5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The sexual exploitation of vulnerable children in this country is a stain upon our society, and the victims want not just the truth out but transparency. With that in mind, will the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government asked Baroness Casey to change any elements of her report—yes or no?
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on leading this debate. I declare a strong professional and personal interest in animal health and welfare as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We have heard some very thought-provoking and wide-ranging speeches today. I again pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, from whom I always enjoy hearing. She is an incredibly powerful and passionate champion of animal welfare. More strength to her elbow—keep going. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) brought his expertise in the porcine sector and talked about the key safety issues, especially in relation to pig husbandry techniques. We heard from the hon. Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), and the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke about the importance of biosecurity, which is pivotal in his part of the world, as it is across the entire United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke powerfully about the moral and ethical aspects of our duty of care to animals under our care. We heard wide-ranging speeches from across the country, including from the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), a powerful advocate for animal welfare, made some very thoughtful comments about the principles of labelling. The speeches culminated in the presentation from my friend and veterinary colleague the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Full credit to him for quoting James Herriot—I must remember to do that next time. Like all petition debates, we are having this debate because more than 100,000 people across the country signed the petition. As it stands today, more than 105,000 people have signed this petition, including 182 in my constituency of Epping Forest, and many others have written to me on this issue. I thank them all for allowing us to debate this important animal and bird welfare issue. It is important to have this opportunity to hold the new Government to account on their plans to improve animal welfare. As Members are no doubt aware, the UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am very proud of the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in improving animal welfare, such as banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, with the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, and increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021. Pivotally, we enshrined animal sentience, which we have heard a lot about today, in UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the very important Animal Sentience Committee, which ensures that any new legislation pays due regard to animal welfare. We should be incredibly proud that, in the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards. As I have said many times before, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world in that regard. I again pay tribute to our farmers, growers and producers who help to feed the nation and nurture our precious environment. However, it is right that we continue to raise the bar, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss further the use of cages and crates for farmed animals. The Opposition have made it clear—I did so just this month, on 3 June, during a debate on animal welfare standards in farming—that we support banning cages or close confinement systems where clear scientific evidence demonstrates that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the UK’s existing legislation on the use of cages and crates, including: the ban on keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; the ban on keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and the ban on the use of battery cages for laying hens, introduced in 2012. Under the previous Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates no longer to be used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states: “The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.” On poultry, it is also welcome that the market has been very influential in moving away from using cages for laying hens, and instead working towards alternative systems, including free range and barn. It is greatly welcome that this has also been driven by retailers acknowledging their role in raising welfare standards, with the transition to non-cage egg production being accelerated in recent years by major supermarkets committing to ending, by 2025, the sale of shell eggs from hens kept in colony cages, with some supermarkets also extending that commitment to products containing liquid or powdered egg. About 75% of British eggs come from free-range, barn and organic production systems, which is a clear testament to the improved picture of bird welfare that we have seen in recent years. In particular, it is a testament to all those across the supply chains, from farmers to retailers, who have acted in the interests of bird and animal welfare. I very much acknowledge that today. Further work with farmers—I stress “with” rather than “to” farmers—has been a key take-home message from today’s debate. Further work is still needed with farmers, supermarkets and other retailers to ensure that the figure increases in the years to come, and I hope the Government can commit to that today. To return to the porcine sector, the Government have been asked whether they have plans to support free farrowing systems or to launch a consultation on the use of farrowing crates for pigs. The Minister has previously confirmed that the Government are “considering very carefully” the use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals, including farrowing crates, and I am sure we will hear more about how he is considering things closely. It is essential that we make good progress towards a system that both works commercially and ensures the welfare of the sow and her piglets. Tragically, as we have heard, sows can lie on their piglets and crush them unintentionally. We must ensure that any new approach safeguards both the mother and her young. Farrowing crates used for sows and piglets have been raised as a particular area of focus by the RSPCA and other organisations, such as the British Veterinary Association, the National Pig Association, the NFU, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, FOUR PAWS, and Compassion in World Farming. I note that the British Veterinary Association has called for the phasing out of farrowing crates, saying that the Government should provide a 15-year transition period by which all new builds cannot contain farrowing crates except where already agreed, to be followed by a shift from a crate system to alternative methods, such as adaptive farrowing accommodation or free farrowing systems, as soon as possible. I hope the Minister can provide further clarity on how the Government intend to approach this issue, and I am sure he will do that today. In the revision of the animal health and welfare pathway in March, the Government stated that a “transition out of cages” was one of their priorities, and that they are “exploring potential reforms” in this area. That raises questions, which I hope the Minister will answer, about the Government’s process in looking at this area. First, can he confirm whether any future decision on the use of cages and crates will be put to an evidence-based consultation? Likewise, on process, can the Minister confirm that, in any future decisions, the Government will consider a plan that takes into account the needs of the industry, and the impact of any moves? The National Pig Association and the building suppliers forum concur with the British Veterinary Association that at least 15 years would be required to move from conventional farrowing to flexible or free farrowing, and it is noted that there are significant costs to replacing practices that would be banned. If the Government plan any reforms, will they work with industry to make sure they are affordable, practical, effective and, at their heart, promote animal and bird welfare? It is essential that we make swift progress towards systems that ensure the welfare of animals and birds, and that work pragmatically and viably for the sector. While the UK can be proud of our domestic track record on animal welfare, we must not lose sight of the global scale of animal welfare issues. The previous Conservative Government made it clear that the UK’s high standards were a red line in trade negotiations, and that there must be no compromise on environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. That is why, although we may not have got everything right on these issues, the free trade agreements signed by the previous Government with countries such as Australia and New Zealand included important dedicated chapters on animal welfare—the first of their kind in any such trade deals. It is also why, when she was Trade Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition stood up for our animal welfare standards during trade negotiations with Canada, stepping back from talks to ensure that there were no concessions on our red line of banning the importation of hormone-treated beef. Whether Labour or the Conservatives are in government, we must continue to uphold animal welfare standards in trade deals. It is not simply a case of upholding high animal welfare and ensuring that food is safe to eat; it is about ensuring that our hard-working farmers are not unfairly undercut by other countries where standards may be lower. Our high standards must not be put at risk as this Government seek to negotiate new trade deals, specifically the bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, bovine somatotropin dairy, chlorine-washed chicken products, and the use of antibiotics as growth promoters—practices that are illegal in this country. I have said this many times before, and I will say it again, as a Member of Parliament and as a veterinary surgeon: keeping firm on these standards makes it clear beyond all doubt that we as a nation are committed to animal welfare. Other countries will then know that, should they wish to trade with us, they must meet our standards and our values. That now extends to using cages and crates for imported animal products. Despite the UK having legislated to end the practice long ago, many countries, including the United States, still allow the use of sow stalls. Can the Minister assure us that no animal products will be imported to the UK where sow stalls have been used? Just last Thursday, on 12 June, the Government finally provided their response to the previous Conservative Government’s “fairer food labelling” consultation, no doubt due to repeated prompting from His Majesty’s Opposition in recent days, weeks and months. In their somewhat sparse response, the Government stated that they “will consider the potential role of method of production labelling reform as part of the UK Government’s development of an overarching approach to animal welfare and the wider food strategy.” I look forward to the Minister elaborating on that somewhat economical response to a major consultation. First, greater clarity for sectors affected by any change would be very much welcome. As such, will the Government outline a timeline for when they expect to be able to publish their new strategy on animal welfare, and for any legislative changes in the area of labelling? Secondly, can the Government clarify why, despite the closing of the consultation in May 2024, they were able to respond only last week? Even accounting for election to office in July, it has still taken 11 months for those who took the time to contribute to the consultation to receive that somewhat limited response. Will the Minister therefore assure the public that this is not an indication of any lack of interest in this area from the Government? Labelling will help with many facets of the debate, allowing UK consumers to make informed decisions about the food they purchase, as they will be able to see the provenance of the food and how it was produced. I have raised this with him many times, but can the Minister further clarify how he will address the loophole that still exists in Government buying standards in public procurement, allowing public bodies to deviate from high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost? On the procurement point, we cannot be a beacon of animal welfare for countries around the world if we do not have our own house in order. I would greatly appreciate an answer to that point, as I have asked the Minister about it a few times. It is vital that we uphold our rigorous standards on animal welfare and retain the UK’s status as a world leader on animal welfare issues. I urge the Government to treat the matter with the seriousness and urgency it deserves, and not to allow any backsliding on existing legislation as they seek to secure new trade deals with the United States and other countries. To have high animal welfare standards, we need healthy animals. For that, we need strong biosecurity. I have repeatedly called on the Government to urgently redevelop the headquarters of the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge, Surrey. The APHA is critical in protecting against devastating diseases—such as foot and mouth disease, seen this year in Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, and African swine fever—advancing up the continent of Europe. The Minister knows that I will keep pushing the Government on this matter. In the spending review last week, the Chancellor did not mention DEFRA, animal health or farming once in her statement, nor was there any mention of reversing the catastrophic family farm tax. There was no mention of the APHA project in the spending review—in either the statement or the blue book. Will the Government finish the work that the Conservatives started when we committed £1.2 billion to redevelop the HQ? Labour keep reannouncing a pot of £208 million, which is a familiar figure to the Minister. It is a start, but when will they commit the further £1.4 billion for this infrastructure, for the sake of British farming, food production and national security? I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. I thank our fantastic farmers, who keep food on our tables. It is clear that there is much interest across the House in this issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughtful response.
4. What steps she is taking to help improve the school estate.
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I draw his attention to the process for getting some of that funding. Battling Brook is a small primary school in the heart of Hinckley. It is well loved, but it has had problems with two of its classrooms having damp and falling into disrepair, so the school cannot use them. It applied to the condition improvement fund but was declined. The school feels that the goalposts have been shifted; there was a six-month delay in the condition data collection report, so it was marked down, and this all culminated in Battling Brook not getting the funding it needs. Will the Minister look at this case and have a meeting with me, so that I can go back to Battling Brook and make sure it gets the funding it needs to reopen its classrooms in September for the primary school pupils of Hinckley?
One of the reasons I was not supportive six months ago, in January, of the Government’s strategy was that it could not compel local inquiries to bring forward witnesses, which is key. Listening to our questions carefully, could the Home Secretary clarify whether those local inquiries will be able to compel witnesses, whether that is also the case on the national side, and whether those powers will be used to ensure that no stone is left unturned?
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for changing her mind on the need for a national inquiry. She has had the Casey report for the past 10 days. Could she lay out what evidence in that report was most persuasive in changing her mind, or, if she reached that conclusion independent of the report, which factors led her to do so?
My Hillingdon constituents have seen the work that the local authority has had to do over many decades to deal with child sexual exploitation and trafficking arising from Heathrow. When I led the Local Government Association’s response—when these cases first came to light—one issue that arose was the sharing of information. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, following this inquiry, she will upgrade the status of the “Working Together to Safeguard Children” guidance and, in particular, ensure that those bodies accountable to the Home Office, such as the police, understand it and take it as seriously as other bodies do so that we do not see people falling through the cracks between agencies?
Does our closest ally, the United States, agree with this position on the situation? If not, what do we differ on?
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
What are the principal differences between this Government’s groundbreaking plan to introduce mental health support teams to schools and the previous Government’s already in-progress programme to deliver mental health support teams to schools? As I like this Minister, Mr Speaker, let me give him a hint: this has been a rhetorical question.
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for early sight of it, and I am pleased that Baroness Casey has agreed to appear before the Committee tomorrow to set out the contents of her report more clearly. However, I am concerned about the potential for inquiries intended to get to the truth to prejudice criminal trials. How does the Home Secretary envisage the two elements running alongside each other—an inquiry and criminal prosecutions?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her opening remarks. I want to declare an additional interest as, for three and a half years prior to last July, I was an employee of the National Pig Association, and my cousin is a pig farmer. I would like to refute a couple of points from the hon. Lady’s opening remarks, in particular that Britain is not a world leader in animal welfare—it very much is. We can pick other examples from around the world as, when we talk about trade deals, we often say that we would not want to import meat from those countries, because they simply do not meet our standards. We should not do ourselves down. There will always be countries that have a higher bar in certain areas than we do, but overall the UK does a particularly good job on animal welfare across the board. Let me move on to address the system of farrowing crates, and why they exist. Of course, it is not because farmers have some desire to be cruel to the animals. I appreciate that people’s perception when looking at a pig in a crate is, “Gosh, does it live in that confined space?” Of course, it does not; the crate is used for a limited period around the time that the sow gives birth, and there is good reason for it. Around the time they give birth, sows often become extremely aggressive not just to their piglets, but to farmers. Being able to confine them protects piglets from crushing and mauling and allows farmers to get into the crate to look after the piglets and to administer any treatments to them or the sow in a safe environment. If anyone questions the veracity of how aggressive a sow can be around that time, I am delighted to arrange the opportunity for them to get in a pen with an aggressive sow and to see whether that changes their perspective. I also question some of the statistics. On the point about there being no differences in mortality across the systems, a totally unrestricted pen system is likely to lead to around million more piglet deaths in this country a year than a confined system. However, there is a point to be made about the system we use today and whether it can be improved. Obviously, all farmers want to minimise the time for which a sow is restrained, which happens for safety reasons only. The move to more flexible farrowing systems that would still allow farmers to get in there and restrain the sow to ensure safety has already been adopted by the industry. In his shadow role, the Minister was always very understanding of the farming point of view and he engaged closely with industry. It is right that the industry is now moving towards much better systems of limiting sow confinement, without the Government legislating. Flexible farrowing is now available in 8% of the indoor pig industry—that is, 5,000 pens. There are another 55,000 to go, but that will take time. The point about transition is interesting, because we cannot just say, “Tomorrow we need to move from this system to this system.” These are fixtures, fittings and buildings. A lot of the buildings will need to be rebuilt completely, which will require planning permission and vast cost. We need to work with farmers to ask what the realistic timescale is, so that we do not leave people high and dry or put them out of business. We need to make sure that they have the resources and time to move to a better, higher welfare system. I think we can all get behind that. It is better that the Government work with farmers and do not just do stuff to them. There is often a debate and lack of understanding about indoor versus outdoor pig farming. It would seem rather aspirational to have all our pigs outdoors, and to have 100% of the UK pig industry work like that. That is impossible, as we are at the maximum amount of land we can use for outdoor pigs. Outdoor pig farmers operate a different model from arable farmers; they tend to rent the land for two to three years, and move on. They have very much a symbiotic relationship with other farmers, particularly around the East Anglia area where there is the right type of soil for it. Indoor pig farming is much better suited to other parts of the country, such as my constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds, where there is high-grade, arable land. Pigs produce slurry, a natural source of fertiliser, and, of course, we get excellent pork and bacon from them. The petition wants a ban. If the industry continues to move in the right direction, a ban does not necessarily need to be implemented. I would give a warning from history. In 1999, the Tony Blair Government unilaterally banned sow stalls overnight with no transition or compensation. It was a similar situation, because the stalls were fixtures and fittings of the buildings, and 50% of the British pig industry went bust because those farms simply could not afford to transition. We have to be mindful of that in anything we do here when creating legislation that impacts businesses, farming or any other.
Absolutely. It is important that everybody works together, whether that means the pressure groups, the farmers or the Government. Sometimes, the two extremes of the debate need to understand each other. These things often seem simpler than they are. We do things on a farm for good reason, and often it might be for better welfare when people might not perceive it in that way. Another great example of the overall perception of pig farming is outdoor versus indoor, whereas indoor is far better for the environment. There is a big problem with the environmental impact of outdoor pig farming, which is often forgotten because we talk about welfare, and welfare clashes with environmental impact. That all comes together and means that we have to make balanced decisions about how we support farmers across the country. To conclude, we need to make sure that we bring the farming community along with us in this conversation, whether it is about pigs, poultry or anything else that we are discussing. Let us not do stuff to them, but work with them. Let us work out a plan that ensures that we can achieve what we want to in terms of better animal welfare, but not at the expense of British farming, British food security and British jobs and without ending up replacing our own great British produce with imports produced to lower standards than we would expect.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very encouraging that the industry is already making great strides to move away from the traditional crating system to new flexible systems, and that we have already seen 8% change to those systems in the last couple of years?
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the issue at length on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Does he agree that we have to be careful to ensure that labelling is clear and does not disadvantage British farmers? It is very likely that we will be unable to label imported products in the same way, so there is a danger that the consumer, who might not understand the complexity, may choose an imported product over a domestic product.
It is worth noting that the pig industry in the UK has reduced antibiotic usage by 69% since 2015. That is an industry initiative and should be applauded.
Is it the Minister’s ambition to align as closely as possible with the European Union’s plans to phase out cages, and farrowing crates in particular, given the symbiotic trading relationship—especially on products such as pig meat—between the EU and the UK, so that we do not have a similar situation to that involving sow stalls in 1999, where we ban something that the European Union is still using?
Last week the Chancellor committed £9.6 billion over the next four years to the school rebuilding programme. Hornsea school and language college in my constituency is in dire need of a full rebuild, so can the Secretary of State commit today to including it in the next tranche of rebuilds? If she needs any persuading, I would be delighted to invite her to make a short detour on her way back to Sunderland and to come and have a look for herself.
Before we come to the statement, may I from the Chair pass on my condolences to the family of Ketan Shah, one of my constituents in Shipton Bellinger, who was tragically killed in the Air India crash? Ketan was a valued member of the local community, where he ran the village stores, and the whole community is devastated by his loss.
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the following amendments as listed on the order paper: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
With this we shall discuss the following: Amendment (a), in paragraph (1), after “2025” insert “, subject to the removal of paragraphs 7.1, 9.4, 10.3, 13.2, 14.3, 17.7, 17.8 and 18.7” Amendment (b), in paragraph (5)(e), leave out— “a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission” and insert— “two Members of the House of Commons, elected by the House of Commons” Amendment (c), in paragraph 5(f), leave out— “a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission” and insert— “two Members of the House of Lords” Amendment (d), leave out paragraph 5(h). Amendment (e), leave out paragraph (6) and paragraph 1.4 of the ICGS Policy Framework.
Amendments (a) to (e) have been selected for separate decision. However, I understand that no Member wishes to move them, so I will move straight to the main Question. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House notes the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Policy Framework and ICGS Assurance Board (HC 579), further notes the Decisions of the Commission on 12 May, and agrees: (1) That the ICGS Policy Framework in respect of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct annexed to the Commission report shall have effect from 14 July 2025. (2) There shall be a body called the ICGS Assurance Board. (3) The ICGS Assurance Board shall conduct assurance of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme on behalf of the parliamentary community, in accordance with terms of reference published by the House of Commons Commission on 17 December 2024. (4) The terms of reference of the Assurance Board may be varied by agreement between the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission. (5) The ICGS Assurance Board shall consist of: (a) the Clerk Assistant, (b) the Clerk Assistant of the House of Lords, (c) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, (d) the Chair of the Independent Expert Panel, (e) a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission, (f) a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission, (g) a representative of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and (h) a representative of the human resources department from each House Administration. (6) The ICGS Assurance Board shall have authority to approve ICGS Procedures, in accordance with the ICGS Policy Framework, provided that: (a) nothing in the ICGS Procedures document may amend or override provisions in the Policy Framework; (b) procedures cannot create new obligations for individuals’ conduct. (7) The policies and procedures relating to bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct endorsed by the House on 19 July 2018 and amended on 17 July 2019, 28 April 2021 and 26 April 2022 shall cease to have effect on 14 July 2025, save that they shall continue to apply to any complaints received on or before 13 July 2025.
2. What estimate she has made of the potential impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on the number of redundancies in schools.
May I update the Minister, who seems to be very complacent on this issue? In Harrow, where I have been out to see many of our schools, since we passed the resignation date, vacancies are not being filled and many staff feel threatened with being made redundant from our schools. That is not good for our children or for the education system. All the schools say that these issues are because of the national insurance hikes that have taken place, which are penalising school budgets. Will the Minister take action to ensure that money is provided to enable schools to recruit the staff that we need?
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I are the sole remaining Members of the House who served on the Communities and Local Government Committee when we conducted the inquiries into Rotherham, in both November 2014 and March 2015. We heard from the victims then about the terrible abuse they had suffered and interviewed Dame Louise Casey at great length about her concerns over what was happening and what was being allowed to happen. There is clearly still something going on, which is that most victims are young girls from broken homes who have been taken into care by local authorities and have never experienced the love of a family. They then take the view that someone expressing some form of love is something that they should like and enjoy, when the reality is that they are being ruthlessly exploited by individuals who should know better, and are evil. The key concern here is the lackadaisical approach that has been taken by many local authorities, social workers, police forces and other bodies. My genuine concern, which I am sure is shared by other Members, is that a local inquiry will not get individuals who either turned a blind eye or actually participated in the abuse to give evidence. Will the Home Secretary ensure that witnesses are called to those inquiries under oath so that we can get to the bottom of this, and make sure that those who turned a blind eye to or connived in this abuse are brought to justice as well as the perpetrators?
We knew that Iran had the ballistic missiles to hit Europe, let alone Israel or other parts of the middle east. Last week, the IAEA reported that Iran was within a whisker of producing atomic weapons. In the absence of diplomatic efforts and the failure to introduce the snapback mechanism, Israel had a right to react to protect itself. Will the Foreign Secretary now look at the diplomatic efforts to introduce the snapback mechanism and to impose sanctions on Iran to ensure that it cannot ever obtain nuclear weapons?
Around 30% of my constituents emanate from Gujarat originally. On Saturday, we came together in one of the Hindu temples with the interfaith council, and people of all religions and none expressed their condolences. At that temple, 20 people have lost relatives. Last night, we attended another vigil at a temple where four relatives of people who work there have lost their lives. Can the Minister give us an update on one issue? For the 53 UK nationals who sadly lost their life, we have been able to communicate to their family that they have unfortunately died, but there were 169 Indian nationals who were almost certainly due to visit family in the UK—families that extend across the country. Has the FCDO been able to advise those families of the loss of those lives, so that instead of being by the telephone waiting in hope that their relatives were not on the plane, they have a certain outcome?
May I begin by welcoming the Government’s motion to put the assurance board on a proper footing, and to introduce a clear policy framework under which the ICGS will operate? As some colleagues have said, the ICGS is an extremely important parliamentary workplace scheme, covering all members of the parliamentary community—more than 10,000 people. Unusually for a body set up only six years ago—by a former Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom—it has undergone a number of reviews, which have highlighted concerns about the operation of the scheme and made recommendations to this House. The most recent was the Kernaghan review, from which today’s Government motion has its genesis. The motion will set up in permanent form an assurance board to oversee the workings of the ICGS. I welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on to that new assurance board on a permanent footing. Why are we here today? The ICGS has experienced a number of concerning process issues since it was set up, particularly in respect of the quality of its investigations and the excessive time delays in the processing of those investigations. If complainants and respondents are to trust the ICGS, it is of paramount importance for the assurance board to ensure that the issues encountered with the investigatory process are resolved, and that complainants and respondents are subject to a process with a credible and, importantly, timely outcome. As I am sure all Members agree, it is not acceptable to complainants and respondents that, in what is an internal workplace process, they must sometimes wait for years for an outcome on, for instance, bullying. The Committee on Standards is specifically prohibited from involvement in individual ICGS cases. Preserving the independence of those investigations is vital to the success of the investigations, and to the confidence of those who seek the aid of the ICGS and those who are investigated under the scheme. However, the ICGS is part of a wider standards landscape within the House, and the Committee on Standards has a useful voice in highlighting how the scheme is operating and in commenting on policy. In the standards landscape report produced shortly before the last general election, our predecessors—some of whom remain members of the Committee, particularly the lay members—noted that the Committee had not had time to consider fully the recommendations of the Kernaghan review. In paragraph 175 of that report, the previous Standards Committee recommended to the House that the new Committee, which I now chair, should continue to consider the analysis and recommendations contained in the review. As Chair of the Committee, I can inform the House that the Committee has since had discussions about the work of the ICGS with its outgoing director, Thea Walton—I thank her for the work that she has done—and that it is due to discuss that work further next week. Owing to the pressure of other work—notably the complex inquiry that we have undertaken at the request of the Modernisation Committee and the Leader of the House into outside interests and employment—we have not had time to consider fully all Mr Kernaghan’s recommendations and their implementation, but we will continue to make that a focus of our work during the current Parliament. Members may have noted that the proposed new assurance board would contain a member of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, but not a Member of the Standards Committee in the Commons. Dame Laura Cox, in her 2018 report on the bullying and harassment of Commons staff, recommended that processes to determine such complaints should be entirely independent of Members of Parliament, and that is the course that the House adopted. The House of Lords is responsible for its own processes, and its Committee retains a greater role than this House’s Committee in these matters. Let me emphasise that it is absolutely proper for MPs not to be involved in determining complaints, but there may be scope for involvement in the policy framework surrounding complaints. I have not sought to amend the motion today—as I have said, I welcome it—but given that involvement in policy does not equate to interference in complaints, and nor should it, it may be worth revisiting in future whether, since the Lords Committee will be represented, this House’s Committee on Standards ought to be represented as well. It might also be worth revisiting whether a valuable member voice—and by “member” I mean not just a Member of Parliament but a lay member of the Committee—beyond the House of Commons Commission might also be useful. I do not expect the Leader of the House to respond to that suggestion today, because it is proper for the Committee on Standards to consider this matter fully, as recommended and as approved by the House. Once it has had the opportunity to do so, it may well revert with further recommendations on how today’s motion might be enhanced as we go forward together, on a cross-party basis, seeking to ensure that we have the best parliamentary workplace scheme, with the appropriate parliamentary stakeholders included in this welcome assurance board. Let me end by acknowledging what some other Members have said about trade unions. Only a few hours ago, Unite’s parliamentary staff branch emailed all MPs about this very point. I think that the point that I have made about the Committee on Standards sits well with the parliamentary staff branch’s own views on ensuring that all relevant parliamentary stakeholders are included in this welcome assurance board.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I entirely support his argument and his amendment. This is the difference between, in his estimation, accepting a request and promoting a service. Advertising is about the promotion of a service to doubtful, fearful and vulnerable people, and that is precisely what his amendment addresses.
The reason why what my hon. Friend has said is so important is that it is yet another important safeguard, particularly given that, as we learn from analysis in the impact assessment, much of this is outsourced to private organisations. Those organisations need to be regulated in precisely the way he has described.
The hon. Gentleman is fast becoming one of my favourites on the Government Benches, among many competitors. The point that he makes is fundamental. If we are going to do this right, we have to do it thoroughly and with independent analysis. Had the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny and thorough analysis before introducing the Bill, we may have ironed these matters out in the first place.
Edmund Burke said: “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” Over time, I have seen many imperfect measures put before the House—under Governments of all persuasions, by the way—and usually, through scrutiny, they are improved. That is because the parliamentary process works when there is time available, and in particular when there is pre-legislative scrutiny, independent analysis and thorough thinking about the consequences of what we debate here. That could have happened on this important matter, but it has not because it has been shoehorned into a process ill-fitted for its purpose. The amendments we are debating are a late attempt to improve the Bill. I particularly recommend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who made an excellent contribution to our debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I support those amendments because it is critical that the safeguards in the Bill are not only maintained but improved and enhanced, for all the reasons advanced by hon. Members across the House about coercion and vulnerable people. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said she has never encountered coercion. North Herefordshire must be a wonderful place where people carry harps and drink ambrosia, but in the rest of the kingdom and, I assert, the rest of the world, there are many wicked people doing many bad things. We must never allow those wicked people to have reign and power over those who inevitably, because of their circumstances, will be at risk if the Bill is not improved.
I give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire as I cited her.
I am afraid that I disagree. There are numerous cases where people will be encouraged, and perhaps even forced, to take a decision, when they are coping with illness and at their most vulnerable—when they are frightened, doubtful and distressed, and may be unbalanced. Of course we have to protect against that eventuality if the Bill is to be passed.
The hon. Gentleman anticipated what I was about to say; I have cited exactly that evidence many times during the debate. We need to look at the experience elsewhere to inform what we do here. We always do that when we pass the right laws in this place. There is worse news than that, because rather than being improved during its passage, the Bill has in many ways got worse, in particular by giving additional powers to Ministers—so-called Henry VIII powers. When the two words “delegated legislation” are mentioned in this place, we should always be fearful; when the words “ministerial discretion” are used, be doubly fearful. I said that looking directly at Government Front-Bench Members, but I could have been looking at the Conservative Front Bench. The Bill gives permissive powers to Government to make all kinds of changes. I want to take some of those to illustrate my point. The Bill empowers Ministers to amend the Suicide Act, including the offence of encouraging suicide. They can rewrite the principles of the NHS, in section 1 of the National Health Service Act, to read, “secure improvement in the mental health of the people of England and Wales and end the lives of the terminally ill”. They can amend the NHS Act to specify that this service is not free of charge. The Bill points only to the section of the National Health Service Act that says, “services to be provided free of charge except where charging expressly provided for”. They can amend the definition of a registered medical practitioner, so it is not a doctor carrying out the assessment. And so on and so forth. That is why the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) is so vital. The speech she gave was among the best speeches I have heard in this House. The passion she feels for vulnerable people and the difference the NHS makes to them is not only felt on the Labour Benches, as she well knows, regardless of the theatre. We all come to this place to ensure that the least fortunate have a voice; that those with less power are given a little more by our advocacy. In conclusion, I say to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that there has never been any doubt about the depth of her piety. Let us now be sure about the breadth of her mind. If she really wants the Bill to be passed in a way that is palatable, then she must surely accept the amendments I have supported and highlighted in this brief—all too brief—contribution.
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might be useful if a Member of Parliament who has not often taken part in demos in central London intervenes at this point to show that opinion in this House of Commons is absolutely united. In various Parliaments—indeed, in most Parliaments in Europe—MPs have immunity from prosecution. We have never had that system here, and we have always proclaimed what is very much the British way: that Members of Parliament are no different from any other member of the public. If they do wrong, they will be held to account, but they should not be subject to some greater test of culpability just because they are Members of Parliament. As somebody who is not in the same party as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and often has rather different views from his, I wanted to rise to show that what he has just said has universal support in this House.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you can assist me as I am at a loss as to what amendment we are discussing.
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for you to explain why that is not a matter for the Chair? Surely if MPs are going to be deemed by the Metropolitan police to have greater culpability than other citizens, that must be a matter for the Chair and for Mr Speaker. Why should it be delegated to the Clerks?
My hon. Friend is right in what she says. Those of us who are opposed to the death penalty, for example, are against it because we do not believe in the infallibility of the state. The state can get things wrong; professionals can get things wrong—and when they do, there should be a proven, clear path as to how that wrongdoing can be identified, to try to ensure that it does not occur again.
I rise to speak in support of amendments (a) and (b) to new clause 14, new clauses 1, 2 and 16, and amendment (a) to new clause 15. I will make two observations at the outset. I do so as a Welshman representing an English constituency, as a former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and as the current Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I remain to be convinced, despite the confidence expressed by the Bill’s promoter, that the Bill honours, in spirit and letter, the devolution settlement. Based on the expression on the face of the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), I do not think she believes that it honours the devolution settlement as far as Scotland is concerned either. I also make the point that we are here to make law that has to stand the test of time. She was not the only one to do so, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) shared a heartfelt anecdote about a conversation with her mother as a result of her mother’s professional work. I know how easy it is to do, because it is a trap that I have fallen into, but, particularly on an issue as emotive and literally life-changing as this, we should not base our decision just on anecdote. We must base it on cold analysis of what is before us. It is almost six months to the day since the Bill was introduced and still I think it is best described as skeletal. We have been told time and again by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and the Minister how busy officials have been looking at the practicalities of the Bill and how to operationalise it and make it workable. Yet this House is kept in the dark on what Ministers intend. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) said in his earlier contribution that his understanding was that the hon. Lady was still prepared to work with colleagues to perfect the Bill. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are on the second day of Report stage and we could easily fall to Third Reading today. The time for that evolutionary conversation is long past. The time for detailed clarification is now. The Bill remains skeletal.