terms), omit subsection (10).”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my other amendments to Schedule 2 and leaves out a definition that is no longer used. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“9A_ After section 790C insert—“790CA References to “confirmation” etc of informationFor the purposes of this Part a company has had confirmation of—(a) a person’s status as a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company,(b) the required particulars of a person (see section 790K),(c) any other information about a person,if the person has supplied that information to the company whether or not in pursuance of any duty imposed by this Part (and references to a company obtaining confirmation of information are to be read accordingly).””Member’s explanatory statement
This defines what is meant by “confirmation” for the purposes of my other amendments to Schedule 2, which mean that a company which knows of a person with significant control etc only has to notify the registrar if it has had confirmation from the person. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“10_ For sections 790D and 790E substitute—“790CB Duty to find out about persons with significant controlA company to which this Part applies must take reasonable steps to find out if there is anyone who is a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company and, if so, to identify them.790D Company’s duty to give notices to persons with significant control(1) A company to which this Part applies must give a notice to a person under this section if—(a) the company knows or has cause to believe that the person is a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, but(b) the company has not had confirmation of the person’s status as a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity or has not had confirmation of all of the required particulars of the person (see section 790K).(2) The notice must require the person—(a) to inform the company whether the person is a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(b) if they are, to give the company all of the required particulars of the person (see section 790K).(3) The notice must require the person to whom it is given to comply with the notice by no later than the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is given.(4) The company must give the notice—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after the company becomes subject to the duty to give a notice under this section, and(b) in any event before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company becomes so subject.(5) A company is not required to give a notice under this section to a person if— (a) the application for the registration of the company contained a statement of initial significant control naming the person as someone who would, on the company’s incorporation, become a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(b) the company has no cause to believe that at any time since its incorporation the person has ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the giving of notices under this section, including provision about their form and content and the manner in which they must be given.(7) Regulations under subsection (6) are subject to negative resolution procedure.790DA Obtaining information from third parties(1) A company to which this Part applies may give a notice to a person under this section if it knows or has cause to believe that the person—(a) knows the identity of someone who falls within subsection (2), or(b) knows the identity of someone likely to have that knowledge.(2) The persons who fall within this subsection are—(a) a registrable person in relation to the company;(b) a relevant legal entity in relation to the company;(c) an entity which would be a relevant legal entity in relation to the company but for the fact that section 790C(6)(b) does not apply in respect of it.(3) A company must give a notice under subsection (1) to a person (“a third party”) if the company—(a) knows or has cause to believe that a person is a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company (“a suspected PSC”),(b) is under a duty to give the suspected PSC a notice under section 790D but does not have the information that it needs in order to contact them, and(c) knows or has cause to believe that the third party—(i) knows the identity of the suspected PSC, or(ii) knows the identity of someone likely to have that knowledge.(4) A notice under subsection (1) must require the person to whom it is given (“the recipient”)—(a) to inform the company whether the recipient knows the identity of any person who—(i) falls within subsection (2), or(ii) is likely to know the identity of anyone who falls within subsection (2), and(b) if the recipient does, to give the company any information within the recipient’s knowledge that would allow the company to contact each such person.(5) The notice must require the person to whom it is given to comply with the notice by no later than the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is given.(6) A person to whom a notice under subsection (1) is given is not required by that notice to disclose any information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege (in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications) could be maintained in legal proceedings.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the giving of notices under this section, including provision about their form and content and the manner in which they must be given. (8) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to negative resolution procedure.(9) In this section a reference to knowing the identity of a person includes knowing information from which that person can be identified.790E Company’s duty to find out about changes in PSC information(1) This section applies if a company—(a) knows or has cause to believe that there has been a change in the required particulars of a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company (see section 790K), but(b) has not had confirmation that the change has occurred or has not had confirmation of all of the information that the company would need to include in a notice of the change under section 790LC(1) or 790LCA(1).(2) The company must give the person a notice requiring the person—(a) to inform the company whether the change has occurred, and(b) if it has, to give the company the information that the company would need to include in a notice of the change under section 790LC(1) or 790LCA (1).(3) The notice must require the person to whom it is given to comply with the notice by no later than the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is given.(4) The company must give the notice—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after the company becomes subject to the duty to give a notice under subsection (2), and(b) in any event before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company becomes so subject.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the giving of notices under this section, including provision about their form and content and the manner in which they must be given.(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to negative resolution procedure.790EA Company’s duty to find out about persons ceasing to be PSCs(1) This section applies if a company—(a) knows or has cause to believe that a person has ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, but(b) has not had confirmation that the person has ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company or has not had confirmation of the date on which the person so ceased.(2) The company must give the person a notice requiring the person—(a) to inform the company whether the person has ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(b) if the person has, to inform the company of the date on which the person so ceased.(3) The notice must require the person to whom it is given to comply with the notice by no later than the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is given.(4) The company must give the notice—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after the company becomes subject to the duty under subsection (2), and (b) in any event before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company becomes so subject.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the giving of notices under this section, including provision about their form and content and the manner in which they must be given.(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to negative resolution procedure.790EB Company’s duty to notify failure to comply with notices(1) A company must notify the registrar if a person fails to comply with a notice given by the company under section 790D, 790DA, 790E or 790EA within the period specified in it.(2) The notice must be given within the period of 14 days beginning with end of the period specified in the notice under section 790D, 790DA, 790E or 790EA .790EC Company’s duty to notify of late compliance with notices(1) A company must notify the registrar if a person who has failed to comply with a notice given by the company under section 790D, 790DA, 790E or 790EA within the period specified in it subsequently complies.(2) The notice must be given within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the person complied with the notice under section 790D, 790DA, 790E or 790EA .”11_ In section 790F (failure by company to comply with information duties), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) If a company fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a duty under section 790CB, 790D, 790DA(3), 790E, 790EA, 790EB or 790EC to take steps or give a notice, an offence is committed by—(a) the company, and(b) every officer of the company who is in default.”12_ For sections 790G and 790H substitute—“790G Duty to notify company on becoming PSC(1) This section applies to a person if—(a) the person knows that they are a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to a company,(b) the material in the register that is available for public inspection does not indicate the person’s status as a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(c) the person—(i) has not informed the company of the person’s status as a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, or(ii) has not given the company all of the required particulars of the person (see section 790K).(2) The person must—(a) inform the company of the person’s status as a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(b) give the company the required particulars (see section 790K).(3) The person must comply with the duty in subsection (2) before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the conditions in subsection (1) are met.790H Duty to notify company of changes in PSC information(1) This section applies to a person if— (a) the person knows that they are a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to a company,(b) there has been a change in the required particulars of the person (see section 790K) and the person knows that to be the case, and(c) the person has not informed the company of the change or has not given the company all of the information that the company would need to include in a notice of the change under section 790LC(1) or 790LCA(1).(2) The person must—(a) inform the company of the change, and(b) give the company the information that the company would need to include in a notice of the change under section 790LC(1) or 790LCA(1).(3) The person must comply with the duty in subsection (2) before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the conditions in subsection (1) are met.790HA Duty to notify company of ceasing to be a PSC(1) This section applies to a person if—(a) the person knows that they have ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to a company,(b) the material in the register that is available for public inspection does not indicate the person as having ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to a company, and(c) the person has not informed the company of having ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company or has not informed the company of the date on which the person so ceased.(2) The person must inform the company—(a) that the person has ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(b) of the date on which the person so ceased.(3) The person must comply with the duty in subsection (2) before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the conditions in subsection (1) are met.”12A_ In section 790I (enforcement of disclosure requirements), for the words from “a notice” to the end substitute “—(a) a notice under section 790D, 790DA, 790E or 790EA, or(b) a duty under section 790G, 790H or 790HA.”13_ In section 790J (power to make exemptions)—(a) in subsection (2)(a), for “790D(2) or 790E” substitute “ 790D, 790E or 790EA”;(b) in subsection (2)(c), for “790D(5)” substitute “790DA”;(c) in subsection (2)(d), for “and 790H” substitute “, 790H and 790HA”;(d) in subsection (2)(e) for “section 790M” substitute “any of sections 12A, 790LA, 790LBA, 790LC, 790LCA, 790LCB, 790LD, 790LDA”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes provisions in Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 that are aimed at ensuring that a company has information about persons with significant control. It is connected with the other amendments to that Part made by or proposed to be made by the Bill. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This adjusts a heading in the material inserted into the Companies Act 2006, in consequence of my other amendments to Schedule 2. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“790LA Duty to notify registrar of confirmed persons with significant control(1) A company must give a notice to the registrar if it has had confirmation of—(a) a person’s status as a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(b) the required particulars of the person (see section 790K).(2) A notice under subsection (1) must contain a statement of the required particulars.(3) A notice under subsection (1) must be given within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company had confirmation as mentioned in that subsection.(4) A company is not required to give a notice under this section in relation to a person if—(a) the application for the registration of the company contained a statement of initial significant control naming the person as someone who would, on the company’s incorporation, become a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(b) the company has no cause to believe that at any time since its incorporation the person has ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company.(5) Nothing in section 126 (notice of trusts not receivable by registrar) affects the duty to give a notice under this section (or the receipt of that notice by the registrar).”Member’s explanatory statement
This means that a company will only need to notify the registrar of a person with significant control if the person has confirmed their status and information about them. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 224, lines 6 to 27. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 224, lines 6 to 27. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“790LBA Duty to notify registrar of unconfirmed persons with significant control(1) A company must give a notice to the registrar if—(a) it knows or has cause to believe that a person has become a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, but(b) it has not yet had confirmation as mentioned in section 790LA (1).(2) The notice must state that fact.(3) A notice under subsection (1) must be given within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company first knows or has cause to believe that the person has become a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company. (4) Nothing in this section requires a company, on its incorporation, to give a notice in relation to a person included in the statement of initial significant control under section 12A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires a company to notify the registrar if it knows or has cause to believe that someone has become a person with significant control but that fact, or the person’s required particulars, have not been confirmed. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“Duty to notify registrar of changes in required particulars”Member’s explanatory statement
This adds a new heading in the run of sections inserted into the Companies Act 2006, in consequence of my other amendments to Schedule 2. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
(a) has had confirmation that there has been a change in the required particulars of a registrable person, or a registrable relevant legal entity, in relation to the company (see section 790K), and(a) has had confirmation of how the required particulars have changed and the date on which they changed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This means that a company only has to notify the registrar of a change in the required particulars of a person with significant control if the person has confirmed details of the change to the company. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“(3) A notice under subsection (1) must be given within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company had confirmation as mentioned in that subsection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 4. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“Duty to notify registrar of person ceasing to be person with significant control etc”Member’s explanatory statement
This adds a new heading in the run of sections inserted into the Companies Act 2006, in consequence of my other amendments to Schedule 2. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“790LCA Duty to notify of pre-incorporation changes in required particulars(1) A company must give a notice to the registrar if it—(a) has had confirmation that there was a pre-incorporation change in the required particulars of a proposed PSC (see section 790K), and(b) has had confirmation of how the required particulars have changed and the date on which they changed.(2) But a company is not required to give a notice under subsection (1) in respect of a person if it has given a notice under section 790LD in respect of the person.(3) A notice under subsection (1) must state—(a) the change in the required particulars, and(b) the date on which the change occurred. (4) A notice under subsection (1) must be given within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company had confirmation as mentioned in that subsection.(5) In this section—“pre-incorporation change” means a change that occurred—(a) after the application for the registration of the company was delivered to the registrar, but(b) before the company was incorporated;“proposed PSC”, in relation to a company, means a person who was named in a statement under section 12A(1)(a) as a person who would, on the company’s incorporation, become a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company.”Member’s explanatory statement
This moves material currently in new section 790LD of the Companies Act 2006 and means that a company will only need to notify the registrar of pre-incorporation changes in the particulars of a person with significant control if the changes have been confirmed by the person. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“790LCB Duty to notify registrar when person ceases to have significant control(1) A company must give a notice to the registrar if it—(a) has had confirmation that a person has ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to it, and(b) has had confirmation of the date on which the person so ceased.(2) A notice under subsection (1) must state—(a) the person’s name and service address, and(b) the date on which the person ceased to be a registrable person or a registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company.(3) A notice under subsection (1) must be given within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company had confirmation as mentioned in that subsection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 224, lines 6 to 27. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 17 inserting a new 790LCA into the Companies Act 2006. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This changes the language of new section 790LD(1) of the Companies Act 2006 to conform with the language of the other notification duties in relation to persons with significant control (as amended). See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 17 inserting a new 790LCA into the Companies Act 2006. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 19. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 17 inserting a new 790LCA into the Companies Act 2006. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“790LDA Duty to notify registrar if company ceases to have persons with significant control(1) A company must give a notice to the registrar if it knows or has cause to believe that—(a) there has at some time been a person who is a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company, and(b) there has ceased to be anyone who is a registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company.(2) A notice under subsection (1) must —(a) state that the company has that knowledge or cause to believe, and(b) specify the date on which the company first had that knowledge or cause to believe.(3) A notice under subsection (1) must be given within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the company first had the knowledge or cause to believe mentioned in that subsection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This imposes a duty on a company to notify the registrar if there ceases to be any persons with significant control in relation to the company. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
(b) compliance with Chapter 2 by the company or any person to whom the company has given a notice under that Chapter (including provision requiring a company to provide the registrar with a copy of any such notice, whether on request or otherwise).”Member’s explanatory statement
This expands the regulation-making power to require a company to provide further information in relation to persons with significant control. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“(1A) The provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (1) includes provision amending this Part.(1B) The consequential provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (1) by virtue of section 1292(1) also includes provision amending any other provision of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would allow regulations under new section 790LE of the Companies Act 2006 (power to create further duties to notify information about persons with significant control) to amend the relevant Part of the Act and make consequential amendments to other parts of the Act. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 2 inserting a new section 790LBA into the Companies Act 2006. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendments to Schedule 2, page 225, lines 17 and 41. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 225, line 2 inserting a new section 790LBA into the Companies Act 2006. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendments to Schedule 2, page 225, lines 17 and 41. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
“17A_(1) Schedule 1B (enforcement of disclosure requirements in relation to persons with significant control) is amended as follows.(2) In each of the following provisions, for “or 790E” substitute “, 790DA, 790E or 790EA”—(a) paragraph 1(1)(a) and (3)(a);(b) paragraph 8(3)(a);(c) paragraph 11(a) and (b);(d) paragraph 12(2)(b).(3) For paragraphs 13 and 14 substitute—“Offence of failing to comply with notices13_(1) A person to whom a notice under section 790D, 790DA, 790E or 790EA is addressed commits an offence if the person fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the notice.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, the offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction—(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).Offence of failing to provide information14_(1) A person commits an offence if the person fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a duty under section 790G, 790H or 790HA.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, the offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction— (i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).False statements: basic offence14A_(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 790D, 790DA, 790E or 790EA or in purported compliance with a duty imposed by section 790G, 790H or 790HA , and without reasonable excuse, the person makes a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, the offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(c) in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.False statements: aggravated offence14B_(1) A person commits an offence if, in purported compliance with a notice under section 790D, 790DA, 790E or 790EA or in purported compliance with a duty imposed by section 790G, 790H or 790HA, the person makes a statement that the person knows is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.(2) Where the person is a legal entity, the offence is also committed by every officer of the entity who is in default.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction—(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine (or both);(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(iii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).””Member’s explanatory statement
This introduces a reasonable excuse defence for offences relating to a failure to comply with duties relating to persons with significant control. It also replaces the offences relating to false or misleading information with a strict liability offence (not dependent on knowledge) and an aggravated offence (where there is knowledge). See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendments to Schedule 2, page 225, lines 2, 17 and 41. See the Minister's undertaking at report stage (20 June, col. 149).
NHS Long-term Workforce Plan
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am absolutely sure that the Minister is as relieved as anyone to see this Statement on the NHS workforce plan before your Lordships’ House today, after many years of waiting and promises of it being published shortly, imminently, or at some time in a very extended spring.
The plan promises much, but it is the delivery that will count and the difference it will make to the health and well-being of the nation. But at the heart of it, its effectiveness will stand or fall on how successfully it joins up with other key aspects of the NHS and social care. It is not just about delivery: the commitment to updating the plan every two years is essential in the hope that it will be a lasting way out of the continuing workforce shortages that have blighted the NHS for many years. Ministers have a lot at stake and are investing a lot of hope in this workforce plan, not least because the lurch from crisis to crisis has to come to an end, with proper consideration of the long-term challenges ahead.
This long overdue plan started and continues its life against a backdrop of chronic NHS understaffing. It is long overdue. If it had been launched eight years ago, it would have been enough to fill the NHS vacancy levels—yet we have had to wait. Instead, the NHS is short of 150,000 staff, and this announcement will take years to have an impact, while patients continue to wait longer than ever before for operations, in A&E, or for an ambulance. While the plan is a positive step, it is only the first step. Much more detail is needed on how the plan will be implemented and what measures will be used to judge its success. What attention is being given to training staff and key leaders in what quality management looks like?
Retention is key, and the plan has little to say about that. The overall staff leaving rate increased from 9.6% in 2020 to 12.5% in 2022. The plan acknowledges the importance of retaining workers, offering more flexibility and improving the culture in the NHS, but it is light on detail about how it might do that. We know that more NHS strikes are planned—and that work culture, bullying and harassment continue to be a real issue, and nearly one in 10 staff experience discrimination. When will there be details on retention, pay and working conditions, such that they can add some detail on how retention might be improved in the NHS?
It is a missed opportunity that there is no social care workforce plan, especially as the NHS workforce plan identifies the impact that delayed discharge due to difficulties securing a social care package is having on patients and staff alike. Without such a plan, it will not be possible to enhance the quality of care and support provided by the NHS—they are inextricably linked. There are currently 165,000 vacancies in social care, an increase of 52% and the highest rate on record. Average vacancy rates across the sector are at nearly 11%, which is twice the national average. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that having an NHS-only plan will have on the social care workforce? Social care workers already seek jobs in the NHS, where pay and conditions are better. Does the Minister share my concern that an NHS-only plan is likely to exacerbate this situation and the number of vacancies in the social care workforce? Does the Minister consider that this will undermine the ambitions of the NHS plan?
As the King’s Fund rightly observed, the projections are likely to be based on ambitious assumptions. Yet there needs to be realism about the investment in buildings, technology and equipment that is needed to realise productivity gains. Can the Minister say whether and when we can expect plans relating to the various and absolutely crucial aspects of investment? Page 121 of the plan sets out a labour productivity rate of 1.5% to 2% per year. That was never achieved by the NHS or any other comparable health system, so what assumptions are being made in relation to achieving that?
The focus of the plan is crucial. It appears on reading to have been seen through a rather hospital-focused lens, so will the Minister ensure that the lens includes healthcare in the community? At the centre of this plan has to be the patient in all their different facets. In the consultations that took place in the lead-up to the development of this plan, could the Minister advise your Lordships’ House on how patient organisations were involved and which ones were consulted?
It appears that the plan seeks to look to the longer term. As happened in 2000, when the Labour Government of the time produced a 10-year plan of investment and reform which included seeking frequent staff increases, we will look to this workforce plan to make a difference to patients and care and the health and well-being of the nation in the same way as we saw come out of the plan in the year 2000. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I shall try not to be too grudging, as we have been calling for this plan for so long. I start by recognising the enormous amount of work that has gone into this from people working in the NHS and the department over a very long period, but the reality is that the plan is too late for those who are waiting for treatment today and are unable to get it, because the investment was not made in the workforce years ago for it to be available now on the front line. However, the plan certainly is substantive and there is much to welcome in it, looking forward. There are several areas where I hope the Minister can explain the Government’s thinking further.
First and perhaps most importantly, we need a similar, sister plan for the social care workforce. As we have discussed many times across these Benches, health and care work in symbiosis and both have seen too little supply to meet demand in recent years. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have no plans to further reduce capacity in social care by acceding to some of the requests from his political colleagues to limit visas being made available for essential social care staff? Can he say when the Government intend to release a sister plan to the NHS plan dealing with the social care workforce?
The plan also depends on ambitious productivity gains, and these will require certain things to be put in place. First, we need technology that will make life easier rather than more difficult for staff. Will the Minister explain what work is being done to understand how front-line staff in the NHS actually experience the technology they are being provided with, to ensure that we are not setting them back? Technology, when implemented well, leads to productivity increases, but technology poorly implemented can simply add to the frustrations of staff and make their jobs more difficult.
Another key factor in productivity is good management. This is a much less fashionable area to comment on than additional doctors and nurses, but the evidence seems to suggest that the National Health Service is actually quite lean in terms of its management. Will the Minister comment on what is in the plan to boost management capacity so that we can make savings on that other kind of consultant, the management consultant? Far too much is still being spent on externalising management expertise rather than building capacity within the service.
The final area I want to comment on is retention. The plan has hard numbers and new targets for getting new people into training but is much less precise on how we can improve staff retention over the long term. This is of course, quite importantly, a matter of pay and working conditions across all grades of staff. I invite the Minister to comment on some of the press stories we have seen saying that there seems to be some reluctance on the part of the Prime Minister to implement pay review body recommendations in full, something that he himself has said we should rely on to resolve issues particularly around junior doctors. Certainly, understanding that pay is important and that review body recommendations are going to be respected is critical for retention.
We can see that the Government have looked very closely at the specific factors that discourage senior doctors, in particular, from staying on as they approach retirement age. I suggest to the Minister that similarly detailed work needs to be done to understand the precise factors that are leading more junior staff at earlier stages in their career to leave the profession. Similar attention must be paid to resolving those specific issues if we are to address the retention problem.
One way we can motivate staff to stay on is through continuous professional development and retraining into more highly skilled roles, yet training opportunities can be constrained by the capacity of those delivering it. Can the Minister assure us that training opportunities will be provided for existing staff as well as new staff, so that we do not end up holding back Peter in order to train Paul? It will be net negative if we lose staff from the existing workforce through missed training opportunities as we bring in new staff. More generally, is there an understanding of how we are going to build up that capacity for training existing and new staff?
When I was younger, I had a teacher who would often write on my essays, “Okay as far as it goes”. This would annoy me, but with the benefit of wisdom and age I have to concede that it was often fair and accurate. Today, we might say that this plan, into which I know a huge amount of work has gone, is okay as far as it goes. We can be confident that it will really make a difference only if it is delivered in full, and in particular if there is a sister plan for the social care workforce and a real effort made on staff retention. I hope the Minister will comment on some of those aspects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I thank noble Lords. Before I answer their points, and while I shall not repeat the Statement, it would be remiss of me not to repeat one thing, which is about Lord Kerslake’s passing. Lord Kerslake inducted me into government many years ago when I was a non-exec director at the Ministry of Housing, as it was then, and I always found him a very wise head and a very kind man. I am sure that condolences go from all of us, and particularly from me.
I welcome the constructive responses from the opposite Benches. As we have said, a huge amount of work has gone into this plan from some 60 organisations, including royal colleges, and it is an NHS document. I must admit that while I will take the description from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, of “Okay as far as it goes”, I prefer the description of Amanda Prichard:
“This is a truly historic day for the NHS”.
On a personal note, I am very glad not to have to answer about how quickly it is coming any longer.
On the detailed comments, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said that this is a living document, with the two-year update, and that is a critical part. I agree with her that this is going to be effective only if it is a live document that we continue to review, amend and improve as time goes on. On the quality management of staff, this comes to the point about retention. There is no silver bullet, as we know. I liken it to the approach we see in the cycling, in the Tour de France, with Team Sky: there are lots of little things that you have to do and it is the collective effect of putting those things together which really makes the difference.
Clearly, pay is an important element of that; the point of view of the pay review body is clearly going to be very important; clearly, pensions are a big move; clearly, professional development is a big part of it, not just for new staff but absolutely for existing staff as well. It is also about the conditions that people work in; it is not just the culture and leadership but the place they work in as well. That is why I am pleased that the capital parts of this are seen as very important in driving the right culture and environment that people want to work in: these are key to retention and driving productivity. The new hospital programme is a very important part of that, and so is the capital programme generally.
Equally, technology is a key part of this, as mentioned before, and that includes front-line staff. Just on Friday, I was at Chelsea and Westminster, where they showed me at first hand how they found the databases they were using really helpful, with basic patient tracking, making sure they were following them through the whole care pathway and managing their whole journey, so to speak. They were using it and enjoying it, if that is the right word, and that was key.
The point about NHS management and leadership is very important; this plan looks at the medical side, but we all know that leadership is so important for the effectiveness of hospitals and a key part of this.
The noble Baroness mentioned the focus on hospitals. Clearly, hospitals are a very important part of this, but underlying that is a key shift towards primary care and prevention. If you delve into the details of the numbers, you will see that the level of people who need to be trained for primary care is going up and that they are becoming a bigger proportion of the workforce. I think we all agree that that should be the direction of travel. To deliver that, we will need to look at the capital estate behind this and make sure that we have the GP surgeries and everything else in the right places.
I turn to social care. The increase in medically trained people can only be a good thing for social care and the sector as a whole. However, social care is not included here. It is difficult. We can make an NHS plan because we are the employer behind the NHS; whereas there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different employers in social care so it is not for us to make that plan. However, it is for us to make sure that we increase the supply of medically trained people, as set out in this plan. We know how important international workers are to that; we recognise that and the importance of visas. Notwithstanding that, the value of this plan is that, eventually, it will reduce our dependence on the need to recruit internationally. We will see it go from about 25% of recruitment, as currently, to about 10% because we are increasing the supply base and the pool of people who can do that, rather than making a change on the visa front.
As ever, I have tried to cover most of the points raised in the time available. I will follow up in writing on the rest, but I conclude by welcoming this report.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming the report, I press my noble friend on a very interesting suggestion on page 79, where the Government propose a “tie-in period” to
“encourage dentists to spend a minimum proportion of their time delivering NHS care”.
There are a number of professions trained at public expense that are in short supply, including police, doctors and teachers. Why have dentists been selected? Is it proposed to broaden this policy to other areas trained at public expense that are in short supply?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. Dentists were pointed out in particular because so many of them go on to work not in the NHS but in private care settings. It is out for consultation, but I think that was the thinking behind it. For instance, even after five years, 93% of doctors are still registered and working in the health service; that is a lot lower in the dentist space. We are putting investment into that group and it is clearly perfectly reasonable to expect a return on that by a certain time.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has set out the aims and objectives of the plan, which we all welcome, but does he understand that, unless we fix the care system at the same time, this plan is bound to fail? It could make it even worse, with staff moving from the NHS and away from care services. How will joined-up government address the problem of under- recruitment and low morale in the care service, which will make this plan either succeed or fail?
Lord Markham (Con)
I would like to think, as I mentioned before, that increasing the supply and training of the whole medical profession would help the whole sector. This is quite close to my heart; as I have mentioned before, my mum became a nurse later on in life and went through an apprentice-type route, for want of a better phrase. Having different entry points is a very positive thing. I sincerely hope that people going into a social care environment will see that as a building block to onward career progression and that it will set them up to take further qualifications later on in life, if they wish, in the nursing profession. We are looking to expand the whole sector, and the general belief is that that will benefit both social care and the NHS.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is contributing remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, while this NHS plan is welcome, can the Minister say whether this Government will undertake to commit to the plan and, crucially, to its funding and not change the number of education and training places, as happened last year and in too many previous years, causing chaos in planning for doctors, nurses and allied healthcare professionals? On hospital training places for junior doctors after they have finished their medical school courses, last year 790 medical graduates could not begin their junior doctor in-hospital training because the NHS did not have enough placements. Given that university medical school places are already capped and highly competitive, this is a complete waste of newly qualified medical graduates.
Lord Markham (Con)
It is absolutely a pipeline; some people might say, “Why are you not doing more earlier in this plan?”, but, as the noble Baroness says, there is no point training a lot of people at the university end if you do not have junior doctor places later in the system. That is why we are trying to get a sensible ramp-up so that we can build capacity into those places, recognising the point that the noble Baroness makes. On the numbers in the plan, we have set down £2.4 billion for the first five years of training and development, but the point about it being a live plan is that we will update it every two years. Given the data—this is an NHS document, not a Department of Health one—I would expect those numbers to change, as I would be amazed if we got it spot on first time. The whole point about making this an NHS living document that we can use and which updates is that we can all stick to the plan.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome this workforce plan, in particular the expansion of places for training with a range of clinicians and the shift of gaze towards community care and prevention. Our anxiety very much mirrors that of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. We notice that page 23 of the report says:
“This Plan is predicated on access to social care services remaining broadly in line with current levels or improving”.
That is a jolly big assumption given that the Care Quality Commission report tells us that there are vacancies of 10.7% in adult social care and of 13.2% in the home care services. Without an equivalent plan for social care, in our view this admirable workforce plan is unsustainable, so will His Majesty’s Government publish an equivalent plan for social care?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I mentioned previously, the NHS plan is something that we or the NHS can publish, being the employer. With there being hundreds, if not thousands, of employers in social care, it is clearly a different situation. What we can do is make sure that we put the investment into the sector, so that there is pull through in the number of places. Over the next few years, we are looking at an increase of up to £7 billion, which is about 20%. We know that, of that £7 billion, around 65% to 70% flows through to staffing and wages. We are seeing a massive investment on our side, which we are looking to lots of employers to fulfil. By increasing the number of medically trained people, we will be increasing the supply base to fulfil that demand.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too thank and commend my noble friend the Minister, the Secretary of State and the leadership of the NHS for producing an extremely good plan. It is historic, not because it is the first time such a plan has been written but because it is the first time in 20 years such a plan has been published. The Minister has commented a couple of times that this is a living plan—one that will be updated at least every two years. Could he confirm that those updates will be published every two years, and that this House will be able to debate and discuss them?
Lord Markham (Con)
That is absolutely my understanding. For it to be a living document, people clearly need to have input and to be able to debate it in exactly the way we are doing here today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my membership of the GMC Council. The GMC has warmly welcomed the plan and its role in the expansion of medical education, the development of physician and anaesthesia associates, and the apprenticeship programme. I want to follow on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The key point the GMC has made is that it is absolutely essential that there are sufficient clinical and educational supervisors, particularly for the F1 grade—newly qualified doctors going into postgraduate training. NHS trusts will have to release more of their doctors to provide this. Is the department in touch with and talking to the chief executives of NHS trusts to ensure that, as the pipeline develops, there will be sufficient clinical supervision? This is essential in order to get the quality of doctors that we need.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is correct that it is essential. I emphasise that this is an NHS document, and the whole point is that it does not look to go “zoom” on recruitment. There is absolutely the understanding that this is a pipeline that has to be built brick by brick. There is no point front-loading the number of university places if, as the noble Lord mentions, there is no follow-up behind it in clinicians. The plan has been developed from the bottom up, including with clinicians and the trusts. There is an understanding that they need to build their own part of the pipeline towards this as well.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I welcome this ambitious and comprehensive workforce plan and I concur with other noble Lords on the issue of social care. On the specific issue of medical school places, while I strongly welcome and commend the Government for responding to the campaign of many people—including Policy Exchange and its excellent Double Vision report, published earlier this year—my concern is the waste of resources and the talents of those thousands of A-level students who do not get university places to study medicine. While I welcome the focus on degree apprenticeships and the regionalisation of medical education, is there any chance that we could speed up the process? Another eight years to double the number of medical places is an awfully long time—it is almost the equivalent of two Parliaments.
Lord Markham (Con)
As for the A-level point and those people not being able to go on to universities, that is what the different routes are about. The different pathways that we are talking about include nursing associate training places, which we want to see increased to 10,000, and similarly with physician associates. While we all understand that having a university education is a fantastic medical grounding, there are many other ways to get there. I am sure we all have very good examples of fantastic clinicians who did not have a degree.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I refer to my interest as chair of the General Dental Council. I welcome not only the whole document but the specific commitment within it to increase the number of dental training places by 40% by the beginning of the next decade. Does the Minister accept that simply increasing the number of dentists will not solve the problems of NHS dentistry if dentists decide that it is more lucrative for them to practise privately rather than through the NHS? This is only part of the process. If the solution to dealing with the problems of NHS dentistry is to essentially create a tied class of dentists who have trained and are therefore expected to work in the NHS, I am not sure that this will be sufficient.
I also raise a more general point which is nothing to do with dentistry specifically. Could the Minister tell the House what proportion in any one year of the number of people entering the workforce are expected to go into the NHS? My calculation suggests that they are expecting the figure to go up from 10% of those entering the workforce to 15%. What will incentivise that, and will it be addressed through the various pay processes that we have already referred to?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the work he does as chair of the GDC. He will know that this is something that is quite close to my heart, given that my better half is a dentist. I completely agree that it is about far more than just the training places. I think the House has heard me discuss this before, but if we are serious about dentists who have been in practice for 10 years setting up their own clinic, maybe in an NHS Digital desert, we must give them guidance and support, as it is quite an ask to do that. We plan to produce and publish a dental plan in the not-too-distant future, in which I hope and trust that a lot of these points will be covered.
The noble Lord is correct; I do not know the exact maths behind it, but we spend roughly 12% of our economy on the health sector and so it is not surprising that roughly that number would be expected to go into the NHS workforce. In some ways, that shows the magnitude of everything we are talking about today. Probably one in eight of all people leaving school will end up in this sector—that really is a number worth thinking about and pondering over. As we all agree, it shows why this plan is timely and why it must be a living document that is continually adjusted as we go forward.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this historic document. I concur with some of the concerns expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. Nevertheless, I believe it to be very significant. It addresses many important areas, such as apprenticeships and training, all of which I welcome. I could carp and say that we will check against delivery, and of course we need to. I hope we will have a proper debate on this plan at some stage, and I would welcome an assurance from the Minister on this. It merits a much longer debate; it is probably one of the most important issues that this House has discussed.
I am interested in dentistry because I recently visited my local dentist—a man of principle who converted a private practice into an NHS practice. I always get him to do my teeth, and he cleaned and scraped them and did all the necessary things, and he then took X-rays. I went to the desk to pay and the charge was £28.50— I could not get a plumber to come out for those prices.
If you do not reward NHS dentists—that dentist’s son and daughter are both practising dentists—they will inevitably go into private practice. If we are serious —I believe we are—about doing something, of course we have to look at the charges. I do not want to end on a negative note. I agree with those who have said that this is one of the most important issues that this House has discussed in a long time, and I welcome the Government’s actions.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. He is quite right to say that we need to check against delivery and he is quite right to hold us to account on that. Personally, I am happy to commit whatever time we need to debate this because I completely agree on how important it is. As I say, it is quite sobering when you think about the figures: as we said, we expect one in eight school leavers to go and work in this sector, so we almost cannot spend too much time on that.
As I say, the dental plan will be published shortly, and making sure that the balance is right, and that it is seen as an attractive option to be an NHS dentist versus working in the private sector, is absolutely an important part of that as well.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome this plan and in particular the fact that we will start to deliver more homegrown healthcare workers; in fact, the WHO has applauded us for these moves because there is such an international shortage, not because overseas workers are not welcome here.
I want to ask one question. I very much support the concept of apprenticeships, but professional workers on registers, be that nursing, medicine, physiotherapy or paramedicine, expect apprenticeships to be degree-level apprenticeships, accepting that the entire workforce will not be graduates but that registered clinicians should be. Can the Minister please clarify that issue?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. The whole idea of the apprenticeship is that the standard that you are training to is absolutely the same, albeit obviously you are getting there via a different route. However, as regards the capability, training and knowledge of that person, clearly, whichever route they have come from, they need to be at that same required level. That is why the royal colleges have been such an important part in the development of this whole plan.
Water Industry: Financial Resilience
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, back in December last year, Ofwat outlined concerns about the financial resilience of several water companies, and now we see that the ratings agency S&P has negative outlooks for two-thirds of the UK water companies that it rates because they are overleveraged and beholden to too much debt that was taken on in an era of low interest. How does the Government’s assessment of the overall resilience of water companies compare with that analysis? Have the Government looked at the impact on customers of these financial deficits, and how will they encourage investment into much-needed infrastructure in order to secure reliable and sustainable water supplies for the future?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. First, this will not impact on customers. Their bills are regulated by agreement with the regulator, Ofwat, and we do not expect any reduction in service—that is also strictly monitored. We think that investment by water companies into our water sector infrastructure is important, which is why we have agreed that there will be the largest-ever investment—£56 billion—to see our infrastructure further improve.
Since privatisation, £190 billion of capital investment has been made. In real terms, that is twice what was happening at the same rate prior to privatisation. We have also seen improvements in the provision of water for customers, and we want to see that continue. We look very carefully at, and work with, Ofwat and the water sector on concerns about leverage—I share the noble Baroness’s concern about some of the companies’ degree of leverage. It is interesting that the level dropped last year from 72%, where it was in 2021, to 68%, which was roughly the same as it was in 2005, having risen from 37% when the previous Government were in position. However, Thames Water in particular has a much higher leverage rate, which has rightly caused concern for the Government and the regulator. That is why we are working with it to make sure that it is viable. We believe that with £4.4 billion of liquidity in its business, it can trade through this.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Thames Water is not the only company causing concern: Southern Water, Yorkshire Water and South West Water were mentioned in the other place. Last year, £1.4 billion was paid out in dividends. Meanwhile, sewage poured into waterways, flooding affected many areas, and others had their water delivered in bottles. Ofwat cannot solve these problems. Surely it is time for the Government to take back control and sort out this essential service.
Lord Benyon (Con)
We think that the model that operates at the moment is the right one. We have seen more investment, but if the Government took back control, that would, in effect, put the onus back on the taxpayer. That would mean that I or the Secretary of State would have to get in the queue behind the health service, pensions, and all other areas of government spending to get the right levels of capital investment we need in the water industry.
We think that the £56 billion can be afforded at a relatively modest increase of around £12 per household. For roughly £1.20 a day, households receive the water they need and sewage and dirty water are removed from their homes, and there has been a massive increase in spending on the infrastructure we need, some of which is still in need of changes. Through this model, we have delivered a better outcome for the consumer and for the taxpayer. We have concerns, and I share the noble Baroness’s concerns, certainly about the issues relating to Thames Water and one or two other companies. Ofwat has been proactive in trying to resolve the concerns with those companies, and we are watching the situation very closely.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG on Water. My noble friend will recall that alarm bells rang some years ago when a number of water companies were based offshore in places such as the Cayman Islands, which seems singularly inappropriate. I congratulate my noble friend on putting in the statutory and legal effect that dividends and bonuses must now be linked to environmental performance. Does he imagine that that will have an immediate effect or will it take some weeks and years before it comes into force?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I welcome the fact that overseas investors want to invest in our regulated utilities sector. We must remember that actions that Governments take on one element of the regulated utilities sector can have impacts right across it, but I appreciate the comments from my noble friend. We have introduced new legislation to support our ambitions to bring into force stronger powers for our regulators to tackle pollution and improve transparency with the public so we can hold water companies and polluters to account. Through the Environment Act 2021, we have also introduced a statutory duty for water companies to achieve a progressive reduction in the adverse impacts of discharges from storm overflows. This is in addition to new, legally binding targets to significantly reduce pollution from farming, wastewater and abandoned metal mines; and the water demand target to reduce leakage, increase the resilience of supplies and leave more water in the environment.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister can clarify two points for me. In the other place, the Minister mentioned £190 billion of investment by water companies. That does not seem right, because it appears to me that companies are capitalising repair and maintenance costs, which is contrary to good accounting practice. Could the Minister check on that? Secondly, looking at the last two years’ accounts of Thames Water Utilities’ holding company, I see dividends of £70 million, plus £452 million interest paid on loans from other group undertakings. That sounds incredibly suspicious and is a form of profit-shifting and tax abuse. Please can the Minister get his colleagues, or his own department, to look at those things and report to the House.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The £190 billion is the amount water companies, with regulator approval, have invested in our water infrastructure. Thames Water has not paid out any dividends to its investors, but it has paid out dividends to its holding company to finance its borrowings. In 2017-18, it was £55 million; in 2021-22, it was £37 million; and it has since been, roughly speaking, around and between that. The figure is lower this year than it has been in the past. It has also recently secured from investors a further £500 million, and, as I said earlier, its liquidity, at about £4.4 billion, means that it is a viable trading company.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it seems to me that there is a real cultural arrogance within the management of water companies, and a feeling that however fast and loose they play with financial engineering, they are too important to fail. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I can speak only across the whole range, and there are some very good, well-run water companies and some to which, in the past, I would have applied some of the words that the noble Lord used. I think the message has really come home to roost, not least from this place and the other place, but also from a general feeling of anger among the wider population about the degree of pollution. One reason for that anger is that we have provided the public with the information, and I am extremely proud that we did. We used to know about 5% of the sewage outflows; we now know about nearly 95%, and by the end of this year it will be 100%. We have made that information public—you can see it on Twitter almost every day—and I am really pleased that people can hold their water companies to account. I have certainly questioned some of the practices of certain water companies, but I think the model is right and we need to get behind it, as did the previous Labour Government. I hope that all future Governments of any persuasion will recognise that this is the best way to get significant investment into protecting our environment for the future.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 View all Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 June 2023 - (20 Jun 2023)
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, we are here to debate the annual finance Bill, introduced in the House of Commons following the Budget on 15 March. At the Budget, my right honourable friend the Chancellor was clear-sighted about the global headwinds we are facing. We are all familiar with the challenge on inflation as we work through the impacts of the pandemic and of the energy crisis triggered by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
In the face of these challenges, the Prime Minister has set out his key economic priorities: to halve inflation, get our national debt falling and secure economic growth. The finance Bill we are debating today is an essential plank in our plan to deliver this. It takes forward measures to support enterprise and grow the economy by encouraging business investment and helping to increase the number of people in work. It legislates for announcements made at previous fiscal events which take advantage of our opportunities outside of the EU and which reinforce our commitment to financial stability and sound money, and it implements the tax measures needed to continue improving and simplifying our tax system to ensure it is fit for purpose.
I turn to the substance of the Bill in those areas, starting with measures to support growth. This Government recognise how important private sector investment is to growth. That is why the Chancellor has set out his long-term vision to make the UK an attractive location for innovators and entrepreneurs, with a particular focus on key growth sectors of digital technology, green industries, life sciences, advanced manufacturing and the creative industries.
That is also why this Bill lowers business taxes to incentivise investment and tackle the productivity gap. Following the end of the super-deduction, the Bill introduces full expensing for the next three years. This means that for every single pound a company invests in qualifying plant or machinery, its taxes are cut by up to 25p. This will result in a corporation tax cut worth £9 billion that the OBR has said will increase investment by 3% for every year it is in place. It will also make us the only major European country with full expensing and give us the joint most generous capital allowance regime of any advanced economy—securing the UK’s position as a global leader.
The Government are committed not only to supporting the growth of established businesses but to providing a boost to start-ups and young companies. The Bill therefore legislates for an increase in the amount of seed enterprise investment scheme funding that companies can raise over their lifetime from £150,000 to £250,000, an increase in the company gross asset limit from £200,000 to £350,000, an increase in the company age limit from two to three years and an increase in the annual investor limit from £100,000 to £200,000. It also introduces changes to the enterprise management incentives, or EMI, scheme to simplify the process to grant options and reduce the administrative burden on participating companies, as well as changes to the company share option plan, or CSOP, rules and limits. Since 6 April 2023, qualifying companies have been able to issue up to £60,000 of CSOP options to employees, which is double the current £30,000 limit. These changes provide a boost to young companies by widening access to the schemes and increasing the limits, encouraging additional investment and helping to attract talent.
To encourage research and development, the Bill legislates for previously announced reforms to R&D tax reliefs, such as changes to support modern research methods by expanding the scope of qualifying expenditure for R&D reliefs to include data and cloud computing costs, and a range of measures to reduce error and fraud to ensure that our tax reliefs are well targeted and offer value for money. By encouraging more businesses to invest in R&D, this Government are helping them to create the technologies, products and services which advance living standards.
The finance Bill will also extend for another two years the current 45% and 50% rates of tax relief for theatres, orchestras and museums. This builds on wider support for the sector through the cultural recovery fund and the public bodies infrastructure fund, and will continue to offset ongoing pressures and boost investment in our cultural sectors.
The Bill will also support the Government’s ambitions for employment. To achieve the dynamic economy we all want and to support action to halve inflation, we need to get more people back into work. This means removing the barriers that stop people who want to work from doing so.
The Government recognised that senior clinicians felt they had to leave the workforce just when the NHS needs them most because of unexpected tax charges on their pension. To make sure that they and those in other professions are not deterred from working, this Bill increases the pensions annual allowance to £60,000. The Bill also removes the lifetime allowance charge altogether. This will incentivise our most experienced and productive workers across our economy to stay in work for longer, easing pressures in the economy while increasing the knowledge and experience of the UK’s labour force.
It is vital that the growth this Bill will support is felt across all corners of the United Kingdom and not concentrated in London and the south-east. The Spring Budget set out the creation of 12 new investment zones, helping to spread the benefits of economic growth around the UK, with at least one zone in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government continue to work with stakeholders to establish how investment zones will be best delivered in these areas. This Bill will deliver important aspects of that ambition. It will ensure that investment zones have access to a single optional five-year tax offer in specific sites, matching that in freeports. This will consist of enhanced rates of capital allowances, a structures and buildings allowance, full relief from stamp duty land tax and business rates, and a reduced rate of employer national insurance contributions.
This finance Bill will also deliver on previous commitments, including delivering on the UK’s freedom to set its own course outside the EU. Among these opportunities was a major review of the alcohol duty system on which the Government have worked closely with industry over the past two years. The UK can now implement a system that aligns with public health goals and is fairer for hard-working producers. The Bill simplifies the alcohol duty regime and moves to a progressive tax structure in which products are taxed according to their strength. It also legislates for two reliefs, draught relief and a new small producer relief, which will support a wider range of small businesses to grow and provides a recognition of the vital role that pubs and other on-trade venues play in our communities.
We are also able to take action to better connect our country. As announced in the Autumn Budget 2021, this Bill delivers a package of air passenger duty reforms that will bolster air connectivity across the UK through a 50% cut in domestic APD. The new domestic rate applies to flights between airports in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, benefiting more than 10 million passengers this year. These reforms will also further align with the UK’s environmental objectives by adding a new ultra-long-haul distance band, ensuring that those who fly the furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty.
This finance Bill takes forward measures that support sustainable public finances, helping to provide the stability and confidence that underpin the economy and supporting businesses and households across the country. The Bill legislates for a tax on the extraordinary electricity generator returns resulting from the spike in gas prices driven by Russia’s war. This will raise billions of pounds over the next five years to help fund public services and the interventions to support households and businesses with increased energy bills. We are also taking steps to decouple electricity and gas prices permanently by reforming the energy market and using technologies such as energy storage to balance the system and reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels.
To further ensure that businesses pay their fair share of tax, the Bill contains significant measures to protect the UK tax base against aggressive tax planning and reinforce the UK’s competitiveness. This Bill implements the G20-OECD pillar 2 rules in the UK, building on the historic agreement reached with more than 135 countries and jurisdictions and brokered by the current Prime Minister during the UK’s 2021 G7 presidency. This is a two-pillar solution to the tax challenges of a globalised digital economy. Pillar 2 will ensure that multinational enterprises pay a minimum tax rate of 15% in each jurisdiction in which they operate, meaning that those companies operating in the UK will contribute their fair share. The UK is implementing the global minimum tax in unison with many of our international peers, such as Germany, France and Ireland—indeed, all EU member states—as well as Japan, Australia, South Korea and Canada. Acting alongside others is crucial in meeting the aims of this global reform while ensuring that the top-up taxation on UK operations is not imposed by other countries.
Finally, the Government want to deliver a tax system that is simple, fair and fit for purpose. As announced last year, this Bill legislates for the abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification. Rather than an arm’s-length body to oversee simplification, this Government set a clear mandate for officials in the Treasury and HMRC to put tax simplification at the heart of policy-making. A great example of this introduced by the Bill is the previously announced permanent £1 million limit on the annual investment allowance. This measure allows businesses to write off the cost of qualifying plant and machinery investment in the first year up to £1 million, simplifying the tax treatment of capital expenditure for 99% of businesses. As is usual for a finance Bill, this Bill also legislates for a range of administrative changes to deal with technical issues, improving and modernising the tax system and making it easier for businesses to interact with it.
To conclude, this finance Bill takes forward important measures that are needed to support enterprise and growth, including incentivising investment and supporting employment, including in the NHS. It seizes freedoms that are available now that we are outside the EU. It deals with threats to the sustainability of our public finances posed by the energy crisis and international tax avoidance. It supports our long-standing goals to modernise and simplify the tax system. This delivers on an important part of the Government’s commitments made in the Spring Budget to long-term economic growth. For these reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her speech. This Bill fails to address the fundamental problems that we all face. Economic recovery is hampered because the Government have depleted people’s disposable income through real wage cuts, high inflation, high interest rates and high taxes. This Bill depletes incomes even further by continuing the freeze on personal allowance and income tax thresholds. Without adequate income, people simply cannot buy goods and services and there will not be investment.
The poorest fifth of households in this country pay 22.9% of their income in indirect taxes. The richest fifth pay 9.1%. The Government could have helped the poorest by cutting the rate of VAT or even abolishing VAT on domestic fuel, but they have not done so.
There is nothing in the Bill for women although they are on the receiving end of real wage cuts. The majority of public sector workers are female and their wages have been cut in real terms—so this Bill does not help women either.
Tax cuts for the rich are disguised as tax relief on pension contributions; the Bill estimates that they may be worth more than £1.1 billion a year. The Government say that this is really to help doctors but, of course, it helps accountants, lawyers, architects, engineers and many others too—and the Government are inflicting a real wage cut on doctors as well, which does not help in any way.
The Bill offers nothing to the millions of people who earn less than £12,570 a year or the 28.8 million basic rate taxpayers. The biggest winners are the rich, who will benefit from the pension tax changes. Can the Minister explain why tax cuts for the rich are not matched by tax cuts for low-income and middle-income earners?
The Bill is also unjust. It taxes salaries and wages at rates between 20% and 45% but capital gains are taxed at between 10% and 28%. Why is the return on the investment of human capital taxed more heavily? Why are the Government taxing workers highly? The recipients of capital gains also do not pay any national insurance, even though they use the NHS and social care. Why are they given a free ride? I hope that the Minister can explain that.
There is a sleight of hand on corporation tax. The headline rate will go up from 19% to 25%, but it is estimated that only 10% of companies will pay that because of numerous tax reliefs, some of which the Minister mentioned. Can the Minister say now, as we are possibly heading towards a recession, how many companies will pay the full tax rate of 25%?
The Bill does not expand the tax base at all. It does not consider a financial transaction tax, wealth tax, sugar tax, salt tax or any other tax, which would at least broaden the tax base. None of that is there.
The Government’s central claim is that lower corporation tax rate will somehow encourage investment. Well, we had a corporation tax rate of 19% from 2016 to 2022. That era also had low interest rates, a low inflation rate, negative real wage growth and high tax incentives, but that did not lead to any higher investment. I hope that the Minister can explain the real reasons why the UK is a laggard in investment.
On the basis of private and public sector investment in the UK, the OECD ranks the UK 35th in its league of international investment—below Portugal, Lithuania, Latvia, Mexico, Colombia and Costa Rica. That is a total policy failure, yet all the Government are doing is repeating the same thing—which will get exactly the same results. Hopefully, the Minister will confirm that.
The OBR says that the 4% loss of UK productivity is due to Brexit, but nothing in the Bill or any ministerial Statement deals with Brexit. The Government say they are creating 12 new investment zones and that the businesses operating inside them will receive £80 million over five years. Well, the cost of that will be borne by people outside. Why penalise those who operate outside those investment zones? The OBR says that the Government have not provided enough information to enable it to
“estimate the impacts that these investment zones might have”.
Can the Minister provide us with an estimate of what will happen inside these investment zones?
A few days ago, HMRC published its tax-gap figures. It said that it failed to collect £36 billion of taxes for the year 2021-22, mainly due to avoidance, evasion, fraud and error. Adding up the years from 2010, that is about £450 billion. Other models estimate the number to be over £1,500 billion. What is the Government’s response? It is to cut HMRC’s budget from £5.9 billion for 2022-23 to £5.6 billion in 2023-24 and £4.6 billion in 2024-25. Dealing with tax abuse is a labour-intensive job, but the Government are not providing resources to HMRC.
On 23 March 2023, in response to my Written Question, the Minister said that only eight enablers who devised the tax abuses—accountants, lawyers, bankers—had been prosecuted in the last two years. That is pitiful. The Government clearly are soft on tax cheats and, despite strong court judgments, have failed to investigate, fine or prosecute even one of the big accounting firms. I challenge the Minister to name even one, if she can. I will never ask this question again, so I hope that the Minister will rise to that challenge and tell us which of the big four accounting firms is being challenged. In Australia, the Government have come down hard on PwC. Here, we give it public contracts. We reward it. That is a real failure of the Government.
Can the Minister explain why HMRC’s budget is being cut and why the Government are soft on the tax abuse industry—especially the big accounting firms?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am a chartered accountant and member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and a member by qualification of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I am pleased to welcome this excellent finance Bill and congratulate the Minister and her team on it. I hope that she will not be seduced by the siren calls of my noble friend to confuse capital and income. Taxation on capital is taxation on a risk, where capital may appreciate or may be lost, and therefore merits a different rate from taxation on income, where one is paid a salary by another person without any risk whatever. That is why the rates are different.
It is a great credit to the Chancellor and my noble friend the Minister that His Majesty’s Treasury is tackling a number of difficult issues head-on. I congratulate them on producing 350 clauses and 460 pages with the perennial plea for less not more, which I quite appreciate is difficult to achieve. I also appreciate that they would probably ask the same of me. So I will focus on a few key areas, the first being R&D tax credits. I had the honour to serve as chairman of the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee, which looked into research and development tax relief and expenditure credit. We looked at this area because the sums are enormous. In this regard I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, will agree with me. Since the scheme started, it is estimated to have cost £46.8 billion, and some £7 billion in the most recent year.
What concerned us greatly was the level of fraud, which was estimated to be some £500 million but is so unquantifiable that the National Audit Office has qualified its accounts of HMRC due to this single issue. Research and development are crucial to our economic success. I know from the response that the Minister in the other place gave to our report that HMRC has studied it carefully and will honour the commitment to keep listening and improving the system, particular in respect of the new requirements to give notice.
I ask my noble friend to have regard to the detailed comments from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, particularly in respect of the new powers that HMRC has to remove a claim. I am all in favour of giving HMRC new powers to stop suspected fraud but, as I read the wording, it seems flawed. For example, there is no right of appeal. We all want to stop the ambulance chasing that we have seen by rogue operators seeking credits for clients and then taking a percentage of the amount that is claimed. However, there remains concern about the nature of the additional information to be required and, of course, HMRC’s ability to capture and process all this.
Since our report was published, I have been contacted by practitioners highlighting real concerns. I have been sent a detailed letter by Mr Stuart Rogers of PKF accountants, which he sent to the Minister in the other place, in which he describes his frustration at HMRC’s compliance team not having the necessary training and skills in research and development. He points to clients now thinking of transferring their R&D to the United States, and to other high-tech clients who have been refused credit where it is clearly due. That is not good news. Will my noble friend agree to hear specific complaints that the R&D compliance check team is causing havoc, and satisfy herself that action needs to be taken here?
Just today, the Chartered Institute of Taxation wrote to HMRC with 11 pages of concerns. In particular, it says that the feedback from its members is that the way that R&D inquiries are being conducted by the individual and small business compliance team remains concerning. Further problems, for example around how penalties are being assessed and how inquiries are being concluded, are emerging as cases progress. The institute wrote:
“We are receiving a significant number of reports from our members about the difficulties that are being encountered in practice and they have provided numerous examples of unfairness and negative taxpayer/agent experience in their interactions with the ISBC team in respect of R&D”.
I will ensure that my noble friend receives a copy of that letter.
I will briefly mention the energy profits levy, as amended in the finance Bill. It is a really important part of the Bill and has caused havoc in the sector. The price floor will never bite—unless, heaven forbid, there is another six-month lockdown. Consequently, there has been a real flight of capital, mainly to oil and gas exploration elsewhere, specifically Asia. We need a long-term—six to 10-year—energy security policy that includes a sensible real price floor. I have made this case before and will continue to do so.
The final area that I will talk about is the taxation of multinationals. I have spoken on this issue many times in this House. Sad person that I am, I made this the subject of my maiden speech. I very much welcome the Government’s move in this direction to deal with base erosion and profit shifting on a two-pillar basis. Pillar 1 seeks to ensure that multinationals with revenues over €20 billion pay taxes where their customers are based. Pillar 2 looks for a minimum 15% tax rate for companies with presence here and revenues of over €750 million. This Bill sets out more details on pillar 2.
There are some 50 amendments to Part 3 of the Bill to try to deal with this very difficult and complicated problem of definitions, safe harbours, exemptions and so on. Creating new definitions of profit is a real challenge, but it is the only way the income inclusion rule can possibly work.
Very recently, HMRC helpfully established draft partial guidance for consultation in relation to the UK’s implementation of the OECD’s pillar 2 rules. It provides a helpful map showing how existing UK draft legislation cross-references to the OECD’s GloBE model rules, commentary and agreed administrative guidance. I accept the argument made by CIOT and others that pillar 2 may not necessarily generate more tax for the UK coffers, because multinationals may just raise the lower tax rates they currently pay in other countries. However, that does not mean that this is not the right way forward; it is the right way forward.
I noted Priti Patel’s comments on this issue in the other place. She is concerned that we end up gold-plating rules, as we tend to do, and we are hamstrung by other rules at exactly the time when, finally, post the Windsor Framework, we can liberate ourselves to determine our own tax policy. As the Minister knows, I am very keen that we do that, particularly on EIS and SEIS issues. I noted her opening comments about how she has increased the rate of SEIS particularly, which is very welcome.
Priti Patel has had assurances from the Chancellor that the Government have committed to regularly updating the Commons on what the OECD is proposing in respect of pillar 2. Can the Minister repeat this assurance to our House that updates on policing pillar 2 will be presented to your Lordships, and will she commit to presenting an assessment of the progress countries are making on pillars 1 and 2 and on the policy itself? It will not work unless every other major country adopts it.
The whole world should recognise the UK Government’s track record of leadership on international tax reform. It has continued in this role and been an early mover in implementing pillar 2 rules. We need the USA in particular to do likewise with Biden’s proposals, and I am keen to know what steps HMRC is taking to pressure other countries to follow our lead. Personally, I was a fan of a reformed digital services tax, which Labour has now abandoned, but I could not persuade HMT to bring it in, so we need to make this alternative route of pillar 2 work.
To reiterate, this is the right way forward and the Government are to be commended for pursuing it.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the privilege of saying a few remarks in the gap. I will refer to the change in the lifetime allowance. As noble Lords will recall, this change was initially mooted because pensions anomalies were occurring in respect of better-paid consultants in the National Health Service. Then the Government decided to abolish the lifetime allowance altogether, thus creating a tax giveaway, estimated at the time at £1 billion. As the noble Baroness said in her speech, it was given to the
“most experienced and productive workers”.
Since this is just the top 1% of earners in this country, does she not think the other 99% might be rather offended by her words? Would it not be politic to withdraw that phrase when she sums up?
When the LTA was abolished, it was realised that there would be a significant impact on inheritance tax. At the time of the Budget, I asked the Minister what the impact would be and she was unable to give me a figure. Can she tell me now what the impact on inheritance tax revenues was, and therefore what the total tax giveaway from the abolition of the LTA has been? Will she also confirm that this tax giveaway is being funded by the Government’s increased borrowing? In doing so, will she give her assessment of the impact of this increased borrowing and government indebtedness on the rate of inflation?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this is a Bill of limited scope, despite its enormous size and the Explanatory Notes. It covers a range of issues and, typically, we have debated nearly all of them in this House before, so I will limit my comments. There is a fair amount in the Bill that is not satisfactory.
I start with the issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, focused: tax credits for research and development. As this House knows, the Government scrapped their original and rather generous scheme because, they claimed, there was so much fraud in the system. I would have preferred that they found a way to deal with the fraud, rather than remove that support to a wide range of SMEs. The Bill brings in a tax credit scheme for SMEs that are heavily engaged in R&D, but it ignores the many other SMEs that had planned on an understanding that the old scheme would be available to them, made a series of investments and undertook a great deal of development. Those programmes have now been interrupted or shelved, because the cuts have not just deprived those companies of tax relief but had the knock-on effect of drying up private funding. There are limited financing options for growing SMEs in the UK.
My colleagues in the other place put down amendments to require a review of the impact of the change in reliefs on SMEs—on their funding, job creation and, more broadly, UK economic growth. The flip-flopping which this policy represents is one of the reasons for the pervasive uncertainty that is undermining growth in the UK economy. I would be glad if the Minister could tell me whether there will be a broader review.
I will pick up an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, focused on. The Bill includes an increase in the annual tax-free allowance for pension contributions and the abolition of the lifetime allowance. This should stem the loss of senior doctors, military personnel and others in the public sector who had been put in the ridiculous situation of receiving incremental salary only to find that it triggered incremental taxes far greater than that salary. I honestly suspect that this could have been done through a much more targeted and far less costly set of reforms. It really feels wrong to spend £1 billion a year on some of the best off in our workforce. Will the Government look at a much more targeted approach to achieve this goal, rather than this wider, sweeping giveaway? The scheme fails to touch even the tip of our labour shortage problems, which is where one would have thought this money would be focused. Right now, businesses in the UK and the public sector are foundering for lack of staff.
We have talked endlessly about the windfall tax on oil and gas, and I will not repeat my concerns in that arena. My colleagues in the other place sought to strengthen this country’s green policies with amendments to the Bill to allow generators of renewable energy to offset money reinvested in renewable projects against the energy generator levy. It is offensive that the fossil fuel industry can offset investments, but not renewable generators. When I read this, I felt it was no wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was so scathing about the current environmental commitment in his resignation letter.
Ironically, the Bill abolishes the Office of Tax Simplification, presumably because it is viewed as unnecessary, but it does so just as it introduces far more complexity into the tax system—a point highlighted not by my colleagues but by Harriett Baldwin, Conservative chair of the Treasury Select Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, the two top-up taxes designed to discourage profit shifting are welcome but, as he pointed out, they are not going to deliver a lot more money to the Treasury. It is good to get thinking about this area and to try to work through the complexity; but let us not pretend that this will be a flow of cash into the Treasury’s coffers.
Frankly, the problem with the full expensing of capex is that it is a short-term stimulus for three years. All that means is that you upfront expenditure and then drop off expenditure when that period is over. The benefit is an extremely limited stimulus.
I received an email very late in the day from the Local Government Association. I will be very quick in mentioning its contents. It is a real expression of regret from the industry, which the Minister should hear, that the Bill was not used to deal with concerns about the implementation of the building safety levy. As the Minister will know, that was originally designed to deal with high-rise development activity, reflecting the greater building safety risk. However, the Government have broadened its scope to cover frankly all development. It could be rolled into other forms of taxation, such as the residential property developer tax. As it stands, it requires
“309 local authorities to set up separate, individual processes to act as a collection and administration agency for the Levy—with all funds raised being returned to Government.”
It is hugely inefficient and very unreasonable. Frankly, if we kept the Office of Tax Simplification, it would have jumped on that issue.
From listening to the Government in the debates on the finance Bill, one would have assumed that all was well with the UK economy. My great fear is that the Government simply do not understand how dire the cost of living crisis is for so many people. Recent reports that many have exhausted their Covid savings is not good news. The voluntary mortgage contract, much touted by the Government, will delay for some the immediate impact of interest rate rises but those high rates—they will be even higher because of the measures people will undertake—will still undermine family finances for both owners and renters.
Inflation in the UK remains stubbornly high. By contrast, eurozone inflation has fallen to 5.5%. Last week, the Minister claimed that lots of other European countries had higher inflation than the UK. I looked at the numbers, and I realised that she and the Government have taken to comparing the UK not with major economies such as Germany or France but with Hungary and Estonia. When did our economy, in the Government’s eyes, become comparable with those of Hungary and Estonia rather than those of other G7 countries?
Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, rose last month to 7.1%. That is the number that is driving interest rate increases and that captures the sheer economic incompetence of this Government, as well as their wholly inadequate trade relationship with Europe post-Brexit: the sharp drop in exports, British firms removed from supply chains, a collapse in business investment, the fall in sterling, customs friction driving up the cost of imports, labour shortages, and incredibly low productivity.
This finance Bill is a missed opportunity. It could have dealt with so much. It seems to confirm that the Government’s primary goal is to engineer a pre-election tax giveaway next year because the fiscal rules might possibly allow it. All I can say to the Government is that the British people will not be fooled.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the Spring Budget that this finance Bill seeks to implement was billed as a “Budget for growth”, yet growth in the UK is barely above 0%, the UK remains one of only two G7 economies to be smaller than before the pandemic, and productivity growth in the UK is the second lowest in the G7. Now, despite growth flatlining, the UK economy is already overheating. Inflation is stuck at 8.7%: the highest in the G7 and the highest in the UK since 1990. Core inflation last month rose to 7.1% —a 31-year high—while in other advanced economies, including in the eurozone and the US, it has started to fall. With growth stalled, one of the Chancellor’s most senior economic advisers has even now called on the Bank of England to “create a recession” to deal with the UK’s persistent inflation problem—a far cry from a Budget for growth.
Last autumn, the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget sent markets into meltdown. Since then, things have only got worse. Today, with inflation higher for longer than in similar economies, the two-year gilt yield stands at 5.38%—a new 15-year high, and above its US equivalent. It is the hard-working people of this country who are paying the price. Interest rates have risen 13 times to a 15-year high of 5%. The average two-year fixed-rate mortgage has increased from 2.6% to well over 6%, and average mortgage costs will this year increase by £2,900 per year. These increases in mortgage payments come after 13 years of low growth and stagnant wages, the biggest fall in living standards since records began and 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone—increases that have pushed the tax burden to its highest level for 70 years.
Spending public money is about priorities; it is about making choices to spend wisely and tax fairly. That is important at any stage for any Government, but in the middle of a cost of living crisis, when household budgets are stretched and mortgage payments are rising relentlessly, after 13 interest rate rises and 25 tax rises, it is more important than ever that we see a fair tax system and a plan to raise the living standards of everyone, in all parts of our country.
Let us look at the priorities for this Government, as revealed by what is included in, and what is absent from, this finance Bill. Although the Bill contains no mention of introducing stealth tax rises for working people, as my noble friend Lord Sikka observed, we know that is exactly what the Government are doing. We know that, in the Budget of March 2021 and the Finance Act that followed it, the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, froze the basic rate limit and personal allowance for four years. In the recent Autumn Statement of 2022 and in the Finance Act that followed, the current Chancellor extended those freezes by a further two years. Now, following this Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that the Government’s six-year freeze in the personal allowance will take its real value in 2027-28 back down to its level in 2013-14.
We called for the freeze in fuel duty and the provisions to ensure that large multinationals pay a minimum level of 15% tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate, so we of course welcome those measures, but while the tax burden for working people is up, other important measures we have been calling for to make the tax system fairer are nowhere to be found in this Bill. There is nothing to close the loopholes in the windfall tax on oil and gas giants, which we have been urging the Government to do for so long. We pressed for an extension of the energy price freeze for many months, and we were glad that the Government followed our lead in the Budget, but it is wrong to still leave billions of pounds of windfall profits for oil and gas giants on the table when those windfalls should be helping support families through the cost of living crisis.
Also missing is any action to tackle non-dom tax status. We believe that those who make Britain their home should pay their taxes here. That patriotic point should be uncontroversial. Yet, while families across the UK face higher taxes year on year, the Government are helping a few at the top avoid paying their fairer share of tax when they keep their money overseas. The non-dom rules that allow this to happen cost more than £3 billion every year. Ending that outdated, unfair loophole and replacing it with a modern system could fund measures to strengthen our NHS, childcare and the economy.
So there are no measures to reduce the tax burden on working people and no measures to make the tax system fairer. Instead, the Government chose to abolish the lifetime limit on tax-free pension savings. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, this giveaway for the very wealthiest costs £1.2 billion, benefits only those with the biggest 1% of pension pots and increases the value of a £2 million pension pot by some £250,000. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, it also opens up an inheritance tax loophole, whereby it is now possible to accumulate unlimited sums within a pension fund and pass them on entirely free of inheritance tax.
The Minister said that this measure was necessary to keep doctors working rather than retiring early, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, the Government could have introduced in this Bill a targeted scheme to do just that. Indeed, that is what the current Chancellor suggested less than a year ago. The British Medical Association has said that a scheme targeted at doctors could be introduced at a fraction of the cost.
The Government claim that their policy is about keeping people in work. Yet, as Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says, it will cost in the region of £100,000 per job retained, and as the Resolution Foundation says, it may
“actually encourage some people to retire earlier than they otherwise would have done”.
The Government’s approach and the choice they have made fails the test of providing value for money. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, a blanket giveaway for some of the very wealthiest in our country is simply the wrong priority for more than £1 billion of public money every year.
That same failure to spend public money wisely is evident again in this Bill’s proposal to reduce air passenger duty for domestic flights. Again, at a time when public finances are under severe pressure, when household budgets are stretched in all directions and when the cost of inaction on climate change grows by the day, it is baffling that this is the Government’s priority for spending public money.
While we need action to make the tax system fairer, a proper plan for growth is the only long-term, sustainable way to make our country more prosperous and the British people better off. The UK has the lowest investment as a percentage of GDP in the G7, so it is disappointing that, as the Office for Budget Responsibility reveals, this Bill’s changes to corporation tax and allowances will make no difference whatever to medium-term levels of business investment. Rather than a long-term permanent change, these changes are for only three years. As a result, they only bring forward investment rather than increasing its overall level. The Government’s policy paper on temporary full expensing, published on the day of the Budget, makes that clear. It says:
“This measure will incentivise businesses to bring forward investment to benefit from the tax relief”.
Meanwhile, the OBR forecast makes it clear that business investment between 2022 and 2028 is essentially unchanged as a result of these measures. If anything, there is a very slight fall. That cannot be good enough. That is why, as part of Labour’s mission in government to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, we would review the business tax system and set out a clear road map to provide certainty and boost investment. We believe that the UK’s long-term underperformance on capital investment needs long-term measures as part of a tax framework that supports and incentivises investment.
A fairer and more certain tax system, underpinned by a long-term economic plan, is crucial to helping businesses invest and grow, but an ambitious plan for growing our economy must go further, and we have made it clear that this would be Labour’s first mission in government. At the heart of our plan to grow the economy, create jobs and wealth and make everyone in our country better off is the partnership we would build between government and business. We understand, as do businesses, that growth comes from the Government supporting private enterprises to succeed in the industries of the future. That is why we would support growth in the digital economy and the life sciences, update our planning system to remove barriers to investment and improve access to capital for new and growing businesses. We would make sure that government and business work together and invest together for the good of everyone in every region and nation of the UK.
Our country needs a fairer tax system after 13 years of low growth and 25 tax rises that have pushed the tax burden to its highest level in 70 years. Britain’s businesses need stability and certainty in order to boost investment, create jobs and grow our economy. Our economy needs a credible, ambitious plan for growth that gets us off this path of managed decline, provides security for family finances and makes people across Britain better off. That it does none of these things is perhaps the greatest failure of this finance Bill and the Budget it seeks to implement.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the short debate that we have had on the finance Bill today. Noble Lords reflected on the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. We recognise that high inflation increases costs for households and businesses and that, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor has said, low inflation is necessary for growth. The energy shock from Russia’s unlawful invasion has been felt more in the UK, partly due to our historic dependence on gas, and domestic factors such as record tightness in the labour market and high inactivity rates have put pressure on UK inflation, but that does not remove the fact that we are not alone in facing the global challenge of high inflation rates. Despite this, the IMF has said that the UK has taken decisive and responsible steps to tackle inflation, and all major forecasters expect inflation to fall this year.
Turning to noble Lords’ comments around the level of taxation in our economy and the suggestion—I am not sure whether it was from the Labour Front Bench—that we should change the decisions that we made on tax thresholds to consolidate our public finances and that this should be the route that we take to help people with the cost of living, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor has made clear, the Government’s number one priority is reducing inflation. Not only will this be the most effective tax cut for people and businesses across the UK, but we must not to do anything to prolong inflation, which unfunded tax cuts would only fuel.
It is important to reflect on the action taken since 2010. We have increased the personal allowance and the national insurance contribution threshold above inflation, taking millions of people out of paying tax altogether. Consequently, we have some of the most generous starting allowances for income tax and social security contributions in the OECD and the most generous in the G7.
Outside the tax system, to support household we have focused our help on those who are most vulnerable to the impact of rising prices. Our cost of living support includes the energy price guarantee, cost of living payments and the household support fund, as well as uprating benefits in line with inflation. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the Government recognise the impact that rising inflation and increases in the cost of living are having on households across the country. That is why cost of living support for households totals £94 billion, or around £3,300 per household, on average, this year and next, which represents one of the most generous packages of support in all of Europe. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that looking at the impact of the decisions made from the Autumn Statement 2022 onwards, government support for households in 2023-24 provides low-income households with the largest benefit in cash terms and as a percentage of income. On average, households in the bottom half of the income distribution will see twice as much benefit as households in the top half of the income distribution in cash terms.
My noble friend Lord Leigh welcomed the implementation of the G20/OECD pillar 2 rules. We take our international obligations very seriously. We were instrumental in negotiating this agreement and these rules and as such do not see them as at odds with our sovereignty. We retain sovereignty to set our corporation tax rate as one of the lowest in the G7 and to use important tax levers to boost investment in the UK, including our world-leading full expensing regime and our generous R&D tax reliefs. In fact, pillar 2 will boost the international competitiveness of the UK because it places a floor on low and no tax rates that have been available in some countries. It is designed to protect against the risks of harmful tax planning by multinational groups. As my noble friend said, it is important that the UK legislates for these rules now but, to repeat the assurance that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave in the Commons, we will provide an update on pillar 2 implementation as part of the forthcoming fiscal event in the autumn and, if necessary, in the spring, too. This will include the latest revenue forecast from the OBR and an update on the status of international implementation.
I turn to my noble friend’s comments on research and development relief. He asked whether I would have regard to the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s detailed comments, in particular in respect of the new powers HMRC has to remove a claim. While it is correct to assert that customers do not have a right of appeal, they do have a new statutory right of representation to provide HMRC with evidence within 90 days if they think the claim has been removed in error. They also retain the right to apply for judicial review if they do not think HMRC has applied the process correctly.
My noble friend also raised concerns about the R&D compliance check. The Government acknowledge that there is currently a high level of non-compliant claims in R&D tax reliefs and that it is right that HMRC takes action, as I think my noble friend also recognised. HMRC has increased the action it is taking, which means addressing more of the non-compliance. As part of this, it has been rapidly upscaling its numbers of people, and this can sometimes come with teething problems. HMRC ensures that less experienced caseworkers can call on technical support or specialist advice from more senior colleagues. HMRC will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the department is managing checks professionally and in line with the HMRC charter, and I would happily hear any further representations by my noble friend or others on how we can ensure that we are delivering in this area.
On company tax rates, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked how many companies will pay the full 25% rate, which is an increase in the headline rate of corporation tax. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the small profits rate will keep the rate at 19% for companies with profits of £500,000 or under, and marginal relief is available for companies with profits from £50,000 to £250,000, meaning that companies will pay somewhere between 19% and 25%. That means that 70% of actively trading companies will not see an increase in the rate of corporation tax they pay, and only 10% will pay the full rate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to make those points. Sometimes, there is concern among those in business that our corporation tax rate is either uncompetitive or targeting smaller businesses. What we have done in changing the rate is to ensure that businesses pay their fair share of returning our public finances to a sustainable footing after the shocks of Covid and the invasion of Ukraine. We have reinstated some of those exemptions to ensure that the smallest businesses do not face those burdens. That is entirely how we have designed our approach.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Can the Minister tell us—this is not to make a point but just for clarification and to understand the numbers better—is it 70% by number of companies or 70% by a value number of some sort, such as an asset value, a market value or a revenue generation value? How is that number calculated?
Baroness Penn (Con)
What I have before me is that 70% of actively trading companies will not see an increase, so I would take it as the former. If it is calculated in a different way, I will write to the noble Baroness to clarify that.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
To strengthen the Minister’s own point, it might be helpful if we had a calculation that gave us a better feel. One multinational could easily produce revenues many times those of dozens and dozens of small companies, so she might be getting a bigger tax take than the number that she is using implies.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness is exactly right. The increase in the headline rate of corporation tax makes a significant contribution to our public finances and to the consolidation of our public finances after Covid. All I meant to say is that, for some of the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, we have been able to exempt smaller businesses from that increase while also ensuring that bigger businesses—which often benefited a large amount from government support put in place during the pandemic—contributed their share to returning our public finances to a sustainable footing.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, also asked why HMRC’s budget had been cut. HMRC will receive a £0.9 billion cash increase over the Parliament, from £4.3 billion in 2019-20 to £5.2 billion in 2024-25, so I do not quite recognise the picture that the noble Lord has put forward. HMRC’s budget includes funding to tackle avoidance, evasion and other forms of non-compliance, to deliver a modern tax system and to support a resilient customs border.
I turn to another area of tax, the energy profits levy, which, I remind noble Lords, has helped to pay a significant proportion of households’ and businesses’ energy costs through the support that we have been able to provide. I want to be clear to noble Lords that the allowances in place are not a loophole. The OBR’s latest forecast is that the EPL will raise just under £26 billion between 2022-23 and 2027-28, inclusive of the EPL’s investment allowances. That is on top of £25 billion over the same period from the permanent regime for oil and gas taxations, totalling around £50 billion.
Abolishing the investment allowance would be counterproductive. The UK is still reliant on oil and gas for its energy supply and will be for several years; reducing incentives to invest would lead to investors pulling out of the UK, damaging the economy, causing job losses and leading to lower tax revenue in future.
My noble friend Lord Leigh asked about the impact of the price floor and the Government’s long-term plans for energy security. By introducing the energy security investment mechanism, the Government are providing certainty about the future of the energy profits levy. This allows companies to invest confidently in the UK and supports our economy, jobs and energy security.
On the long-term fiscal regime for oil and gas, the Government are also conducting a review to ensure that the regime delivers predictability and certainty, supporting investment, jobs and the country’s energy security. I wonder whether that predictability and certainty would be covered in Labour’s review of business taxes. I do not think the oil and gas sector sees predictability and certainty in its policy approach in recent weeks.
I turn to the electricity generator levy. Unlike the EPL, this not a tax on total profits that is calculated after the recognition of total revenues and costs. Instead, the EGL is payable only on the portion of revenues that exceeds the long-run average for electricity prices. The Government took into account the potential impact on investment when setting the benchmark price.
The Government are supporting renewables deployment through a range of policy levers, including the contracts for difference scheme, through which generators have received almost £6 billion net in price support to date. The electricity generator levy will not be payable on renewable generation produced under contracts for difference, which is the Government’s main form of support for green energy and will account for most new large renewable generation.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, on non-doms. The Government recognise that issues of taxation come down to fairness. We need to have a fair but internationally competitive tax system which brings in talented individuals and investment that contribute to growth. Reforming the non-dom regime could potentially damage the UK’s international competitiveness, leading to a loss of international investment and talent. There is a great deal of uncertainty over the wider economic impacts of complete abolition.
Non-doms play an important role in funding our public services through their tax contributions. They pay tax on their UK income and gains in the same way as everyone else, and they pay tax on foreign income and gains when those amounts are brought into the UK. The latest information shows that that non-UK domiciled taxpayers are estimated to have been liable to pay almost £7.9 billion in UK income tax, capital gains tax and national insurance contributions in 2020-21 and have invested over £6 billion in the UK using the business investment relief scheme introduced in 2012.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
On another point of clarification, is my noble friend saying that HM Treasury’s calculations are that, if the reliefs that apparently exist for non-doms were withdrawn, as has been suggested elsewhere, there would be a net loss to Treasury revenue, given the mobile nature of such non-domiciled persons?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am saying that that is most certainly a risk. There is a high amount of uncertainty about the impact of any changes in that area, and it would not necessarily lead to an increase in revenue, as is being relied upon by the Labour Party.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, surely there is not that degree of uncertainty, since the Government did raise a base levy on non-doms. Surely, then, we have evidence from the mobility of non-doms reacting to that base levy. What is the evidence? I suggest it is evidence of no mobility at all.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I was speaking about the difference between changes to any scheme and abolition of the status altogether, but I would say that there is a high degree of uncertainty about the impact of changes made in this area.
Finally, I turn to the pension tax changes made through this Bill and the Budget, which many noble Lords have spoken about. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I was not implying that only the most highly skilled and productive workers benefit from these changes, but many of them will. They have been designed in response to feedback from the NHS in particular that there was an impact on retention of the most skilled staff.
Regarding the suggestion that a doctors-only change could have been implemented instead, unlike more targeted policies, the Government have considered a range of options to address this issue over a number of years. One of the elements which means that a more targeted approach would not be appropriate in these circumstances is the time it would take to implement. These changes could be implemented quickly, from April 2023, minimising the risk of early retirements in the NHS before any changes take effect.
In the Statement taken before this debate, we heard about the pressures on our NHS workforce and the pressing need to address those immediately. If we were to take a targeted approach to one profession—NHS doctors—we may well come back to the same issue, as the same issues are faced by employees in other sectors, such as air traffic controllers, the police, the Armed Forces and senior teachers. To introduce targeted measures for each profession would not be an effective way to deal with challenges across those different workforces.
The Government are aware of the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she take up my challenge and tell me which of the big four accounting firms, with strong court judgments against them in the cases brought by HMRC, has been investigated, fined, disciplined or denied government contracts because they are peddling tax abuses? If the Minister cannot name such a firm, can she tell me why the Government are soft on tax abuses by big accounting firms?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I think one of the reasons why I frustrate the noble Lord in this area is that the Government do not normally comment on individual taxpayers. On his more general point, the Government have taken action to tackle tax avoidance and evasion over many years and to reduce its incidence in our economy.
Finally, I turn to the impact of the change to the annual allowance and its potential inheritance tax impacts. Noble Lords are right that the annual allowance has meant that there has been a limit on how much individuals can put into their pensions and therefore pass on. The Government are aware of concerns that some may be using their pension pots to reduce future inheritance tax liabilities, rather than for their purpose: to fund their retirement. As with all taxes, the Government keep the rules under review.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves away from the lifetime allowance, I asked her if it was true that this £1 billion was funded by increased borrowing. In her summing up just now, she said very clearly that unfunded tax cuts increase inflation; those were her exact words. Is this not an unfunded tax cut?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The OBR has been clear about its forecast for the public finances, which has shown that they are more resilient than previously expected. Debt is lower in every year of the forecast compared with the November forecast. Borrowing falls year on year and the current Budget is in a surplus from 2026-27. All these decisions are taken in the round and assessed against the Government’s fiscal rules and the independent OBR’s forecasts for government borrowing and debt.
We have had a wide-ranging debate today, but if we return to the measures in the Bill, they form an essential part of our plan for the economy. They support enterprise, business investment and employment, including in the NHS. The Bill seizes the freedoms now available to the UK outside of the EU, addresses international tax avoidance and the problem it causes for the sustainability of our public finances, and will help simplify our tax system. For these reasons, I beg to move.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
That this House regrets the delayed implementation of measures contained in the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/588), and that the Regulations raise concerns about the speed at which the Department for Transport is implementing its secondary legislative programme and the quality of information contained in Explanatory Memoranda provided by the Department.
Relevant document: 43rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the regulations which are the subject of this regret Motion amend four retained EU regulations. Two of them are amended to implement revised standards and practices adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization. These involve implementing new safety management systems for the production and maintenance of aircraft. The other two regulations are amended to delay changes in balloon and glider licensing until 2025.
I have laid this regret Motion because I am concerned about the delays and their impact on issues relating to aviation safety. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported that the original Explanatory Memorandum was inadequate because it failed even to attempt to explain why, in the view of the Department for Transport, these delays were not a problem.
There is a tendency for Department for Transport explanatory memoranda to be rather sketchy. By way of background, it is important to remind ourselves that the department has a long-standing problem with managing its legislation, much of which flows from our international treaty obligations. The department fell badly behind in managing legislation for the maritime sector, some of which was up to 20 years overdue. Huge efforts have been made to catch up, and I pay tribute to the Minister for hers. But now the department is faced with a similar problem on aviation standards. Prior to Brexit, new standards based on the Chicago convention on civil aviation would have been automatically implemented via the EU. Now, we have to do it ourselves. The safety management changes were implemented in the EU in 2021—and, by the way, that was already rather late.
This is two years later for us, and this legislation allows until July 2024 for it to be implemented, after which firms are given a further two years to comply. So we are well behind the curve—a cumulative delay of over a decade since the ICAO regulations were introduced. This picture is becoming familiar. In the past, we relied on the combined resources of what was then the 28 EU nations and their expertise to devise and implement technical modernisation. Now, we have to do it on our own. It is complex, expensive and time consuming, and the delays are putting our manufacturers and aviation industry, in this case, at a disadvantage.
My concerns are as follows. This industry has a complex supply chain, with many hundreds—even thousands—of firms, so it is essential that appropriate safety management systems are in place for the design and production of aeronautical parts. My specific questions to the Minister are as follows. First, the Government say that this delay will not impact safety, but I cannot see how that can be: what is the point of having a safety management system if it does not have any impact on safety? Secondly, as the legislation makes clear, it is for the CAA to review and approve the new SMSs. Can the Minister tell us specifically how much the CAA has been allocated in additional funding to undertake this work? Can she reassure us that these resources will be adequate? The Minister will not be surprised by these questions; I repeatedly ask about resources allocated to the CAA.
The second part of the regulations relates to balloon and glider licensing, changing the current deadline to transfer to the new system, which was inherited from EASA, from the end of 2023 to the end of 2025. The Explanatory Memorandum justifies this simply by saying that
“the CAA is undertaking a … review of private pilot licensing which may result in significant changes to … licensing requirements”.
The Department for Transport calls this the pilot “licensing and training simplification” project. It was initiated by the previous Secretary of State, whom noble Lords will recall is a keen general aviation enthusiast.
As background, it is important to note that the pandemic encouraged major growth in the market for private aviation—I note that the Prime Minister seems to be quite keen on private aviation as well, although I do not think he is a pilot himself. There is now a flourishing secondary market in private flights, and, as a Cardiff citizen, I am acutely aware of the complexities of this market, revealed to many of us for the first time by the tragic accident that led to the death of the footballer, Emiliano Sala. Many of us did not understand how complex this whole set-up was.
There are a number of worrying grey areas relating to implementing the legislation, which again falls to the CAA. The expansion of the market has intensified the obvious challenges it faces in inspecting and implementing the regulations. So can the Minister assure us, once again, that the CAA has adequate resources? My concern is that the UK has a reputation as an aviation leader, with high standards of safety compared with, for example, the USA, where it is much easier to get a private pilot’s licence. We should not sacrifice that in the chase for an ephemeral benefit of Brexit.
I am concerned about what these regulations reveal about pressures within the Department for Transport. Its defence to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s criticism of its Explanatory Memoranda, and the delays in bringing forth this legislation, was that it has to make “prioritisation decisions” regarding regulation. In the light of these constraints, it is worrying that the department also faces additional programmes that will create challenges for it—for example, those imposed by the revocation of EU law Bill, shortly to be an Act. On top of this, there is the general aviation change programme, which now faces its own 25% reduction in resources—I am told that the amount of money allocated to the CAA for that programme has been reduced by 25%—so can the Minister explain why the funding has been cut? Can she explain whether the Government intend to pursue this programme, despite the cut in funding?
Overall, there is huge public concern about basic day-to-day issues that are crying out for legislation in relation to transport. There is technological change and challenge—for example, with issues like e-scooters and e-bikes, which desperately need regulation. There is also a crisis in our railways, which urgently need legislation to create Great British Railways. I am concerned that the Government are pursuing policies such as the reform of private flying while they tell us that they have no parliamentary time in their programme for such day-to-day issues as the state of the railways and the reform of train fares. So my purpose in laying this regret Motion was to give the Minister the opportunity to explain to us why there are delays in aviation legislation now and why there are such huge pressures within the department in terms of prioritising the various strands of its activity, specifically its legislative activity.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I rise again in this crowded Chamber to discuss a transport issue. This sort of debate should be divided into two. Let us first look at the instrument itself, rather than the problems with getting it here. Civil aviation in general is really quite safe. The very sad interruption to that general trend was of course with the Boeing 737 MAX, but, otherwise, the trends have been quite positive. This is based on a mechanism: the Chicago convention and the ICAO processes. I knew this was quite old, but I looked it up and saw that the convention was signed by 52 nations before the end of the Second World War, on 7 December 1944. It became legal, if that is the right term—I do not do conventions often—or rather it came into force, on 4 April 1947.
It is a sort of treaty obligation, but it is a bit looser in being a convention. In practice, the industry, over the years, has understood the value of behaving together. So most significant aviation nations in Europe, one way or another, through the European system, sought to achieve harmonisation with the ICAO regulations of the time. It seems to me, reading through the material, that the essence is one of delay. I think that was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The test, to some extent, has to be: what is the significance of the delay, particularly with respect to safety?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their input this evening. I am particularly grateful for the collaborative words from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. It is hard to find fault with much of what he said and we recognise that, when it comes to aviation safety, transition is really important. It is an extremely complex area. We are already very safe and we must not do anything to upset that applecart as we put in interventions that will make things even safer.
I would like to address the broad narrative around the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Noble Lords will know that I take great interest in the secondary legislation programme, even though I am not the SI Minister in the department, because of the valid scrutiny that our secondary legislation programme gets in your Lordships’ House. I too am keen to get it right, because it is as painful for me—perhaps even more so—as it is for them to have to stand in front of noble Lords and say that, on this occasion, I am not particularly proud of the work my department did on this SI. I want perfection and this was definitely not perfection—it was a long way from that. We can and we must do better. As I have said, we have a very strong record on aviation safety and we are committed to maintaining and improving those high safety standards. When we do not meet those high standards, it is right that we are subject to immense scrutiny.
Some months ago, the department completely reviewed its approach to secondary legislation and implemented improved processes and training. I think the issue here is that that is still being bedded in. The core team is well aware of what needs to be done but we now need to cascade that throughout the department. We have a lot of secondary legislation, and there are many different groups in the department that do legislation. That is why, when the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, tries to draw comparisons to, for example, primary legislation on Great British Railways, the two are not really comparable.
Secondary legislation for aviation is often developed with the CAA and then comes to the DfT, and likewise in maritime, where pretty much the whole process is within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and then comes to a central process. There are a lot of different groups doing the secondary legislation and it is important that they fully understand what is expected by not only the Minister but noble Lords on the other Benches, such that we can get this through in a way that everybody understands and is able to agree with based on the evidence and the information provided.
These regulations amend four retained EU regulations relating to airworthiness and to balloons and sailplanes. The key element, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned, is the safety management system requirements that require organisations involved in the design or production of aeronautical products or parts to implement an SMS. This represents the culmination of many years of collaborative work across stakeholders, and will ensure better oversight and continuous improvement of aviation safety. It is not really something that one implements once—a safety management system is about continuous improvement.
The SI notes that the implementation timeline for compliance is not immediate, to allow time for organisations to prepare and develop adequate SMSs. This is in line with the guidance from the International Civil Aviation Organization—or ICAO—because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, noted, it recognises that speed can sometimes be the enemy in these circumstances. That is about the speed of the implementation of the regulation and not the speed of the regulation coming forward; I will address that in due course.
However, we believe that the delay has had negligible impact on safety; obviously, the counterfactual is if had it been brought in earlier. We chose to press forward with the priorities that we did, some of which had enormous safety implications or massive economic implications. Noble Lords will understand that sometimes one has to make decisions in an imperfect world of appropriately limited resources.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for taking part in this rather niche debate, as it has turned out. Very briefly, I think the noble Lord and I agree that introducing SMS procedures takes time and is important, and that the work should have started earlier. I congratulate the Minister on her valiant attempt to blame the EU for the delay, but actually the EU introduced this two years ago and it is quite difficult to blame the EU for the fact that we are here two years later.
Explanatory Memoranda are important. Clearly, the deficiencies that are occurring are caused by one of two things: either the department does not care about them—I am absolutely sure that that is not the case—or it is under so much pressure that it has not had the time to do them properly or to check them properly. I would be delighted to have the conversation that the noble Lord suggested.
Finally, I say to the Minister that there is increasing concern in the industrial sector, not just in aviation but in the automotive industry, that the Government are failing to keep pace with the latest EU standards. It is not just about adopting those standards that were adopted years ago by the EU; it is about the fact that the EU is changing its standards as we sit here, because it is modernising in the face of technology. Whether the Government like it or not, our industrialists need to follow those standards, because they are set not just across Europe but across large parts of the world. There is concern that the Government need to really up the pace of modernisation. With that, I am happy to withdraw the Motion.