House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
On 22 March, the Foreign Secretary announced global human rights sanctions against four Chinese officials and one entity responsible for serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. We did so alongside the United States, Canada and the European Union, sending a powerful message to China about the strength of international concern. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to keep all potential evidence and listings under close review.
James Murray
While we wait for the Government to take further action on sanctions against individuals, I would like to press the Minister on whether the UK Government will follow this House and the US and Canadian Governments in declaring the Chinese Government’s persecution of the Uyghur people to be a genocide.
Nigel Adams
As the hon. Member probably knows, we do not shy from taking action. We have led international efforts to hold China to account. It is the long-standing policy of several Governments of the United Kingdom that the determination of genocide should be by a competent court.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The UK will spend £10 billion in official development assistance in 2021, making us the third highest bilateral humanitarian donor country based on the OECD data.
Mr David Davis
Let me start by saying that I understand full well that this is a policy imposed by an unintelligent Treasury edict. Nevertheless, it has, potentially, the fatal consequences of a medium-sized war. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa could not tell us whether the 60% cut to Yemen meant more or less than 260,000 deaths of women and children as a result. On Ethiopia, where the UN told us that 350,000 faced imminent starvation, the Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge)—yesterday could not tell the House the size of the cut in our aid. I understand from impeccable sources that we propose to cut that aid by £58 million—more than half. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm the size of that cut and tell the House what we intend to do to reduce the hundreds of thousands of deaths arising from our policy?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I do not accept the proposition that he has put forward. As a global leader in ODA—and we continue to be a global leader in ODA—we stretch to put as much in as we possibly can. Of course, we have temporary financial exceptional circumstances, but we will get back to 0.7% as soon as we can. He raised, in particular, the issue of Yemen. We have committed at least £87 million in 2021—that is more than £1 billion since the conflict began. He asked about the firm statistics. They are sent out in the normal way through Development Tracker and the final returns that are made annually.
Steven Bonnar
Last week, the Prime Minister casually dismissed protests against billions of pounds-worth of aid cuts as “lefty propaganda”. Analysis by Save the Children estimates that at least 3 million people in need of life-saving humanitarian assistance right now will not receive it because of this Government’s decision. Can the Foreign Secretary not see that this is not about left or right? It is about right and wrong. Does he recognise that this is not propaganda? This is about life and death for the most vulnerable people, so will he now U-turn on this decision before it is too late for them?
Dominic Raab
What I recognise is that we remain the third largest donor in the G7, based on GNI. What I recognise is that we have made the biggest ever donation to the Global Partnership for Education, pursuing our goal of 40 million girls receiving 12 years of education. As a result of that, we raised at the G7 billions of pounds from other partners towards that goal. What I recognise is that we have doubled bilateral spending on international climate finance and we secured, through our donation of 100 million surplus vaccines, a contribution of a billion more by the middle of next year, which means that we will be able to vaccinate the world not at the end of 2024, which is the current trajectory, but by the mid-point of next year. That is what global Britain is about. That is what we achieved at the G7.
Martin Docherty-Hughes [V]
Two aspects of the recent integrated review that jumped out at me were the explicit wish to integrate diplomacy and development and the so-called Indo-Pacific tilt, which stated the desire to see the UK’s ODA more effective in the region. As a member of the Defence Committee, I am always interested to know how one can make the so-called region that is home to three of the five largest states in the world, and which is named after the first and third largest oceans on the planet, any sort of effective domain for UK foreign policy, so can the Foreign Secretary, while his Government cut aid to many of the poorest in the world, advise the House which areas or countries of the Indo-Pacific they will be prioritising to maintain their investment with this new-style of integrated development and diplomacy?
Dominic Raab
As I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the final figures, as has historically always been the case, come out not just through DevTracker, but in the international development statistics.
Let me give the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) the example that I think he is searching for. At the weekend, we made a £430 million contribution to the Global Partnership for Education—a 15% increase on last year that will affect many of the countries and regions that he describes. Above all, we used not just our aid spend, but our diplomatic convening power, to get others to make billions of pounds’ worth of contributions. Not only will that encourage 40 million more girls back into education, but it will help to deliver our second goal of getting 20 million more girls literate by the age of 10.
Hannah Bardell [V]
The real question is: do this Tory Government even care? At a time when the poorest nations of the world need support, humanity and compassion, this UK Tory Government are turning their back. Even one of their own Back Benchers has admitted that these cuts will kill. The other G7 countries have stepped up their aid budget; the UK is the only one to cut it. It is utterly shameful. Do you know what I really want to know, Mr Speaker? I want to know how the Foreign Secretary and his Tory Government sleep at night, knowing that they have the blood on their hands of some of the poorest people in the world.
Dominic Raab
I think that that was pretty unsavoury from the hon. Lady, but I will tell her how we sleep at night. We sleep at night because we are the third biggest ODA budget contributor in the G7. We sleep at night because we have just made the biggest global commitment on girls’ education ever, of any Government ever in the UK. We sleep at night because we are doubling the average annual spend on international climate finance. We sleep at night because we led the way with the 100 million doses that we are providing from excess surplus because of the money that we spent on the AstraZeneca vaccine: of the doses that the poorest countries have so far received via COVAX, 95% have come from AZ. In relation to humanitarian spend, bilaterally, we are the third biggest as well. We continue to be a global leader, but I think that our constituents would be asking some pretty serious questions if, at a time when we face the biggest contraction in our economy for 300 years, we were not also making or finding savings from the international as well as the domestic budget.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
COVAX aimed to deliver 2 billion doses of vaccine to countries around the world in 2021. Six months in, less than 5% of that total has been shipped. To rapidly vaccinate health workers and older people in low-income countries, we must address global shortages with a global plan to increase production of vaccines and equitable access. Instead, what we got this weekend from a Prime Minister who has been in perennial retreat from the world stage was a commitment to 5 million doses by the end of September, and a vague commitment to more at some point over the next 12 months. Does the Secretary of State agree that cutting the aid budget while most of his counterparts were increasing theirs made it harder for the Prime Minister to play a leadership role at the G7, and that the cuts are a key reason for the Prime Minister’s abject failure to deliver a comprehensive strategy that accelerates global vaccine access so that we can achieve at least 70% coverage in all countries and end the pandemic as quickly as possible?
Dominic Raab
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is just mistaken and clearly did not pay attention to what the G7 agreed. We agreed 100 million doses on the UK’s part by the middle of next year. That was not some kind of loose commitment; it was a very clear one, and comes on top of the 1 billion doses that we secured through our financial commitment to COVAX. As a result of our commitment, we have now raised the ability, through the G7 and the other contributions, to secure 1 billion extra doses, so there are new doses. What that will mean in practice is that rather than the world being vaccinated by 2024, as in the current trajectory, it will happen by the middle of next year. I would have thought that if the hon. Lady really cared about the issue, she would recognise that that is a massive step forward.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
It is apparent that no matter how many examples we give of why the aid cuts should be reversed, the Foreign Secretary is either unwilling or unable to answer, so let us try this another way.
It is estimated that these cuts will result in the deaths of more than 1 million children throughout the world—1 million more than already die as a result of being the poorest and most vulnerable. Many of us have children of our own and would never neglect their fundamental needs, yet with no consent and with widespread opposition both inside and outside this Parliament, this Government are determined to inflict death and suffering on those with no voice. Thinking of those children, will the Foreign Secretary finally commit to reversing the decision, or is he willing to let the ink dry on the death sentences on these innocent lives?
Dominic Raab
I have to say that using language like that reflects more on the hon. Gentleman than on the approach of the Government or any Ministers. Of course we take seriously the financial predicament we are in and the difficult choices we have made, but we remain the third biggest G7 donor, and I have given the House the positive effects that we will achieve with our £10 billion. Of course, if we were right at the bottom and donating only £1 billion a year, and we increased it by 20%, according to his moral paradigm we would be doing better than if we were giving £10 billion this year. That is a totally clueless approach to take.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome the G7’s call for unimpeded access for aid workers to the Tigray region of Ethiopia, as a potentially catastrophic man-made famine is unfolding. The UN estimates that more than 350,000 people are currently living in famine conditions and that 2 million are just one step away. There are reports of crops being destroyed, farmers being prevented from cultivating land and food aid being stolen. Endemic sexual violence means that women and girls are staying in hiding, unable to seek the little food that is available. How much humanitarian aid is the FCDO providing to support this response, and how much of it has already been distributed? What action is the FCDO taking to secure and safeguard the distribution of emergency food aid to communities in Tigray, and what steps is it taking to work with partners to prevent a catastrophic famine?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady, like me, cares passionately about that appalling situation. I can tell her that we have provided £22 million of badly needed support to the people in Tigray. At the G7, under the UK presidency, we issued a statement on 2 April and on 5 May expressing deep concern. Following my visit in January and my conversation with Prime Minister Abiy, humanitarian access went from consent to notification, but we know that humanitarian workers still cannot reach the places they need to reach. We need to work on that, and we need to get Eritrean forces to withdraw. In relation to accountability for some of the appalling human rights abuses we have seen, we certainly support the High Commissioner for Human Rights in her planned investigations in conjunction with the Ethiopian human rights commission.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Iran is systematically in non-compliance with the joint comprehensive plan of action—the JCPOA—and, working with our European partners and with the United States, China and Russia, we expect and require a return to full compliance.
Greg Smith
The UN’s nuclear watchdog has warned that Iran is now producing uranium at levels that “only countries making bombs” are reaching, after successfully enriching to 60% purity. Given that this knowledge cannot be unlearned, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Iran’s nuclear activities already extend far beyond the outdated JCPOA? What steps will he be taking to address not only Iran’s nuclear belligerence but its support for terrorism and the ballistic missile programme?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just the stockpile of enriched uranium, which is 16 times the permitted limit, but the operation of the centrifuges and the production of uranium metal that are of deep concern. All sides agree that Iran must return to full compliance, and there has been some progress in the talks in Vienna, but a successful outcome is far from guaranteed. Those talks cannot continue to be open-ended; we need to see a return to full compliance. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the need for “longer and stronger”, as it is dubbed, to ensure not just that we have permanent guarantees in relation to the nuclear issue but that we address the destabilising activity that Iran sponsors. I have just got back from Iraq, where we can see at first hand the support for the Shi’a militias and what that means in practice.
Mr Ellwood
May I first pay tribute to the work of the HALO Trust, a British charity and the largest de-mining organisation working in Afghanistan? Tragically, 10 of its team were killed in an ISIS attack a week ago. James Cowan, the CEO, has vowed to continue their important work, and I hope that the Government will encourage the Afghan Government to improve local security so that the HALO Trust can continue that important work.
In the 1970s, we attempted to sell 100 Chieftain tanks to Iran. We took the money—£400 million—but following Iranian revolution, the tanks were of course never delivered. We need to repay that debt, because it is starting to interfere with other bilateral issues. I invite my right hon. Friend to speak to Tony Blinken, because this is to do with legacy sanctions and we need to resolve the issue.
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute not just to the work of the HALO Trust—I extend my condolences for the loss of life—but to all the non-governmental organisation workers on the frontline who take extraordinary risks to do incredible work.
On the International Military Services debt to which my right hon. Friend referred, we have always said that we are committed to resolving that issue. I shall not say more at this point because legal discussions are ongoing and I do not want to prejudice them.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) [V]
I join the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) in sending our thoughts and best wishes to the victims of the terrible attack on the HALO Trust staff in Afghanistan. Ten people were murdered and many more injured, and I am sure the whole House would want to send best wishes and sympathies.
The proposed plan to increase the UK’s stockpile of nuclear warheads has made it abundantly clear that the Government have ditched multilateralism and embraced unilateralism. Such a reckless move is out of step with all our allies and will have a big impact on our ability to participate in nuclear non-proliferation agreements such as the JCPOA with Iran. What impact does the Foreign Secretary think the proposed increase in warheads will have on our international standing, given that we appear to have abandoned our obligations under article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Will he recommit to those obligations today?
Dominic Raab
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the maintenance of a minimum credible deterrence has zero impact on the JCPOA talks and is entirely consistent with our non-proliferation obligations.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton) [V]
The creation of the FCDO combines our diplomatic network with our development expertise and resource to maximise our interests, influence and impact as a global force for good. The Foreign Secretary’s strategic oversight of ODA is bringing greater coherence and impact to UK aid, sharpening our focus where we can make the most difference and ensuring that every penny delivers results. The integrated review sets out the ambition for the UK to be a model for an integrated approach to tackling global challenges.
Alun Cairns
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team on their part in securing the vaccination commitment to the developing nations at the G7 over the weekend. There are to be 100 million vaccines from the UK, 500 million doses from the US and 100 million from the EU bloc; although not necessarily proportionate, those commitments will have a major impact on the world’s most vulnerable people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of overseas aid is greater when it is integrated with our diplomatic aims?
Wendy Morton
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for asking that question. As we saw just last weekend at the G7 summit in Carbis Bay, the UK really can achieve much more when diplomatic and political levers combine with our development objectives, be that on vaccines, as he illustrated, or on girls’ education or climate change. We can also use aid commitments to leverage greater financial commitments from other G7 countries and multilaterals. The G7 development-finance institutions and multilateral partners have committed to investing more than $80 billion in the private sector in Africa over the next five years. This is the first time that those institutions have made a collective commitment on funding for Africa. That absolutely demonstrates how the UK’s diplomatic network and development expertise can have a much greater impact when they work together.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
Accountability is vital. The military has committed atrocities against the Rohingya and other minorities and must be held to account. We have sanctioned 16 individuals, including the commander-in-chief, for human rights violations against the Rohingya. We have sanctioned the two largest military-economic entities, which are both a key source of revenue for the military. We have boosted our funding to the independent investigative mechanism, which preserves evidence for future prosecution, and we have been clear in our support for the International Court of Justice process and that we urge the military to comply with the provisional measures ruling.
Rushanara Ali [V]
May I first extend my solidarity with, and deepest condolences to, the HALO Trust staff who were killed in Afghanistan and to all those who were injured?
Myanmar’s military has been allowed to act with impunity against the Rohingya, and its assault has now widened to the whole population following the military coup earlier this year. At the same time, our Government have unfortunately slashed the budget by nearly half for the refugee camps in Bangladesh, and humanitarian cuts are likely in Myanmar. While the Foreign Secretary is listening, may I ask the Minister once again to reverse those cuts, because they are literally costing lives? Will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister also please consider formally joining Gambia on the genocide prevention case at the ICJ? If they do not agree to do so now after all that has happened and after all that the Myanmar military has done, then when will we formally join, given that we are a leading country in relation to Myanmar?
Nigel Adams
I know how passionate the hon. Lady is about the situation in Myanmar, particularly on behalf of the Rohingya community. On the ICJ case, we have been absolutely clear in our support for the process. We have urged the military to comply with the provisional measures rulings, and we have provided funding to enable Rohingya refugees to attend those hearings in December 2019.
With regard to aid support, we remain a leading donor to the Rohingya response, providing more than £320 million to the Rohingya response in Bangladesh since 2017. That includes £27.6 million of new funding announced in May in Rakhine State. We have provided more than £44 million to all communities since 2017, including over £25 million for the Rohingya. The Government are providing education, nutrition, water, sanitation, health and livelihoods.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton) [V]
Covid-19 has raised the stakes for girls’ education, deepening the crisis that they already face in basic skills, and too many children have missed crucial schooling since last year, which we know does long-term damage to their future and disproportionately affects girls. The UK is committed to standing up for the right of every girl around the world to 12 years of quality education. That is why the UK has put girls’ education at the heart of our G7 presidency, and we are co-hosting the global education summit with Kenya in July.
Julie Marson [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her response. Does she agree that the G7 announcement on girls’ education represented a huge boost to our efforts to ensure that girls around the world get the education that they need and deserve?
Wendy Morton
Absolutely. We have put girls’ education at the heart of our G7 presidency and made huge strides in achieving our ambition of standing up for the right of every girl to 12 years of quality education. At the G7 summit in Cornwall, the Prime Minister secured a landmark commitment from our G7 partners to pledge at least $2.7 billion to the Global Partnership for Education ahead of the global education summit. That includes £430 million from the UK, which is an uplift of 15% on our current position as top bilateral donor, and our largest ever pledge to the GPE. That, along with our commitments to getting 40 million more girls into schools and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10 in the next five years, demonstrates the commitment that this Government are putting into girls’ education.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
At the UN Human Rights Council in March, we successfully led a new resolution which expresses deep concern about the situation in Sri Lanka and enhances the UN’s monitoring role. For the first time, it requests that the UN collect evidence of human rights violations, for use in future accountability processes. We continue to engage with the Government of Sri Lanka on that process.
Elliot Colburn [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Tamils and on behalf of Tamils in Carshalton and Wallington, I thank the FCDO for its work in securing this new resolution at the UNHRC sessions. However, more can and should be done to provide accountability for the brutal war crimes committed during the Sri Lankan civil war. What actions can my hon. Friend take to ensure that evidence collected satisfies conditions for sanctions against current Sri Lankan officials who are credibly accused of overseeing the enforced disappearance and sexual assault of thousands of Sri Lankan civilians during the conflict?
Nigel Adams
As my hon. Friend will know, this Government have led international efforts over many years to promote accountability, reconciliation and human rights in Sri Lanka, including at the UN Human Rights Council. The new UK-led resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council in March included, for the first time, a request for the UN
“to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve information and evidence”
of human rights abuses and violations so that this can be used to support future accountability processes.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton) [V]
[Inaudible]—is having on the world’s poorest countries. The FCDO is committed to the global effort to tackle the pandemic. We have made new public commitments worth up to £1.3 billion of ODA to counter the health, humanitarian and socioeconomic impacts of covid-19 and to support the global effort to distribute vaccines equitably, as well as adopting our programmes in 2020 amounting to more than £700 million. As we have heard, the Prime Minister announced at the G7 that the UK will donate 100 million vaccine doses within the next five years, with 5 million of those by the end of September, to ensure global vaccination by the end of 2022.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 1MC.]
Alex Cunningham
That is simply not good enough. With the failure of the Prime Minister to deliver a credible plan at the G7 for vaccinating the world compounding his savage cuts of 80% to clean water and sanitation programmes, which we all know are the best way of slowing the spread of covid-19, does the Minister agree that the scale and impact of these cuts on the lives and life chances of the poorest people in the world are devastating and that the pandemic will kill more people and actually last longer as a result?
Wendy Morton
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was following entirely all the announcements at the G7 at the weekend, because we announced that we will donate 100 million vaccine doses within the next year, with 5 million by the end of September. Our Prime Minister led the G7 to help commit to ensure global vaccination by the end of 2022 and also announced his plan to share 1 billion vaccine doses, and to expand vaccine manufacturing as well. When it comes to our ODA commitments, the UK is one of the largest donors to the international response, committing up to £1.3 billion of ODA since the beginning of the crisis, and our overall ODA budget remains at £10 billion, helping the world’s poorest.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The threat posed by North Korea continues to grow. Its nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes threaten to destabilise the region and pose a grave threat to international peace and security. The United Kingdom is deeply concerned that humanitarian needs in North Korea may be growing following the closure of its borders in January 2020. We urge North Korea to facilitate access for international humanitarian organisations to carry out an independent assessment of needs and to allow aid to flow freely into that country.
Dr Mullan
Does my hon. Friend agree that the international community’s complete failure to stop the ongoing brutal treatment and subjugation of the North Korean people is testament to the fact that we need new international structures to tackle the worst human rights abuses outside of the UN Security Council, which is not able to deliver on this and many other issues?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, but he can be reassured that the UK is clear that there must be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. The international community has a responsibility to respond to human rights violations in North Korea. The United Kingdom remains committed to continuing to push for action at all levels to bring pressure to bear on the Government of North Korea.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I listened with great interest to the Minister’s answer, and North Korea really should be higher up our agenda, because there is a looming humanitarian disaster coming in that country. The corn harvest is failing and food prices are now up 30-odd per cent., the border remains closed with China, so imports are not able to alleviate that, and we are also seeing electricity being diverted away from the provinces to Pyongyang—all the actions of a deeply unstable regime, but jeopardising the interests of 25 million people. We have heard great tell about the Indo-Pacific tilt and integrated foreign policy and development, but it really would be a lot more credible if we heard less about aircraft carriers and more about preparations for a pending humanitarian disaster.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member is again right to raise this issue. We are extremely concerned about the humanitarian situation in North Korea. He will be aware that our ambassador to North Korea maintains diplomatic relations from London. He routinely discusses issues of concern. We will seek to re-establish our presence in Pyongyang as soon as the border reopens. The Foreign Secretary and other G7 Foreign and Development Ministers made clear on 5 May our deep concern for the welfare of vulnerable communities, particularly in terms of access to adequate water, nutrition and medical facilities. This humanitarian assistance should be delivered consistent with UN Security Council resolutions and humanitarian principles.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The UK’s overseas development assistance continues to serve the primary purpose of reducing poverty in developing countries. We are proud that we remain firmly committed to helping the world’s poorest, and we will spend £10 billion on overseas development assistance this year—spending more on international aid in 2021 as a proportion of our gross national income than the majority of the G7.
Sally-Ann Hart
With Brexit, the UK has the freedom to be a truly global nation, not just in trade and diplomacy, but also in leading the world in tackling climate change, poverty and inequality. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have an opportunity to expand our presence abroad, particularly in developing nations, so that we have personnel on the ground who really understand the issues faced in these countries and who can advise on how aid can be specifically targeted to ensure real measurable help is given where it is needed most?
James Duddridge
I agree that we have an opportunity to expand our presence abroad, particularly in developing countries. As part of the UK’s diplomatic and development expansion, we now have heads of mission in Lesotho, Vanuatu and Eswatini. We are also opening a new British embassy in Djibouti and upgrading our two existing offices in Chad and Niger to full embassy status.
Christina Rees [V]
As a Labour and Co-operative party MP, I am so proud that tackling poverty is at the heart of the co-operative movement. What assurances can the Minister give that the co-operative sectors, which do so much to alleviate poverty in developing countries, will not be impacted by cuts to the aid budget? Will he commit to reinstate the 0.7% aid budget target?
James Duddridge
I can certainly commit to going back to 0.7%—that is the Government’s intention when the fiscal situation is right. I can agree to co-operate with co-operatives across the developing world—with a small C and a large C—including the Fairtrade movement.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
My hon. Friend asks a very timely question, as the Prime Minister has today announced a free trade agreement with Australia, which will bring fantastic opportunities for British businesses from all over the United Kingdom. The UK-Australia trade relationship was worth more than £13.9 billion last year, and we look forward to it growing even further under this deal. The FCDO has co-ordinated the transition of 150 key international agreements in which the UK previously participated as a member of the EU, including supporting the Department for International Trade to agree bilateral trade agreements with 67 non-EU countries, plus the European Union.
Andrew Griffith
Ahead of English Wine Week next week, would the Minister give me his personal assurance that he will do everything in his power to ensure that our embassies and our high commissions around the world do all they can to promote and showcase this growing and successful English product?
Nigel Adams
I could not agree more, and I know my hon. Friend and I do our best to support this fantastic industry. There is no better champion for the British wine industry, and he has some superb vineyards in Arundel and South Downs. The quality of our sparkling wines in particular are superb, not least those from north Yorkshire vineyards, including the Yorkshire Heart vineyard in Nun Monkton and the Dunesforde vineyard in Upper Dunsforth. I recommend a visit. He is totally right: there should be no excuse for our embassies, our high commissions and our consulates not stocking British projects, including our wines. I am sure all our ambassadors and high commissioners are watching, so I would ask them to make sure that their cellars are stocked up with British produce, including our fantastic British wines.
Mr Speaker
You should have told the Prime Minister to put it on last night.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
In their call last month, the Foreign Secretary raised the response to the pandemic and global health reform with Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi. The Health Secretary also discussed covid-19 with his Chinese counterpart at the UK-China health dialogue in December 2020. He underlined that a shared understanding of the virus’s origins, grounded in robust science, is vital to global pandemic preparedness.
Antony Higginbotham
The covid-19 pandemic has had huge implications for the global economy, for our constituents across this House and for billions of people around the world, so it is vital that we learn the lessons and do not brush anything under the carpet for fear of reprisal. With President Biden having asked US intelligence agencies to investigate the origins of the pandemic, could the Minister reassure me and the House that we will be playing our full part in those efforts, and that we will be putting pressure on the Chinese Government to make sure that they behave in a much more transparent way than they have done to date?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. As he will know, phase 1 of the WHO-convened covid-19 origins study was always meant to be the beginning of the process, not the end. We are working with our international partners to support the timely, transparent, evidence-based and expert-led phase 2 study, including, as recommended by the experts report, in China. World Health Organisation director general Tedros has said that “all hypotheses remain open”, and further data and studies are required. As such, we expect all WHO member states to live up to their responsibilities and co-operate with phase 2.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK remains fully committed to a two-state solution as the best way to permanently end the occupation, deliver Palestinian self-determination and ensure Israel’s Jewish and democratic identity. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 25 and 26 May for talks with senior leaders to reaffirm this commitment. We welcome the ceasefire in Israel and Gaza, and we are working with partners in the region to find a durable solution to the conflict. We also look forward to hearing more from the Alliance for Middle East Peace and the US Government about the international fund’s objectives and the projects it will support. Once more information is available, we will consider options for UK involvement.
Hilary Benn [V]
As the Minister has said, for many years there has been widespread international support for a two-state solution, but he will know that a growing number of voices now say that the window on this is closing rapidly, and that if it does, Israel will have to accept full and equal civil rights for all Palestinians. In the light of this, what policy would he encourage the new Government formed this week to pursue?
James Cleverly
We congratulate the new Government on their formation and look forward to working with them in pursuit of the almost universally held goal in this House and across the international community of having a secure, sovereign, prosperous Palestinian state alongside a secure and stable and safe Israeli state. Ultimately it is for the Government of Israel to make decisions about these policies, but, as has been the long-standing position of the UK Government, we will work to support any and all actions which are complementary to or part of the process towards making that sustainable two-state solution through political negotiations a reality.
Dame Diana Johnson [V]
Despite hosting the G7 in Cornwall this weekend, the Government have yet again missed the opportunity to make global Britain a reality in the middle east by not seizing the initiative for UK leadership of the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Why did the Government pass over that opportunity, and is there any prospect of the UK stepping up and leading that exciting new project with the United States?
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her passion for finding a peaceful resolution to this situation; it is our shared goal. As I said in my answer, we will look at the detail of what this programme seeks to deliver, and as yet all the details are not available to us. We have always looked favourably on programmes that bring about peace but we want to make sure that they are effective and, as I have said, once we have more details we will assess our contribution or collaboration.
Peter Gibson [V]
Over the last few weeks I have been contacted by many constituents who are distraught at the loss of civilian life on both sides. Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that the UK continues to work with both sides to avoid future conflict?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary travelled to both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories shortly after the most recent scenes of violence. We enjoy good relations with both the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel, and we will of course be working with the new members of the Israeli Government to pursue the long-standing UK policy of finding a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. I have no doubt that I speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend when I say that our efforts in this area are undiminished.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
May I begin by expressing my sympathies to the families of the HALO Trust staff who lost their lives in Afghanistan? They were killed by an armed group while on a mission clearing land mines; they were extremely brave people and we pay tribute to them.
The British consul in Jerusalem recently visited his neighbours in Sheikh Jarrah. In support of the Palestinians he said that the threat to the community
“grows more acute by the day”.
He correctly stated that,
“Settlement activity & associated evictions & demolitions”
in East Jerusalem
“are illegal and undermine prospects for peace.”
Those are powerful words but what is needed is action, so what do the Government propose to do to ensure that Palestinians in East Jerusalem can live in peace and security, and that the rule of law prevails in East Jerusalem?
James Cleverly
The UK Government’s position on demolitions, settlement expansion and annexation is clear and long-standing. As I have said, we enjoy good bilateral relations with the Government of Israel and are able to speak with them frankly and firmly when we believe that their actions are counterproductive to a peaceful two-state solution. We will continue to do so, but ultimately the resolution to this long-standing challenge will be through negotiations between the Government of Israel and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, supported—perhaps even facilitated—by their friends in the international community, such as the United Kingdom.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Since the last oral questions I have visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to discuss how to reinforce the ceasefire. I also visited Saudi Arabia and saw at first hand the changes under Saudi Vision 2030, including greater rights for women, which we have been very much supporting; visited Iraq to support free and fair elections in October; and, of course, joined the Prime Minister in Carbis Bay for the G7 summit, which under his presidency delivered groundbreaking pledges on international vaccines, decisive action on climate change and G7 commitments to get 40 million more girls into 12 years of quality education.
Mike Amesbury
Nepal is in a deep covid crisis, with thousands of people dying each week because of the lack of oxygen supply and ventilators, and the severe lack of vaccines. Without urgent help from the UK Government, more lives will be lost. Can the Secretary of State outline what additional support the UK Government are providing following the visit last month by medical advisers to Nepal?
Dominic Raab
I am very concerned about the situation in Nepal. The UK announced very recently an additional support package, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the full details, so that he has all of that to hand.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about the workers serving so bravely in the HALO Trust in Afghanistan. He knows as well as I do that many other people are serving the Afghan community, and indeed the international community, by seeking to assist women and girls in education, to help farmers, and to fight the corruption in various institutions—and, indeed, the drugs business that has blighted so many lives.
Can the Secretary of State, today at the Dispatch Box, redouble his commitment to the Afghan National Defence and Security Force and to supporting all those institutions that made such a difference in protecting the Afghan population, and that really are the legacy of the British Army and many other armies’ continuous operations in Afghanistan over much of the last 20 years? Will he ensure that the sacrifice of all those who fought in Afghanistan, and all those who have given so much to rebuilding it, will not go to waste in aid cuts that are so unnecessary?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right to point to the precarious situation in Afghanistan. We had long, detailed talks not just with the United States at Carbis Bay but with other allies. We had the NATO summit as well, which has been an opportunity to reinforce the need to stand by those who have stood by us in the way that my hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee described, and to ensure that we encourage a political dialogue to avoid the spectre, or the risk, of civil war and that we bank not just the security gains from all the blood, sweat and tears that have been spent in Afghanistan, but a more inclusive Government.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I associate myself with the tributes paid to the brave workers of the HALO Trust and put on record our unequivocal condemnation of the targeting of a BBC journalist outside Parliament yesterday. Press freedom is under attack around the world; we must defend it here.
Yesterday, NATO recognised China as a systemic challenge to our security and the values that underpin it for the first time. While we welcome the reference to forced labour in the G7 communiqué, the failure to agree concrete measures in relation to Xinjiang was a missed opportunity to send a clear message that the world stands against genocide and anyone who seeks to profit from it. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he and the Prime Minister supported the stronger language and tougher measures that President Biden made it clear were needed, and that, despite the failure of the G7 to agree them, he will continue to do so?
Dominic Raab
I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said. Of course, she will know that there are varied views at the G7, including among our European partners, about quite how robust to be with China on some of these issues. She will know, because of the stance that the United Kingdom has taken in the Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, the United Nations and other forums, and indeed from the statements that we have put out and the sanctions that we have imposed in relation to Xinjiang, how importantly we take the issue, but the reality is that in relation to China, on this and many other issues, we need to be able to carry a broader group of like-minded countries with us. That is why the Prime Minister invited India, South Korea and Australia to join the G7 as guests, and why it is important to engage with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the way that we have been doing.
Lisa Nandy
While I welcome that, if we want to carry a broader group of like-minded countries with us we need to lead by example. Does the Secretary of State regret whipping his MPs to support preferential trade deals with countries that commit genocide? Can he tell us why, last week, his Government turned down almost every single recommendation made by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to get tough with China over forced labour in Xinjiang, and why the Minister for Exports, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), told parliamentarians last week:
“China offers more opportunity for the UK economy than perhaps any other market”?
The sheer incoherence of that approach is what, time and again, causes the Government to come up short. It gives us the absurd spectacle of Ministers standing up for human rights in the morning and then defending trade deals with countries that commit genocide in the afternoon. Will he please get a grip on that across Government, because who in the world could rely on a Government who cannot even rely on themselves?
Dominic Raab
I think the hon. Lady is a bit confused. Can she name a single country with which the United Kingdom under this Government is engaged on FTA negotiations that has committed anything close to genocide? Of course it is unthinkable; of course we would not do it. [Interruption.] Incorrect. What we have done—[Interruption.] She is chuntering from a sedentary position because she knows what she is saying is bereft of substance. We have imposed—we led the way in imposing—sanctions on Xinjiang. We have raised it at the G7 level. It is absolutely inconceivable that the UK would do a trade deal with any country that has engaged in genocide. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering again. It is absolute nonsense.
It is right, though, to say that we want a constructive and positive relationship, where that is possible, with China across the piece. In areas such as climate change, the hon. Lady talks a good game but does not seem to understand the elbow grease that needs to go into it. We need to have a conversation with China, because it is the biggest emitter and the biggest investor in renewable technologies, but we have demonstrated time and again that we never shrink from standing up for our values. She talks a good game; we do the business.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. On the positive side, we welcome President Bolsonaro’s commitment to reach zero illegal deforestation by 2030, and we are working with the Brazilian Government to address some of the underlying factors that fuel deforestation, including trying to get sustainable production of agricultural commodities—an issue not just in Brazil but around the world. Through international finance programmes, we have committed £259 million to help protect the Amazon, which has already enabled clearance of 430,000 acres to be avoided.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
I have had long conversations with the families of Anoosheh Ashoori and all the other dual nationals who have been detained. Nothing is more moving or heartbreaking in this job than seeing the situation of dual nationals in Iran and, indeed, of nationals and dual nationals around the world, and I have been intensively engaged in trying to resolve this. With other issues, it was something I discussed with our US friends at Carbis Bay. I am doing absolutely everything I can to secure the release and return home of all our detained dual nationals in Iran and, indeed, around the world.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I can assure her that in all the conversations we have about our commitment to Africa and to the broader world, ensuring 12 years of quality education for girls remains the top priority. We recognise that, as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, it is the Swiss Army knife for global problems, and it will remain a high priority for us, both in this part of the world and more broadly.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Mr Speaker
I suspect he will not, but come on, Foreign Secretary.
Dominic Raab
I am glad that the folk of Chesham and Amersham managed to have a rare sighting of a Lib Dem. I went to school in Amersham, and I can tell the hon. Lady that I do not think that they will be that daft come election day.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I started life as a maritime lawyer, so I can geek on UNCLOS with the best of them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. We welcome the negotiations between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on a code of conduct relating to UNCLOS. What is really important is that that reflects and is faithful to the international obligations in one of the world’s most widely ratified international treaties that is widely regarded as reflective of custom in international law. A code of conduct should not be used by China to unpick the obligations under UNCLOS.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that I am very disappointed that lots of Members have not got in? Those who asked questions and those who responded to them should consider others because, unfortunately, I am now ending questions and suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Petition
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Since the news broke that Pladis, the global company that owns the McVitie’s brand, plans to close its factory in the east end of Glasgow, local people have certainly not been shy in expressing their opposition, and there is a groundswell of support for saving the 470 jobs at the Tollcross site, which is heartening. The petition organised by workers at the factory currently has over 52,000 signatures, which is a staggering number in such a short space of time.
In presenting the petition to Parliament in support of the McVitie’s workers, I hope to catch the attention of Pladis, to show it that the public are not happy with its proposed withdrawal from Scotland. The Glasgow East factory has stood on that site for almost a century, and it would devastate the local area and economy if it ceased operations. Generations of families, often simultaneously, have worked at the factory, and the loyalty of the workforce cannot be questioned, as many people have been employed there for decades.
Generations of families in the east end of Glasgow have helped to propel the McVitie’s brand to contemporary dominance over the domestic biscuit market, outselling the next seven biggest brands combined. You would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that McVitie’s stands on the shoulders of its dedicated workforce, past and present, and the strength of feeling among the general public about that is apparent.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with Pladis and advise them to reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Notes that the Tollcross McVitie’s employs 468 people from across Glasgow East; declares that as such the proposed closure of the factory would be equivalent to economic Armageddon to what is already a fragile local economy; notes throughout the pandemic, Pladis Global’s employees worked at the Tollcross factory as key workers whilst much of the country safely worked from home; notes the workforce has been loyal and committed for many years, with some employees working at the Tollcross factory for decades; notes that many employees also have a family history of working at the factory and in some cases, several generations of the same family currently work at the factory simultaneously; notes that the McVitie’s company has had a continuous presence in Scotland since 1839 and that the brand has become synonymous with Scotland; declares that Pladis should honour the history of the McVitie’s brand in Scotland and the loyal workforce in the Tollcross factory and fully engage with local and national government, and ultimately reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with Pladis and advise them to reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002669]
Business of the House
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I should like to make a short business statement. Hon. and right hon. Members will be aware of yesterday’s announcement to extend covid restrictions until 19 July. As a consequence of that announcement, further regulations are needed. Therefore, tomorrow’s business will now be:
Wednesday 16 June—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by a motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 705), and a further motion that will provide for the current arrangements for parliamentary proceedings during the pandemic to continue until the summer recess.
I shall make a further business statement as usual on Thursday. Mr Speaker, you have asked me to advise hon. and right hon. Members that they will have until 3 o’clock today to apply to speak in tomorrow’s debate.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for an advance copy of his statement and for co-operation over the process.
In section 9 of the ministerial code, “Ministers and Parliament” general principle 9.1 states:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
As you noted, Mr Speaker, and as I too noted yesterday in my point of order, that was not followed yesterday in relation to a major announcement by the Prime Minister.
The Leader of the House regularly and correctly says that Members of Parliament have been sent here to represent constituents and should be able to scrutinise Ministers of the Crown in order to stand up for said constituents, and he has always been known as a man of the House and our representative to Cabinet. Does he agree with that statement in the ministerial code?
Given the motion that is being brought forward tomorrow, linking back to yesterday’s announcement, does the Leader of the House believe that the Prime Minister has abided by the letter and spirit of that statement, which is in bold at the top of section 9? If he does not, what will he do to make representations on our behalf to the Prime Minister? Does he understand that the Prime Minister’s absence from this House to take questions about that important announcement affects our ability to represent our constituents? Will there, therefore, be some mention of this over the course of the next 24 hours from the Prime Minister?
In addition to the package of motions that the Leader of the House has announced for tomorrow, will there be a statement from the Chancellor on an economic package of support, and a statement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Department for Work and Pensions about extending support for businesses and individuals who will be affected by the extension? In particular, will the Government now acknowledge that it is essential to provide payment for people asked to isolate who cannot work from home but are on low wages or in insecure work?
Will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues, in addition to the motions tomorrow, to come forward urgently with packages of support? Businesses such as hospitality businesses, which have stocked up and taken on staff who cannot be furloughed, and others, now face a series of cliff edges. That is relevant to the motions tomorrow, because they will affect what happens to those businesses, and many are on the edge.
The motions will also cover extending the rules for this place until recess, which I welcome. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to discuss fully those rules and what we can learn from the hybrid Parliament?
As we have this business statement, can I ask the Leader of the House this? He has not included in this statement parliamentary time to close the anomaly between the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and the parliamentary Standards Committee in relation to recall, when an MP is subject to suspension on the recommendation of the ICGS. Will he cover that in his business statement on Thursday, given that it is an urgent piece of business? We have no idea when another case of sexual harassment or bullying may come forward.
Finally, on a related issue, you, Mr Speaker, may have seen the footage of a journalist with parliamentary credentials being harassed outside No. 10. Has the Leader of the House been in touch with the necessary authorities to ensure that that does not happen again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always important that statements are made to this House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was here yesterday to answer questions, but I understand, Mr Speaker, that you are seeing the Prime Minister later today to discuss that and to ensure that everything is done as it ought to be done. I am confident that the Prime Minister follows the ministerial code in all his doings and that has been shown over recent times to be the case.
The hon. Lady asked for further statements to be made. That is a perfectly reasonable request for her to make. I remind her that £407 billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent so far, that the furlough scheme continues until September—so comfortably beyond the date that has been set, or will be set if the regulations are approved tomorrow—and that other packages, such as rate relief, also continue.
The question of statements is always a difficult one. There will be a debate tomorrow and Members will want to contribute to it—it will go until 7 o’clock. Any statements eat into time for that and these are all matters that could be raised in the course of the debate as well. So the House, essentially, has to work out for itself how it best wants to manage its time to ensure that these important issues are discussed fully in the time available tomorrow.
As regards the hybrid Parliament, Mr Speaker, you wisely advised yesterday that we should extend it until the recess, rather than doing it to just a couple of days before. I am like the centurion’s servant—say go and I goeth, say come and I cometh—and, therefore, those are the motions that we have brought forward. That is sensible and proportionate. It may be useful to the House to say that that will also apply to Select Committees, which will continue to be able to use hybrid proceedings until the parliamentary recess.
On the issue relating to recall, discussions are taking place. I had a meeting with one of the union representatives earlier this week. I know that the hon. Lady is having discussions. There may be an opportunity to discuss it at the Commission on Monday. So it is something under very active consideration, and I hope that we can come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to everybody.
As regards policing in the metropolis and security outside Downing Street, the hon. Lady’s question is perfectly timed because the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing are on the Front Bench at this very moment. I am sure that they will encourage the constabulary to attend to their duties.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I also thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of the statement.
I agree with the shadow Leader of the House that it is critical for us to get clarity on the extension of support schemes and mechanisms. Perhaps the Government could take this opportunity to close the gap for the excluded who have not had any support to date. As we continue to extend, perhaps something could be drawn forward in due course.
Although all of us want the restrictions to end at the earliest possible opportunity, yesterday’s statement was welcome in recognising the reality that we face. Looking at that reality and the fluid situation, however, I ask the Leader of the House this. We are extending the virtual proceedings in this place only to the recess. Should something happen over the summer recess before we return in September, will we have no opportunity to consider what may be necessary at that stage because we had effectively ended the availability of the procedures in July, rather than even on the first day back? We could return on the first day back, in full attendance, simply to have to move measures on such proceedings. I am not trying to be a killjoy; I am just looking at the practicalities: what if these situations present themselves?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He raises a fair point. I think the answer must be—as the Prime Minister and, I think, Professor Whitty, have said—that ultimately we are going to have to live with covid, and we cannot have this semi-functioning Parliament indefinitely. We ultimately have to get back to normal. We have to have the bustle and energy that Parliament requires to hold the Government to account. Dare I confess that it is much easier for the Minister at the Dispatch Box when there are about 20 people in the Chamber than when there are about 400? As somebody who believes in the benefits of parliamentary scrutiny, I actually think it is quite a good thing when Ministers face some fast bowling at the Dispatch Box, rather than my lumbering, slow balls which are the best that I can achieve on the cricket field.
On the extension of support, as I mentioned, a lot of support does continue. That gives me the opportunity to mention the wonderful support that the United Kingdom has been able to give: £14.5 billion of extra money has been spent in Scotland thanks to UK taxpayers across our whole country, supporting over 900,000 jobs in the furlough scheme and over 535,000 claims for the self-employment scheme. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is beginning to see the virtues of a United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure he agrees, but there we are.
I am now suspending the House for one minute to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the report of the Daniel Morgan independent panel.
Daniel Morgan was murdered in London in 1987. It is incredibly painful for his family and friends that five criminal investigations into his brutal death have brought no successful prosecutions. In 2013, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who was then Home Secretary, announced the creation of the Daniel Morgan independent panel to review police handling of the murder investigations. The panel was asked to explore: police involvement in Daniel Morgan’s murder; whether anyone involved in the murder was protected by corrupt police officers; whether there was a subsequent failure to investigate corruption; and the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers, the News of the World or other parts of the media. The independent panel has now completed its report. I am grateful to the panel and to Baroness Nuala O’Loan.
As Home Secretary, it was my responsibility to ensure that publishing the report was compatible with my statutory obligations in relation to human rights and national security. This was not about delay. I am pleased that no redactions were required. Daniel Morgan’s family have waited eight years for this report. It is devastating that, 34 years after he was murdered, nobody has been brought to justice.
The report sets out findings from its review of the past three decades. It is more than 1,200 pages long and in three volumes. It is right that we carefully review its findings. The report is deeply alarming: it finds that examples of corrupt behaviour were not limited to the first investigation, that the Metropolitan police made a litany of mistakes, and that that irreparably damaged the chances of a successful prosecution for Daniel Morgan’s murder. The report accuses the Metropolitan police of
“a form of institutional corruption.”
Police corruption is a betrayal of everything that policing stands for in this country. It erodes public confidence in our entire criminal justice system. It undermines democracy and civilised society. We look to the police to protect us, and so they are invested with great power. The overwhelming majority of officers use it honourably, but those who use their power for immoral ends do terrible harm, as do those who indulge, cover up or ignore police corruption. This is one of the most devastating episodes in the history of the Metropolitan police.
In recent years, several steps have been taken to combat police corruption. A new offence of police corruption, applicable solely to police officers, was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead in 2015, to sit alongside the existing offence of misconduct in public office. The offence carries a maximum prison sentence of fourteen years. To prevent corrupt police officers evading accountability by resigning or retiring, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 enabled the extension of disciplinary procedures to former officers. It also ensures that if an officer under investigation for gross misconduct resigns or retires, misconduct proceedings can still take place and the officer can be barred from rejoining the police.
Last year, I overhauled the police complaints and discipline process. There is now a more efficient system for dealing with police misconduct. The investigation process is simpler and quicker, and an explanation is required if an investigation takes longer than 12 months. It is in the interests both of the police and of the public that corrupt police officers are exposed and innocent officers exonerated as swiftly as possible.
The Group of States against Corruption monitors countries’ compliance with the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption standards. This month, it published a report demonstrating good progress in the UK’s law enforcement to prevent corruption. But we cannot ignore the findings of this report. Its recommendations are wide-ranging and far-reaching across aspects of policing, conduct, culture and transparency in public institutions. Today, I have written to Dame Cressida Dick to ask her to provide me with a detailed response to the panel’s recommendations for the Metropolitan police and the wider issues outlined in the report. This afternoon, I will also ask Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to consider how best it can look into the issues raised.
The police are operationally independent, and the Metropolitan police are held to account by the Mayor of London and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, but the police are accountable to Parliament through me. I intend to return to the House to update on progress made on this and other recommendations in the report once I have received responses from the Metropolitan police and others.
There can be no confidence in the integrity of policing without confidence in the police watchdog. The Independent Office for Police Conduct has made good progress since it was formed in 2018, but questions remain about its ability to hold the police to account. In particular, profound concerns exist about the handling of the IOPC’s investigation into Operation Midland. The issues raised by the Daniel Morgan independent panel further reinforce the need for a strong police watchdog. I am therefore announcing today that I am bringing forward the next periodic review of the IOPC to start this summer. This will include an assessment of the IOPC’s effectiveness and efficiency.
Daniel Morgan deserved far, far better than this, as did his family. To them, on what will be a very, very difficult day, I say that the whole House will have them and Daniel in our thoughts. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. I should say that a member of Daniel Morgan’s family is a constituent of mine, and my thoughts are with them today.
The publication of the report should never have taken this long. It is 34 years since Daniel Morgan’s horrific murder, with four major police investigations, a collapsed trial, an inquest. The independent panel was set up by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in 2013, yet the family has had to wait a further eight years since then.
The findings in the report are damning and they go to the very heart of our policing, criminal justice system and media. The challenge to the Government today is what will now be done to ensure that something like this can never happen again. Paragraph 60 of the report is incredibly serious. It states:
“The family of Daniel Morgan suffered grievously as a consequence of the failure to bring his murderer(s) to justice, the unwarranted assurances which they were given, the misinformation which was put into the public domain, and the denial of the failings in investigation, including failing to acknowledge professional incompetence, individuals’ venal behaviour, and managerial and organisational failures. The Metropolitan Police also repeatedly failed to take a fresh, thorough and critical look at past failings. Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation’s public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit and constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”
The report also states that:
“the Panel has proposed the creation of a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve”.
That is a vital reform and it is particularly urgent, as there will be another inquiry soon into the covid pandemic, so can the Home Secretary confirm that that recommendation will be implemented?
I stand here today as a Member of Parliament for a mining constituency and a supporter of Liverpool football club, looking, in addition to Orgreave and Hillsborough, at yet another terrible episode from the 1980s that raises profound questions about policing in that period. On the link between police and journalists, does the Home Secretary not accept that the Government, over the past 11 years, have had the opportunity not only to investigate that link, but to make reforms and they have failed to do so?
The Home Secretary will also be aware of the serious criticisms made by the panel about its ability to do its work over the past eight years and its difficulty in securing timely access to evidence. She will further be aware of the criticism of the Home Office, on page 1,138 of the report, that the point of contact for the panel was helpful, but that dealing with
“the Home Office as a department”
was “more challenging”. Can the Home Secretary set out how she proposes to address that within the Home Office?
The Home Secretary also mentioned bringing forward the next periodic review of the IOPC. It is right that strong powers for our police are matched by strong safeguards, so can she confirm when she expects that review to be completed? The Home Secretary also mentioned returning to the House once she has a response from the Metropolitan police. Does she expect this to be before the summer recess?
Finally, does the Home Secretary agree that we will be failing the family and, indeed, all victims if we do not do all that is required to prevent other families going through the three-decade nightmare that has been the experience of the Morgan family?
Priti Patel
Let me begin my remarks in response to the right hon. Gentleman by extending my continued sympathy to Daniel Morgan’s family at what is a difficult time and by really paying tribute to their own tenacity in seeking answers to their questions about Daniel’s tragic murder.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of valid points regarding police conduct and the report, in terms of the time that it has taken and the whole issue of duty of candour. He speaks about this point, around public servants, in particular, giving evidence in hearings, investigations and public inquiries, very much in terms of the honesty and the approach that they take to bring justice to families, in particular. On that point, it is important to recognise—the right hon. Gentleman has spoken about this in relation to the potential covid inquiry that has been announced—that work is taking place across Government on how those wider issues will be addressed, but, at the same time, there is absolutely no justification for delay. Eight years it has taken for this report—far too long—and there will be many reasons, but importantly, lessons have to be learned from that.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific points about policing, the Metropolitan police and the report, I have today written to the commissioner to seek her response to the findings of the actual report. Alongside that, I will maintain that I will return to the House. At this stage, I cannot tell him when that will be, but I will endeavour, post the discussions this afternoon—I have also mentioned the inspectorate and having a review, effectively—to bring the updates to this House so that he and all Members of this House are kept fully informed of the next stages and our collective response to the recommendations that the panel have made.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Like, I am sure, all Members of the House, my thoughts are with Daniel Morgan’s family today.
At the heart of this damning, thorough report is yet another example of an organ of the state, the job of which was to protect the public, having prioritised the reputation of the institution over the delivery of justice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of police officers act with integrity and an overriding sense of public duty, but that where corruption does occur it must be rooted out with vigour, unlike what happened throughout this episode and the investigation to find the killer of Daniel Morgan? As the independent panel has said, every corrupt activity must be identified and dealt with on every occasion.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and her tribute to Daniel Morgan. I also pay tribute to her for her work with regard to policing and corruption in policing. I agree wholeheartedly that the majority of our frontline police officers are incredible public servants—they honour and respect their roles and absolutely serve the frontline with care and professionalism—but she is right to highlight and make the case strongly that where there is corruption there can be no hiding, institutionally or in respect of inquiries, panels or anything of that nature. It has to be right that as I have outlined this afternoon, our role, collectively as a Government and as the Home Office, is not just to follow up but to get the answers that are required and ensure that police conduct is held to account so that we can bring an end to the corruption of policing in the way we have seen.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. No family should have had to endure what Daniel Morgan’s family have had to endure—the loss and distress compounded by institutional corruption, delay and injustice. As the Home Secretary says, we all have them in our thoughts. But we must also do more. We all hope that the devastating report from the independent panel—we are grateful for its work—helps to provide some answers and signposts as to what should happen next. Will the Home Secretary meet the family to discuss the findings of the report and the recommendations of the panel?
The Home Secretary has highlighted the fact that the findings and recommendations are wide-ranging, far-reaching and stretch over three volumes; my simple request, which I think is one of the most important, is that the Government make time to allow Parliament to debate the report and its implications in full. The offer of updates is good and welcome, but a report of this significance must surely have a full parliamentary debate.
I note that there is a whole chapter in the report on the challenges of securing co-operation. Does that provide the explanation for why it took eight years for the panel to complete its work? Was some of the delay caused by difficulties in persuading the Metropolitan police and others to provide the documents and files requested by the inquiry? If that is the case, is that not all the more reason for a judge-led inquiry along the lines of Leveson 2? To what extent was the panel able to seek evidence from media organisations? Given the panel’s lack of powers in that respect, is that not also all the more reason for such a judge-led inquiry?
Nothing has yet been said this morning about the standards and conduct of media organisations and the implications of the report for that industry, so will the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport also make a statement about the implications for that industry of what the report says about this dreadful episode?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the way in which he has articulated them today. He has highlighted a number of important points, including the delay of eight years—eight years of painful work by the panel, but essential work, no question, on pulling together the component parts of the report. It is detailed, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members with an interest to spend some time reading it.
On a future debate, the hon. Gentleman can make the usual approach through the House for a debate. As I have highlighted, there are a number of recommendations, and I am taking some immediate actions this afternoon not just to follow up but to pursue further lines of investigation and accountability to hold the Metropolitan police to account.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Leveson. He will know well that significant reforms following part 1 of the Leveson inquiry put forward a number of recommendations concerning the police and the media. This included introducing strong rules to ensure accountability and transparency, and those changes led to the introduction of the code of ethics. The Government formally consulted Sir Brian on whether to proceed with part 2 and decided that it was no longer appropriate, proportionate or in the public interest to proceed, given the potential costs and the amount of time that had been spent on part 1. My final comment to the hon. Gentleman is to say that I would be happy to meet the family in the way that he outlined, should that be of some support to them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
The overwhelming majority of serving police officers will be devastated by the publication of this report and by the besmirching of their conduct in carrying out the duties they fulfil. Obviously, our thoughts are with the family and friends of the victim, who have suffered over the years, and I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that the report and the recommendations are delivered in full. Will she undertake to come back to the House and give MPs the opportunity to question how closely the recommendations have been implemented by all the various institutions that will need to implement them, so that public trust can be restored?
Priti Patel
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The majority of our police officers will be devastated by the report and the implications for policing. The report is devastating in many ways. Our frontline police officers whom we meet every single day are incredible public servants who put the safety of our citizens and our country front and centre of their conduct every day. It is worth reminding the House that these are men and women who often run into danger to keep us safe and to protect us. My hon. Friend is right to say that I will return to the House with an update after looking at the recommendations, but equally importantly, this is about how we hold institutions of the state to account in order to stamp out some of the corrosive practices that have been outlined in the three volumes of this independent panel’s report. That is something that we are determined to do.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
This is a deeply damning and disturbing report, and all of us will need to consider its findings and recommendations. I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to come back with a further response and proposals. The corruption has led in this case to a lack of justice for Daniel Morgan and his family, and it undermines the valued work of so many police officers with integrity across the country. However, this has come to light only because of the determination of the family and the persistence of the independent panel. Most troubling of all is the failure of senior police leadership and of policing institutions to uncover what happened and the scale of the problem over so many years. Can the Home Secretary tell the House why she thinks there has been this failure to uncover that over so many years, and whether she will come forward with specific proposals on the duty of candour that has been recommended by the independent panel?
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. It is important that we spend some time considering the full report and its recommendations. Given that it has taken eight years to be published, we need to spend a great deal of time understanding the processes and why there was such slowness in sharing information, papers and evidence bases. That is why it is important that I hold the commissioner to account and ask the right questions, as I will do this afternoon. As I have said, it is important that, first of all, we seek answers to many outstanding questions, and that we question and find out what has happened in policing conduct over three decades.
On the right hon. Lady’s point about duty of candour, there is absolutely more to do here. When we look at accountability, institutions of the state and public conduct, we cannot shy away from asking some difficult questions, and reforming how we work and how our institutions are publicly held to account.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Like other hon. Members, my thoughts are with the Morgan family on this most difficult of days. As a former police officer, I am saddened, but sadly not surprised, by the findings of the report in relation to police corruption; the minority behaviours tarnish the work of so many brave serving police officers. I note the Home Secretary’s intended actions in relation to the Metropolitan police and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, but I reiterate the shadow Home Secretary’s call for clarity on the expected timescales for this work, and also on the expectations on the Metropolitan police in relation to active ongoing complaints linked to the Morgan case. The Morgan family have waited 34 years. How long must they wait to see real meaningful change?
Priti Patel
I respect and acknowledge the hon. Lady’s points. She is right to highlight timeframes, bearing in mind the painful period of time that the Morgan family have had to wait for the publication of this report. I can, at this stage, reiterate the comment that I made earlier, which is that I will come back to the House at the earliest opportunity with the information. That is absolutely right, and it is also important for the family that that information is shared with them, and that we learn the lessons associated with this independent report.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Daniel Morgan junior, Daniel Morgan’s son, lives in my constituency. The Morgan family have been waiting 34 years since Daniel Morgan’s death to see any kind of justice. Will the Home Secretary acknowledge the criticism of the Home Office in this report? I have been in touch with the family since they have had a chance to look at the report following its publication, and they are looking to the Home Secretary to implement its the key findings, particularly on the statutory duty of candour. If the Home Secretary is unable to support that today, is she at least able to guarantee that she will come back before the summer recess with a response?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her comments. I recognise that Daniel Morgan junior lives in her constituency and understand what a difficult time this is for the Morgan family.
First of all, there is criticism of the Home Office in this report, and it is important to acknowledge that, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) highlighted earlier. For the record, I was not privy to discussions that took place prior to publication between officials in the Home Office and the panel itself. My responsibility was very much to ensure the publication of this report and that, in doing so, my statutory duties were met.
Like many right hon. and hon. Members in the House, the hon. Lady asked me about the duty of candour. I state again that we will look at this across Government, because this is relevant not just to this particular inquiry but to future inquiries, for example on covid, and to how the state and the institutions of the state are held to account.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
I was six years old, and remember it well, when Daniel Morgan was murdered round the corner from where I lived in Sydenham—the area that I now represent in Parliament. His brutal murder shocked the local community, and the fact that no one has ever been brought to justice has only intensified that. Today, all our thoughts are with Daniel’s family, but they have suffered unimaginable and unnecessary delay. Will the Secretary of State commit today to implementing the panel’s recommendation that, in future, any panel has timely access to the material required to do its work so that this delay never happens again?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady makes one of the most important points about delay and access to information in terms of bringing the report together. It is absolutely right that we spend time looking at the recommendations. As I have already said to all colleagues, I will come back to the House and provide updates on the work that has been commissioned and on the recommendations as well.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Home Secretary might not know, but my long-term interest in this case comes from a campaigning Welsh lawyer, Glyn Maddocks, who brought it to my attention and I have followed it actively for many years. Indeed, the case eventually led to the formation of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. But the Home Secretary will know that this is not just a one-off. There was systemic corruption in part of the Metropolitan police at the time. Had it not been for Alastair, the brother of the deceased, and their mum, who sadly passed away before this report could be delivered, continuing to campaign over these many years, we would not have got the report at all. Does the Home Secretary agree that this was systemic and the answer has to be system change? I am encouraged by some of her remarks when she addressed this issue. In particular—let us be fair—there were deficiencies in Home Office ministerial teams of both parties.
Priti Patel
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work with the all-party parliamentary group. He is absolutely right to recognise and acknowledge that this is a tragedy in every sense. We all pay tribute to the tenacity of the Morgan family. In terms of institutional issues—the systemic issues that he referred to—we have to prevent these from occurring again. That is why some of the long-term changes that I have touched on still require further investigation in terms of the accountability of institutions of the state. Because that of work, which is absolutely essential and required, including a full review of the recommendations in these three volumes, I am committed to coming back to the House to update it on all actions taken.
Point of Order
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would appreciate your guidance. A report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact has found that there were value-for-money risks with the way that the Government cut the aid budget last year. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Government have cut the aid budget but have steadfastly refused to allow this House to properly scrutinise the cuts. They have also refused to answer questions about bilateral official development assistance to different countries, claiming that the aid budget has been allocated in accordance with the UK’s strategic priorities. We have seen today that they continue to refuse to give detail about where these cuts will fall. Many of them are already falling on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, with cuts to the Rohingya of 40%, and to Yemen. But the Government have admitted that no impact assessments have been undertaken.
To improve policy making and ensure that the Government deliver for the British public, Parliament performs a vital role in our democracy by examining and challenging the work of the Government. Can you assist, Mr Speaker, in ensuring that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers detail which cuts to country budgets and programmes have already happened, where they think future cuts for this year are planned, and what is the projected impact on the world’s poorest people?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order. The issue was raised at FCDO questions earlier. I do not want to prolong those questions now, and the hon. Member has quite rightly put the point on the record. I am sure that the Table Office will be able to advise if she wishes to pursue these issues; I am sure that she will do so and not let the matter end here.
I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Opposition Day
Catch-up Premium
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the following papers be provided by HM Treasury to the Public Accounts Committee: all papers, correspondence and advice including emails and text messages, from 3 February 2021 up to and including 2 June 2021, to and between Treasury Ministers, senior officials and Special Advisers relating to consideration of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the proposals made by the then Education Recovery Commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, in particular such correspondence relating to the evaluation of the draft report which he produced and submitted to Government on the investment and services needed to ensure children’s education recovers from the impact of the covid-19 outbreak on their learning and development, a copy of that report, and all copies of minutes and papers relating to decisions taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury Ministers, in respect of that report.
The last 15 months has been a period unlike any other in our recent history, but for our children it has been more than that. Before I go any further, however, I want to place on record the thanks of all Labour Members to all school staff, who have themselves had a harrowing, difficult and stressful year. As well as their resilience, I have admired again and again their continuing focus on the children with whom they work.
Those children have seen not merely a disruption and interruption to their lives, but a disruption of their education and development that risks setting back a generation, damaging their lives and life chances and our economy as a whole. No child should be left behind as a result of the pandemic; I hope every Member of the House agrees on that—in fact, the Prime Minister himself has said as much.
The creation of the post of education recovery commissioner in February was therefore welcome, as was the appointment of Sir Kevan Collins. Sir Kevan is a prominent figure in education and widely respected across this House. He is someone whose expertise and recommendations deserve to be taken immensely seriously, yet less than a fortnight ago Sir Kevan resigned. Why? Because the Government cut the scale of his proposed plan by 90%. In Sir Kevan’s own words:
“A half-hearted approach risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils. The support announced so far does not come close to meeting the scale of the challenge and is why I have no option but to resign.”
By any standards, that is an extraordinary turn of events. How did it happen? How did we get here? How could the Government handle this so extraordinarily badly? The answer, as so often, is that it would appear to lie with the real decision maker in the Government. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place today, but it is the Cabinet’s answer to Macavity—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who has questions to answer in the Chamber. It is the Treasury that took the shameful decision to block a proper plan for our children’s future. The Minister knows it; we all know it. Comprehensive plans for the recovery of our children’s education were developed and circulated in government, but they were stopped in their tracks by the Treasury.
Perhaps that is not right; perhaps the Government will feel able to disclose the correspondence that we are seeking today to have published, but the sheer gravity of the issue—the lives of a generation and the strength of our future economy—means that it is crucial that we understand the Treasury’s position. That is what today’s motion seeks to enable all Members of the House to do.
Labour fully recognises that it is the responsibility of the Treasury to cast an eye— sometimes a sceptical eye—over all spending plans, securing value for money for public spending, ensuring that money is spent both effectively and efficiently. It will be at the heart of spending decisions under a Labour Government. Reasoned decisions about how to spend money must, however, mean, as schoolchildren are often told, that the Chancellor shows us his working-out. An unthinking aversion to using public money to achieve public good is not a virtue—it is a misguided dogma from which this country has spent a decade suffering the consequences and which today puts at risk the education of a generation.
Sometimes only Government can achieve the change that we need and fix the problems that we face. Failure to invest in those circumstances is a false economy on a national scale. The House does not need take my word for it. Earlier this year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested that pupils who have lost six months of normal schooling could lose approximately £40,000 in income over their lifetime. That adds up to £350 billion in lost lifetime earnings across the 8.7 million schoolchildren in the UK. Lost earnings of £350 billion means about £100 billion less tax revenue to invest in building a strong and resilient economy and society of the future; £100 billion simply dwarves the costings that Sir Kevan prepared for his full programme.
The recovery of learning after the pandemic is a vast challenge, but it is undoubtedly in the interests of both our children and our country. We all know that the value and importance of education are not simply about lessons. School is not merely where we learn about Henry VIII and the solutions to quadratic equations; it is where, in every year, we learn the skills that set us up for life: questioning, leading, communicating; the value of friendship and discussion, and of criticism and disagreement without rancour. When children first go to school they are learning how to play, how to make friends, how to make their way in the world, and how to develop as independent individuals. Missing that opportunity has repercussions throughout their rest of their lives.
Nursery closures mean that children are falling behind. Their transition to primary school will be harder and their long-term success lesser. During the pandemic, children of primary age should have been learning the building blocks of maths, reading and writing that will set them up for life, yet by the end of the pandemic tens of thousands of primary-school children were estimated by the Government to be behind on basic literacy and unable to read or write when starting secondary school. By the end of the second national lockdown, pupils were estimated to have lost two to five months of learning, with particularly severe effects on maths skills. Secondary-school children are young people choosing the course of their lives: the college they will attend; the apprenticeship they will begin; the skills they will develop; the university they might go to.
I want to mention briefly the impact that the necessary restrictions of the pandemic and school closures have had on children in my city of Sunderland. Children have paid a price: a price on their health, with exercise and activity less common and obesity a greater threat; a price on their development of speech and language, as they have been less able to learn from each other and are slipping behind; a price on their reading, with the ability to learn through phonics understandably impaired by the constraints of distance learning; a price on their family relationships, with the confinement of families exacerbating tensions and leading to rising referrals to children’s social care; and a price on the hope and optimism about their future that should fill young people, with exams cancelled and uncertainty about their qualifications and job prospects.
The price that children have paid is not unique to my city. Each one of us has seen the damage—social, emotional and academic—to children in every one of our constituencies. But we know that the disruption has hit some children much harder, particularly those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and those living in areas with the longest lockdowns. Unless we address that issue, those effects will ripple through the lives of individuals and through wider society. They will exacerbate inequalities among families and generations, weakening us as individuals and as a society.
A generation who missed out on their education and who were not given the support they needed to catch up would be a generation betrayed. That would have consequences—not just for them, but for us all. It would mean fewer people with skills entering our workforce over that next generation. It would mean the workforce as a whole deskilling over time, and that would mean a drop in the output and productivity of our economy.
Skills and education are at the heart of Labour’s vision for the economy and society of the future. The society that we want to see is one where people never stop learning and developing their skills, talents and abilities, and where reskilling for working-age people is as natural as sending our children to school. For us, ensuring the recovery of children’s learning from the pandemic today is crucial to assuring Britain’s success tomorrow—success for individuals, but also success for every community and every corner of our country.
The argument that we make to the Treasury and to the Minister is that Government action at scale can—and must—be effective. If we get it right, we will pay a smaller price now than a much greater price over the many decades ahead, and that price could be huge. Estimates of the total cost of the disruption to education based on individual impacts have ranged from £80 billion to £160 billion. Estimates based on the systemic effect on our economy, looking at the relationship between schooling and growth, suggest figures of more than £1 trillion.
What we do know from the limited past examples of disastrous interruptions to children’s education is that the damage can be real, but it can be fixed. We know it is real, because chronic industrial unrest in Argentina’s education system over many years caused repeated school closures. Women affected by those closures who were at school at the time have seen their lifetime earnings fall by 1.7% as a result. For men, the amount is nearly double that.
We also know that the damage can be fixed—that the price our children have paid is not one they need to pay all their lives long. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans. Most children were out of school for one to three months, yet subsequent intervention was not merely swift and sustained; it was effective. Four years after that disaster, affected children had caught up on lost learning by about two months. Not only that, but the gains were concentrated in the children whose initial performance after the disaster was worst. The lesson we draw from that example is that intervention is not only an option, it is the right option.
The motion before us seeks to understand why the Treasury has been so opposed to the sort of intervention we need and the sort of future our children deserve. What we need, and what Sir Kevan’s work rightly lays out, is a long-term, funded plan that is evidence-based, scalable and practical, making best use of the tremendous human and physical resources that we have in this country. It must have at its heart increasing opportunities in school, increasing the value of that time, and targeted tutoring for those who need it most. Tutoring means better engagement. Improving teaching helps us to get more out of every extra hour. More time together helps children to catch up on the social and emotional aspects of their development.
I want to pick up two aspects of the plan that Sir Kevan developed for our nation’s children, which the Treasury blocked. They are about the urgency and the duration of the plan we need. The Government, and the Treasury in particular, seem to be caught on the hop again and again. To Treasury Ministers, urgency in dealing with the challenges of public policy is too often for other people—for self-employed workers and small businesses who need to submit claims on time or get nothing, or for businesses which need to remodel their operations overnight as restrictions change with just hours to go.
The Chancellor must never be allowed to forget that his refusal last autumn to set out clear and workable plans until businesses had only hours before deadlines meant thousands of workers either losing their jobs or living in fear of doing so. He has shown again and again that he will not get ahead of the problem—that he prefers to wait and hope it goes away. Our children’s future is not an issue that is going away, and it is high time that the Government faced up to that.
It has been apparent since the day that schools were first closed to most children that they would not reopen for many weeks at least and that one day action would be needed to address the consequences. Each week without action is another step towards lasting damage to the opportunities of hundreds of thousands of children. Waiting until the spending review means that more than 300,000 more children and young adults will have left the school system altogether before a proper plan and proper steps are in place.
The second major point is that schools need to start making decisions now about resources and staffing to deliver over not just a few months, but many years. Long-term outcomes are better delivered when they can be planned on a longer-term basis—more than one financial year at a time. That is, after all, the reason the Government have multi-year spending reviews in the first place. Sharply increased spend should come with proper accountability, which is why Labour has set out clear proposals for increased and improved mechanisms to get the best value out of every pound of public money spent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the shadow Secretary of State for Education, has set out Labour’s comprehensive alternative to what the Government have proposed, because, like Sir Kevan, Labour grasps the scale of the problem and the need for the Government to rise to the challenge. Our plan would see breakfast clubs, new activities for every child and a fully funded expanded range of extracurricular clubs and activities. Our plan would see quality mental health support in every school, giving every child the support they need. Our plan would see small group tutoring for all who need it, not just 1%, by reforming the Government’s failing tutoring programme to ensure that no child falls behind because of pandemic disruption.
Our plan would see continued development for teachers, who have had one of the toughest years of their careers. Our plan would see an education recovery premium supporting every child by investing in children who have faced the greatest disruption during the pandemic, from early years to further education, delivering vital additional support for children who need it the most. Our plan would ensure that no child goes hungry by extending free school meals over the holidays.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Given that she has been talking about the plans of Kevan Collins, and given that a core part of his proposal was to have a formal longer school day, which the shadow Education Secretary said in the media last week was not something she agreed with, does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a longer school day as part of Sir Kevan Collins’ plans?
Bridget Phillipson
I am always keen to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee, who I know cares very deeply and passionately about these issues. What I would say in response is that, rather than disagreeing over the nature of that additional time, why do we not focus on trying to get the right outcome for all our children in this country? The block to that rests with the Treasury. It feels at times that we are arguing at cross-purposes. That was not the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) set out. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the situation.
We all want to make sure that children have the time they need in school to catch up on that lost time, but in addition to that, we want to make sure there are fully funded extracurricular activities as part of an extended day within the school premises, so that all children—not just those who can afford extra clubs, music, activities or book clubs; whatever it would happen to be—have access to that kind of provision. The block right now and the reason we have not got to that point, I am afraid, lies on the right hon. Gentleman’s Benches.
Last week, the Government could bring themselves neither to support nor to oppose our alternative. Perhaps today they will tell the House why the Treasury blocked the plans that the Prime Minister’s chosen adviser sought to develop, comparable in scope and scale to those of the Opposition.
Children do not vote, and their voices are rarely heard in this place, but we have a moral duty to them none the less: a duty to their future, both theirs and ours. Labour has set out, at length and in detail, the sort of plan that we believe our country needs. The Government’s own education recovery commissioner set out, at length and in detail, the sort of plan that he believes our country needs. Today, our request is simple: that the Treasury explain to parents and families why it believes that our country does not need its own commissioner’s plan.
It is not too late for the Government to change course. What we want, what Sir Kevan wanted, what the people of this country want and what the children of our country need is a properly funded long-term plan for educational recovery. We have set one out. There is still time for the Government, even now, to rise to the challenge and deliver that brighter future that we all want to see.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Members can see, the screens say that there is a three-minute limit, but for Alison McGovern and Robert Halfon the limit will be four minutes. It will then revert to three for the duration of the debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I can see how popular that was: Robert Halfon is now having to add to his speech.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Well, here we are again. As I said last week, once again we have heard nothing from Opposition Front Benchers but
“warm words and hot indignation”,
with no serious plan, while
“the Government are getting on with the challenging job of tackling the pandemic, keeping our economy alive, supporting people’s incomes, supporting the NHS and our doctors and nurses, vaccinating the nation, and providing education and support to 8 million children and young people.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 967.]
However, once again I welcome the debate and the opportunity that it provides to set out clearly our commitment and action to ensure that no child will suffer damage to their long-term prospects because of the pandemic.
The motion’s title on the Order Paper is “Allocation of funding for the catch-up premium”. The catch-up premium—£650 million of additional funding for schools—was announced by the Prime Minister in June 2020. It provided £80 per pupil in mainstream schools, both primary and secondary, and three times that rate—£240—for each place in special schools, special units and alternative provision. Even in the early days of the pandemic, the Government knew that closing schools to most pupils would have an impact on children’s education, so alongside the action that we took to secure jobs, support the economy and back the NHS, the catch-up premium ensured that schools could respond to the challenges that children and young people faced.
At the same time, in June last year, we also announced the £350 million national tutoring programme and, with the support of the Education Endowment Foundation, evaluated and procured 33 tutoring organisations to provide one-to-one and small group tuition to disadvantaged and other children who were in need of the kind of support that we know from the evidence is highly effective in helping children to catch up. Establishing the national tutoring programme was a major undertaking and is on track to have helped 250,000 pupils by the end of this academic year. The plans that we announced two weeks ago will extend that to up to 6 million courses of 15 hours of tutoring over the next three years.
I turn to the motion itself, which calls for
“all papers, correspondence and advice”
given to Ministers to be disclosed to the Public Accounts Committee. The Government recognise and respect the fact that this House has rights regarding the publication of any papers, but effective government also relies on some key principles, such as the need for confidential and frank discussions among Ministers, Cabinet Committees and any advisers that the Government appoint to help to improve the quality of policy making.
This is not a partisan issue. It has been the long-standing position of previous Governments, including Labour Governments, that any papers or analyses created for the Cabinet or for Ministers are, rightly, confidential. The motion fundamentally undermines that principle. Tony Blair, in his autobiography “A Journey”, in the section on the Freedom of Information Act, sets out in clear terms that
“governments, like any other organisations, need to be able to debate, discuss and decide issues with a reasonable level of confidentiality. This is not mildly important. It is of the essence. Without the confidentiality, people are inhibited and the consideration of options is limited in a way that isn’t conducive to good decision-making.”
To repeat:
“This is not mildly important. It is of the essence.”
That is why we oppose the motion tabled by the Opposition today. We believe in good government and good decision making.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the plug for the former Prime Minister, who made “education, education, education” a mantra. I was and remain very proud of the difference it made to kids in Bristol South. I accept the Minister’s point about confidentiality, but will address the key questions in the motion? What do the Government think is not good about Sir Kevan’s recommendations, why do the Government not think they need to be funded, and what would be the impact of that decision? If the Government do not want to disclose the documents, we would be happy if we understood what they think about not taking that action.
Nick Gibb
We did take the advice of Sir Kevan Collins, who supported our introduction of more funding for the national tutoring programme and the £400 million to improve the continuing professional development and training of teachers. We set up a review into the time element of the advice that Sir Kevan gave Ministers, which will report later this year in time to inform the spending review.
The House has a number of opportunities to scrutinise the work of the Treasury in oral questions, and the annual supply and appropriation legislation will be debated before the summer recess. There are also regular appearances by Treasury Ministers and officials before the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Committee.
Since the Government came into office in 2010, we have been focused on our mission of raising school standards for all pupils. Successive Prime Ministers and Education Secretaries have put in place ambitious plans to make sure that, no matter where you are born or where in the country you live, you will receive a world-class education. That is not a programme for a single term of Government; nor is it an initiative to get headlines. It is generational reform—long, steady, painstaking and difficult. We have much still to achieve, but we are making progress.
Before we came into Government in 2010, the correlation between parental wealth and pupil achievement was stubbornly entrenched. Children from poorer homes, who were already behind in their development when they started school, were falling further behind their peers. Rather than being an engine of social mobility, our school system was calcifying inequality. For Conservatives, for whom education is the gateway to opportunity, this was unacceptable.
We took bold, decisive action that was opposed all the way by the Opposition, but which has led to better schools and better life chances for young people. We overhauled Labour’s national curriculum, which was unnecessarily bureaucratic and too focused on a range of generic skills rather than rich, subject-based content, and replaced it with a new national curriculum, which provides pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge they need to be educated citizens, immersing them in the best that has been thought and said. We took action to make sure that teachers got better training, and we introduced the pupil premium to give schools the funding they need to support disadvantaged pupils.
Our reforms are turning the tide, rebuffing the fatalistic assumptions of too many who seemed to accept that the gap between rich and poor is inevitable—the soft bigotry of low expectations, which for years was writing off pupil’s lives rather than striving to give them the education needed to influence their own destiny. Academic standards have been rising and the attainment gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils has been closing. Thanks to our reforms, more pupils are taking core academic GCSEs, more children are reading fluently and more children are attending good and outstanding schools.
We have taken action throughout this pandemic to ensure that children are supported, but our commitment to provide a good education for every child pre-dates covid-19 reaching our shores. We produced the best schools budget settlement for many years at the 2019 spending review. Totalling £14.4 billion, that is the largest cash boost for schools in a decade.
Core school funding increased by £2.6 billion in 2020-21, and is increasing by £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively compared with 2019-20, including significant additional funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities. That unrelenting drive to give children and young people the best start in life meant that we were in a better place to handle the unprecedented challenges that the pandemic posed.
We know that the pandemic, as the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said, has disproportionately affected children, with most missing at least 115 days of school. That is precisely why we took immediate action to provide education remotely, delivering more than 1.3 million laptops or tablets alongside wireless routers and access to free mobile data for disadvantaged families.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the best place for a child has always been in school, and when Opposition Members, and indeed their councils and councillors, were calling for schools not to reopen last year that did a disservice to not only the country but our children, who matter the most, and does he agree that they should apologise for that?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no substitute for pupils being in the classroom with their teachers and friends.
This month, we published a report from Renaissance Learning and the Education Policy Institute, which presented a sobering reminder of the ongoing scale of the recovery challenge. Clearly, there is much work to do and we do not shy away from it, because the Government will always do whatever it takes to support children. That is why schools were the last to close and the first to open in tackling the spread of covid, because we know that getting children back in the classroom is vital to supporting catch up.
That it is why schools have access to both a catch-up and a recovery premium to enable them to assess what will help their pupils to catch up their missed education and to make provision available to ensure that they do so. It comes on top of our £200 million investment in summer schools, which is creating the opportunity for up to 600,000 pupils to take part in educational and enrichment activities. Over 80% of eligible mainstream schools have already signed up and a £220 million investment in the expansion of the holiday activities and food programme, which will operate across England over the summer and Christmas holidays, will provide eligible children with enriching activities and nutritious food.
Owing to the swift action that we took last June, children are already benefiting from the newly established national tutoring programme, with the £1 billion announcement in June last year, a further £700 million announced in February and, two weeks ago, a further recovery package of £1.4 billion. That brings our total recovery package to more than £3 billion. The next stage of our recovery plan will include a review of time spent in school and 16-to-19 education, and the impact that that could have on helping children and young people to catch up. Schools already have the power to set the length of the school day, but there is a certain amount of disparity in approach across the sector. The findings of the review will be set out later in the year to inform the spending review.
We all know what a superb job our teachers and support staff are doing and have done throughout the crisis, supporting and continuing to educate children and young people despite all the challenges that the pandemic has caused. We owe them our gratitude. Our teachers are the single most significant in-school driver of pupil attainment, which is why we have taken steps to give them more support and access to the very best training and professional development. We are investing £400 million to help to provide 500,000 teacher training and development opportunities across the country, alongside the support for those working in early years.
Some £153 million will provide professional development for early years staff, including through new programmes that focus on key areas such as speech and language development for very young children, and £253 million will expand our new teacher development reforms to give school teachers the opportunity to access world-leading training tailored to whatever point they are at in their careers, from new teachers to leaders of school trusts. That is a significant overhaul of teacher development in this country, giving teachers and school leaders the knowledge and skills that they need to help every child to fulfil their potential.
We are determined to ensure that children and young people catch up on the education they missed as a result of the pandemic. We have announced more than £3 billion to date, and the Prime Minister has been clear that there is going to be more coming down the track. We will do what it takes. While the Opposition are chasing papers, we are getting on with the job of reforming England’s education system, empowering teachers to transform lives through a knowledge-rich and rigorous curriculum in calm, disciplined and supportive schools. We want every child to attend a great school. It is a bold, audacious ambition. We have begun the journey. We have made great progress. We have further to go. We will not give up.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The limit is four minutes for Alison McGovern and Robert Halfon, and three minutes from then on. May I ask those who are participating remotely please to have a timing device if you cannot see the one on your screens? We cannot extend it beyond the three minutes because a lot of people want to participate in this debate. Everybody else physically here of course has the timers in the Chamber.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I am very pleased to participate in this debate, which is extraordinarily important. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I did not recognise his characterisation of schools at all. In fact, I rise to disagree with almost entirely everything he said, except for the point he made at the end in paying tribute to our teachers, the children in our schools and all those who have worked hard for the future of our kids, because they have done an absolutely brilliant job over the pandemic. If I agree with him about nothing else, I agree with him about that.
I want to raise three crucial points in response to what the Minister has said, all of which are very important to those I represent in the Wirral. I am afraid that the Minister’s contribution avoided the central point and question of this debate: if everything is fine and the Government have set out a plan for our kids and their future, why did the Government’s own adviser resign? Why? Would anyone like to intervene on me, because I am at a loss to understand? Why did the Government’s own adviser resign in protest? Answer comes there none, and I think that says it all really.
The first point I want to raise is about sport. I make no apologies for doing so, because whatever the Minister says about the way the curriculum has changed, the levels of dissatisfaction about school sport in my community in Wirral and right across the country wherever I go is very high. We do not know whether the primary PE and sport premium grant will be renewed for next year. It is only £400 million, which is about £18,000 per primary, and my understanding is that it is still being considered. Yet again, we have this dance around whether the money is going to be there for school sport, and people are hanging on to know whether or not they should set up schemes to help support young people’s physical activity. I just wish the Minister would say whether or not it is going to be renewed, so that people can get on and do that work to make sure that young people can have access to sport. In any case, there is significant scepticism about whether all of that money does get spent on sport. I would say to the Minister that he has to understand that people in this country want our kids to have a rounded experience at school, and they want them playing. I never thought I would have to tell the Tory party about the importance of competitive sport in schools. It is absolutely vital. On that, as well as on creative activities, arts and culture, there is such frustration that this is going to be run out of our schools, and it has got to change.
The second point is about employment. When our kids do not get the kind of education they need and the kind of skills they need, they then face a really tough labour market. We know that the labour force survey shows that the unemployment rate for young people is three times that of adults. Meanwhile, the Government have said that they will create 200,000 kickstart jobs by December, and if they are to do that, they need to be creating about 20,000 a month, and they are only on 7,000.
Finally, on mental health—this is the most important point—Labour’s plan includes support for mental health, and I beg the Minister to look at it. The Office for National Statistics is already telling us that depression is up, anxiety is up and young people’s feeling of belonging and comfort in society is falling rapidly. We need that mental health support in schools to make sure that this generation do not suffer forever from what they have been through, because you do not forget what happens to you when you are young. Let us stand up for our kids.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I welcome the debate, although I find it a bit mystifying that we are debating the same subject two weeks in a row. I wonder whether the decision is more about politics than policy.
As I said in the Opposition day debate last week, I firmly believe that the Government investment is a hefty starter in terms of catch-up funding. To recap, there is the £3 billion in total for extra tuition, the £220 million for the holiday activities and food programme, the £63 million for local councils to help with meals—everyone knows my views on free school meals—and supplies for struggling families, and the £79 million for young people’s mental health, and the pupil premium has increased to £2.5 billion.
We should be fair and recognise that we are investing a sizeable sum of taxpayers’ money in education, even though I will continue, obviously, to campaign for more in terms of a long-term schools plan. The Schools Minister made it very clear that recovery funding was just the beginning and not the end of the road for catch-up, and that more would be coming down the track. Anyone looking at my record will have no doubt that I look forward to further funding, greater resources for catch-up and a longer school day, on which, as I have said, the Labour party’s position is very confusing.
I want to mention a couple of things before I conclude. First, at present, disadvantaged pupils are 18 months behind their better-off peers by the time they sit their GCSEs. We know that poorer children are less likely to attend schools with an “outstanding” Ofsted rating, and that even in schools where there are good results, the gap between free school meals students and their peers is as wide as elsewhere.
I have been working closely with Professor Lee Elliot Major, who is an adviser to the Government. In a joint article in the Telegraph, we wrote that in order to reduce that attainment gap, measures should be taken to ensure that Ofsted awards “outstanding” ratings to schools only if they can show that they are
“making efforts to attract the poorest children in their neighbourhoods”
and working to narrow the attainment gap between those disadvantaged pupils and their better-off peers. We wrote that schools should work with neighbouring schools to raise standards, and that teams of inspectors
“should include at least one headteacher who has led a school with high numbers of poorer pupils.”
Secondly, I believe that the Government must look to reform the pupil premium. It is not ring-fenced, and the Sutton Trust has reported that a third of schools use it for other things, such as fixing a leaky roof. It is not just about ring-fencing; there should be much more micro-targeting of disadvantaged groups, particularly those who suffer from long-term disadvantage.
I mentioned last week that although I am fully supportive of the catch-up fund, I am worried that it is not reaching the most disadvantaged. Figures suggest that 44% of students receiving pupil premium funding were missed. The Government must ensure that the money is targeted at the most disadvantaged, because they are the ones who have learned the least during the pandemic.
Nevertheless, I give credit where it is due: the Government have given well over £3 billion, and they have said that more is yet to come. I would rather that, instead of just having these political debates, Members on both sides of the House worked with the Government to ensure that the long-term plan for education is deep-rooted and repairs the damage from covid-19 while also addressing social injustices in education, particularly the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and the better-off.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There is now a three-minute limit. I call Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. At least I have a claim to fame that not only did I teach for a living for some part of my dim and distant past, but I taught you at university.
I am participating in this debate because I was absolutely furious when I saw that Sir Kevan’s recommendations had been so watered down. He had every reason to resign. I was also very angry because Yorkshire did so badly out of even the measly amount of money that the Government are putting in. We face a national education emergency following a national health emergency, but the Government are not bringing resources forward for this emergency; they are not doing the job properly. Those resources, and the sense of this being an emergency and fixing it for kids who will never get another chance at education, seem to be utterly lacking from the Government’s determinations.
Secondly, there is a lack of leadership. Where is the Secretary of State when we want him? Why isn’t he, in the Cabinet, really doing the job for education? Dare I say it, we need a big beast in education. I would have been happier with Ed Balls; I would even have been happier with his successor on the Conservative side, because they were both big beasts. We have not got a big beast in education. We have a run down, truncated, demoralised Department for Education, and we have education departments in local authorities that have also been run down and sidelined. The fact of the matter is that we have not got the leadership; we have not got the imagination. I am sorry, but even though the Minister was a member of the Education Committee when I chaired it, he is part of the problem: he has been there too long. He is a time-server and has lost the imagination to understand what it was like.
There is real opportunity here with the right leadership. We could co-operate across the Benches. What about having a national volunteer scheme that volunteers retired teachers and retired sportspeople? The people who care about our education would come out of the woodwork like never before and do something for kids who need that help, support and backing at this very moment.
We are lacking the essentials because this Prime Minister and this Government do not care about the education of our children in the state sector.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Barry, and yes, you did teach me at Swansea University—and what an incredible job you did.
I call Christian Wakeford.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do not really know how to follow your former teacher, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), other than by saying that I disagree fundamentally with everything he just said.
May I put on the record my thanks to the hard-working teachers, headteachers and, more importantly, support staff in Bury South for their tireless efforts in keeping going during what has been the most difficult year they will ever have faced? One of the greatest tragedies of this pandemic is its impact on our children. Millions of young people lost months of face-to-face schooling, missing out on their education and the social interaction that is so crucial to their development. Unlike the Labour party, throughout the pandemic this Conservative Government made it our ambition to see the safe return of students to the classroom, where they belong.
I have said time and again that for me, levelling up is about education and improving the social mobility of our young people, ensuring that every child has access to good-quality education as we recover from this pandemic. That will be essential if we are to deliver on our commitment to level up Britain. That is why, as part of our long-term education recovery plan, we have so far invested over £3 billion, focusing on high-quality tutoring and great teaching.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that tutoring must be targeted at the most disadvantaged children—the children who have suffered the most during this pandemic?
Christian Wakeford
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; it is almost as if he has read my speech already.
I also want to pay tribute to the fantastic work that the Tutor Trust has been doing—especially considering that it is based in my constituency—in getting graduates out there and teaching the subjects they specialise in. That is what we need to focus on, and may I make a subtle plug to the Minister and ask him to meet me and the Tutor Trust to see what more we can do in future years? On the topic of tutoring, education is at the heart of our ambition to level up and make sure that all children, whatever their background, have a world- class education that sets them up for a happy and successful life.
I know from speaking to headteachers at St Monica’s and Parrenthorn in Prestwich and my work on the Select Committee on Education that more needs to be done to help disadvantaged students, who have been hit hardest by this pandemic, so I welcome the fact that the Government have listened and are taking action to make up for lost time in the classroom by committing £1 billion to the national tutoring programme. That will deliver 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses for disadvantaged students, targeting key subjects, including maths and English.
When Labour was last trusted with education, we fell down the international league table for school performance, which meant that pupils were not receiving the education they deserved. Between 2000 and 2009, England fell from seventh to 25th in reading and from eighth to 28th in maths. We will take no lectures from Labour Members who have spent the past year equivocating on whether students should even be back in the classroom—not forgetting the decline in school performance when they were most recently trusted with children’s education.
Furthermore, Labour has been proven to care about education when it is politically expedient, with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), having had to apologise for describing the pandemic as a “good crisis” out of which Labour could create a political opportunity. Such behaviour by Labour is opportunism of the worst kind. When we had a real chance to debate education spending in last year’s estimates day debate, not a single Labour Member other than the shadow Secretary of State spoke.
Lastly, as we deliver on our promise to level up education, we are investing record amounts in schools, including by giving every pupil a funding boost through our £14.4 billion investment. Will the Minister assure me that the money we are investing will provide schools in my constituency with the funding they need to support the students who are most in need?
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to our teachers and children for the sacrifices that they have made during the pandemic.
I am proud that Labour has set out proposals for a children’s recovery plan to invest in opportunities for every child to play, learn and develop. Young people have lost out on education, sport, friendship and simply being young. They have missed more than half a year of in-person schooling. I struggle to see how the Government can even begin to imagine how less than half an hour of tutoring a fortnight can make up for such a loss of education.
The Collins report calls for an investment of £15 billion—or £700 per pupil—over three years to support children’s recovery, so why have the Government announced only a 10th of what the widely respected Sirusb Kevan said is needed? Breakfast clubs, new activities for every child, quality mental health support, small-group tutoring for all who need it and continued development for teachers, along with making sure that no child goes hungry—all elements of Labour’s plan—are needed throughout the country.
The impact on children is being much more widely felt, with grassroots football clubs such as Bedfont Eagles telling me how their coaches are picking up the pieces, supporting children who come back to play football and other activities for the first time, having lost confidence. Last week, I heard of a 15-year-old girl who has not been downstairs and hardly left her bedroom for almost a year because of fear and anxiety resulting from mental health conditions exacerbated during the pandemic. She, her friends and others need a plan for their personal and educational recovery, so that they are not affected for the long term.
Sport is vital to our young people’s wellbeing and health. The Schools Active Movement has conducted research, with the participation of more than 10% of schools throughout the country. The movement is concerned that there is still no plan from the DFE for a primary sports premium next year, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). I understand that the Government have not confirmed funding for school games organisers beyond October. The data from the research is horrific: 84% of PE teachers say that physical fitness is worse—indeed, in Feltham and Heston the proportion is 97%.
We must continue to tackle the digital divide. In Hounslow, months before a single laptop from the Government appeared, we came together as a community to help to donate laptops for the children who needed them but did not have a device at home on which to study. There is still no proper long-term, affordable schools connectivity plan to give pupils and teachers the ability to address the issue. Children need a Government who are on their side now and for their future. We need to go beyond mere words. With just a few short weeks till the end of school term, decisions need to be taken now and plans put into action. Schools need clarity on funding, and they need it now.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to the headteachers, teachers, support staff and, indeed, all the students in Hertford and Stortford who have worked so hard to ensure that they miss out on as little education as they possibly can. They have all done a sterling job.
In many ways, my whole life has been defined by an awareness of the impacts of lost education. My parents are both clever people. They were working-class people brought up in the east end of London. They lost out on their education due to an even bigger catastrophe than covid—war, evacuation and the blitz. Their experience and knowledge of what they had lost out on, and the impact of that on their lives, made them absolutely believe in the power of education and absolutely determined that my brother and I would engage in our education to the very best of our abilities.
So am I concerned about how we react to the impact of the pandemic on children? Yes. Do I welcome the actions of the Government? Yes. I welcome the investment of £3 billion so far, on top of a record boost in education funding of £14.4 billion. I also welcome the focus on quality teaching and tutoring, which the Minister set out. I also absolutely welcome the fact that it is evidence-led.
The Labour party might not be concerned about the economy and taxpayers’ money, but I know our Government, our Treasury and our Chancellor are. The evidence that the Government have marshalled, that just one course of high-quality tutoring can boost attainment by three to five months, is enormous and fact-based. Targeting that hugely valuable resource at disadvantaged students is also highly pragmatic and fact-based.
Extending the school day could have a huge impact on heads, teachers and teaching assistants, and on children and their families. The options around those things should definitely be looked at, with proper evaluation of the implications and costs, so it is right for the Government to approach that with a thorough review. That is the intelligent, pragmatic and sensible approach.
A long time ago, my parents turned away from a party, the Labour party, which did not understand the aspirations of working people, their desires and the importance of education, and they are not likely to go back any time soon.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
The pandemic has only exacerbated the inequalities in the education system. Huge praise goes to the teaching profession and everyone else who has worked their socks off during these very dark times—absolutely outstanding.
The catch-up funding plans proposed by Sir Kevan Collins suggest that a £15 billion package was required. The Government offer is 10% of that—that is an insult, man. Make no mistake about it, the students, especially the most disadvantaged, are set to suffer again. Crumbs from the table does not adequately describe the situation that we face.
The revealing, alarming regional education disparities highlight the effect of the pandemic. Reportedly, learning losses are huge. Again, they are much higher for disadvantaged pupils from poorer backgrounds. That is why adequate funding is essential. The Government have already robbed millions from schools in the north-east, with their changes to the pupil premium funding. It is estimated that schools could lose up to £7.26 million as a result of the Department’s fiddling of the dates.
In my constituency, 19% of pupils received at least two As and a B at A-level. That is compared with 14% as an average across England. Despite that, only 28% of the pupils attended secondary schools rated good or outstanding, compared with a huge 80% across England as a whole; and 26% attended secondary schools deemed inadequate, compared with only 6% across the country.
I am really proud of the pupils here. They are incredibly smart and talented, yet the schools lack the required funding. I wonder: does the Prime Minister think that the parents in my constituency should work harder to pay for private tuition to fill the gaps, as he suggested only the other day?
We need breakfast clubs and extracurricular activities. The students need quality mental health support to transition back into school life. We need manageable class sizes. We need to ensure that no child is going hungry throughout the school day. Those are all things that only the Labour party has to offer.
We have to ask: what have the Government got against our children? Why did the education recovery commissioner feel the need to abandon the educational ship? Maybe he saw the system heading for the rocks.
Let’s get on with it.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
There are a few curious things about this motion. One is that we debated the same subject just last week; we have had the G7 and the delay to step 4 of lockdown, but we are talking about the same thing. However, it is important, so I do not mind. The other curious thing about it is that we have been told for quite a long time now that Labour Members support Sir Kevan Collins’s plan, except in the motion they ask for a copy of the plan, which shows that they do not know the detail of the plan but are telling us that they support it anyway.
It is tempting, because it is the same subject area, to give the same speech that I gave last week, but I will not do that. Instead, I will just summarise it. I paid tribute to teachers nationwide for the role they have played during covid. I said that I supported the Government’s £3 billion investment so far in catch up. I said that I am a supporter of the extended school day—actually, probably for longer than half an hour a day—but I would like to see the evidence on that and it will cost money. I also reminded the House that, although Labour Members are very noisy when it comes to calling for more money, they are silent when their allies at the National Education Union put obstacle after obstacle in the way of children returning during the pandemic.
I have read Labour’s so-called plan and what is striking is how much of it the Government are already doing: more money into mental health—the Government are doing that; more money into tutoring—the Government are doing that; more money into teacher training—the Government are doing that. There are differences, but there are also omissions, such as where the money would come from and how Labour would evaluate its success.
Today’s motion says that the Opposition would like to see “emails and text messages”, and correspondence between Ministers, their officials and their advisers. It is hard to know how many children would catch up as a result of that release. I happen to believe that people should be able to give candid advice privately and that it should stay private.
If I did not believe that, though, I would like to see some correspondence between shadow Ministers and their advisers, because I would like to understand: why it took them so long to say that schools were safe; why they can never criticise their friends at the NEU; why they said we should go against the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and not vaccinate by age, but pick just teachers—no other professions, such as retail workers or anybody else—to vaccinate because the unions said that we should do so; and why they still cannot say whether they support a permanent extension to the school day. I would like to understand whether the party that 18 months ago told the country that we should abolish Ofsted, abolish SATs and abolish academies, when we know how much they have helped disadvantaged children, will stand with us in defending exams, league tables and inspections for the role that they play. But because I believe that private advice should stay private on both sides, Labour will be spared that embarrassment.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
It is impossible not to be angry in this debate. The resignation of Sir Kevan Collins is a damning indictment of the Government’s so-called catch-up plan. Let us be absolutely clear: the measly crumbs of support on offer will let down an entire generation of young people and, on this Government’s watch, the pandemic’s impact on their education will be lifelong.
While the Government kick the catch-up can down the road, the impact is being felt right now. More than 200,000 pupils will move from primary to secondary school this autumn without being able to read properly—a monumental increase on previous years and a problem that a sticking plaster would not even begin to solve. We already know that, if pupils start secondary behind, they stay behind. Does the Minister understand why parents and teachers across the country are so furious that their children are getting less than 10% of the investment that the Government’s own education recovery commissioner called for? The temerity of the Treasury to challenge Sir Kevan’s ideas undermines a lifetime spent improving outcomes for children.
Meanwhile, one conservative estimate puts the long-term economic cost of lost learning in England at £100 billion. Last week, the Prime Minister labelled one-to-one tutoring as a catch-up tool for hard-working parents. I wonder whether the Minister can tell him about 10-year-old Abi in my constituency. In lockdown, she secured entry to Tiffin Girls’ School, one of the most prestigious grammar schools in the country, working in a cramped homeless hostel, with only a refurbished phone donated by Tesco Mobile to get connected. Social mobility, levelling up, call it whatever you want: the impact will be lifelong.
There are legions of hard-working parents who cannot afford tuition, but who can see their child slipping behind. A lady came to see me because the bailiffs were coming. Instead of paying her council tax, she paid for a tutor so that her son would catch up and achieve the 11-plus. Of course, I do not support her council tax decision, but I absolutely recognise that she is desperately trying to plug the support gap that the Government are failing to fill.
We need a catch-up plan for every child who has fallen behind—extending the school day for education curricular activities; breakfast clubs; small group and one-to-one tutoring—and to close the digital divide. It is absolutely no time to delay.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in today’s groundhog debate and to draw the House’s attention to the phenomenal work being done across Darlington to help students to catch up after a year of significant disruption. I thank all the schools in Darlington, the teachers, the headteachers and other school staff for their amazing work throughout the past year, supporting their pupils’ education both in the classroom and online.
Despite the constraints of the pandemic, good things have been achieved. I commend Skerne Park Academy, under the excellent leadership of Kate Chisholm, whose school was recently recognised in the levelling-up awards. This is also my first opportunity to congratulate Dame Maura Regan of the Bishop Hogarth Education Trust, who was recognised by Her Majesty in the Birthday Honours.
Last Friday, I spent the afternoon at Corporation Road Community Primary School, which is ably led by Ann Pringleton. I look forward to joining them for their build of their new adventure play park next month. Kate, Ann and Dame Maura are incredible leaders who have done much in their organisations to meet the challenges of the pandemic.
Sadly, evidence suggests that disadvantaged children in the north-east have been among the hardest hit. Although Government, business, community and charity-funded laptops and devices have done much to bridge the digital divide, it is not enough, but the Government recognise that and are prioritising our children’s education.
We all know the long-term consequences for children’s learning, development, attainment and mental health. We cannot undo the last 15 months, but we can back the steps being taken to reduce their impact, which is why I welcome the package of support and investment from the Government. The £3 billion education catch-up programme will fund high-quality tutoring specifically targeted at the most disadvantaged students. That is exactly the sort of support that will reach those in most need in Darlington.
In addition to the education recovery plan, the Government have announced the biggest funding increase for schools in a decade, raising core funding to £52.2 billion by 2022-23. In my constituency, per pupil funding in secondary schools will rise, on average, to £5,726 and in primary schools to £4,454. The Government’s 10-year plan will transform our schools.
While the Labour party continues to play political games with education, this Government are showing that they are prioritising our educational recovery, delivering billions of pounds to schools across the country. I know that this investment will have a lasting impact in Darlington.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I share my colleagues’ frustration at this Government’s haphazard approach to helping children to catch up on their education. In recent days, many of my constituents in Coventry North West have come forward to suggest how best we can help those left behind by lockdown, remote learning and self-isolation.
From extracurricular activities to small groups for tutoring, one clear theme emerges: a belief that we must do everything we can to help children to catch up and get their education back on track. Contrast this with the feeble response proposed by this Government. The measly sums they have put forward are barely a 10th of what we know is needed. We are facing a social and economic emergency. Education is the greatest leveller of all. The gap left by this inadequate plan will only further harm social mobility and allow the attainment gap in our schools to widen further.
Why should our children put up with less than the best mental health support after 18 months of plummeting wellbeing and record levels of stress and anxiety? Why should our children put up with anything less than focused tutoring for all who need extra help, while the Government proposed a scheme that would reach only 1% of pupils? Why should our children put up with anything less than healthy and nutritious meals every day, with the Government once again refusing to fund free school meals throughout the holidays?
Ministers are now left with one big question to answer. Why are they so happy to put forward a third-rate catch-up plan? Was the Secretary of State for Education simply too weak to stand up for the nation’s children at Cabinet and too weak to secure funding from Treasury, even when his own experts said how much was needed? If he was unable to do the job properly, I would politely suggest that he finds another job. Or was it the Chancellor of the Exchequer who chose to ignore the needs of the economy by skimping on catch-up funding? Stunted growth and shrunken wages will be the result of his inability to grasp the importance of investing in the next generation. His shaky grasp on the numbers indicates that he, too, could do with some extra tuition.
It is not too late for Ministers to do the right thing. They could call time on their half-baked plan and bring forward an improved set of proposals. They could introduce a bold, brave children’s recovery plan that means breakfast clubs, sports and after-school activities for pupils, fully funded free school meals for those in need, mental health support to fix dangerously low levels of wellbeing, extra training for staff, and small group tutoring for all those who are falling further behind.
This Government will not be the one who pay the price for their craven failures to listen to the experts and stump up cash. It will be those who cannot speak for themselves. It will be the youngest and most disadvantaged pupils in my city of Coventry who will now struggle to catch up.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I would like to start by thanking and congratulating all the fantastic teachers, support staff, parents and pupils across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke and by giving a special shout-out to Lisa Ackley, who was a The Times Educational Supplement awards finalist for classroom support assistant of the year for her work at Ormiston Horizon Academy. I would also like to thank the fantastic year 10 students I met last Friday at the Excel Academy in Sneyd Green, who are fully supportive of an extended school day. I look forward to going around and rallying that cry from all the students across my constituency to pass that on to the Minister.
But we are back here again. On Twitter, the Labour party clearly did not get the likes and retweets it wanted, so decided to try to repeat this debate all over again. The Not Education Union seems to own the Labour party when it comes to education policy. Let us not forget that Labour was silent when the NEU said in March last year that teachers should not be teaching a full timetable or routinely marking. Labour was silent on the 180-point checklist of things that the Not Education Union wanted to see before schools could open, and it was silent about the scaremongering that was being done by the Not Education Union over school safety, ignoring the JCVI’s advice, wanting to vaccinate teachers instead of those who are most vulnerable to coronavirus, which means our top nine categories.
Also, let us not forget that the Not Education Union spent over £500,000 from its general funds to basically play party politics. It was accused of breaking the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. So let us be quite clear: Kevin Courtney and Dr Mary Bousted are a shambles. They should do the honourable thing and resign with immediate effect. I will happily go and pack up their stuff and send it to their home addresses, because I am sick and tired of boring socialist trade unionists who are focused on their own political agenda rather than on educating children and looking after their teachers properly—that is why so few people pay into the party political fund—yet they shower their money on the Labour party to try to get it in their grasp.
Let us have a look at what this Government have done over the last 12 months: an increase to core school funding of £2.6 billion for 2020-21 and a further increase of £2.2 billion for 2021-22; raising the pupil premium to over £2.5 billion; £1 billion of investment to improve the school estate; increased high needs funding, with £780 million more for 2020-21 and £730 million extra next year; £520 million for free school meals national voucher scheme; £410 million to provide more than 1.3 million digital devices; £220 million for the expansion of the holiday activities and food programme; £63 million to local authorities to help with food; exceptional funding to cover specific, unavoidable costs incurred by schools due to coronavirus worth £102 million in total—over £14 billion, with a £3 billion catch-up. This is a Government who care about our families and young people.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
The north-east has a higher proportion of long-term disadvantaged children than other parts of the country, and that simply has to be tackled if levelling up is ever to become more than a slogan. We know, and the Government acknowledge, that the least well-off children have been at the highest risk of falling behind their classmates over the past 15 months, both in the school classroom and elsewhere, yet the Government’s education recovery proposals do not seem serious about meeting the challenge. The £1.4 billion package amounts to less than 10% of the £15 billion that Sir Kevan Collins, the Government’s own education recovery chief, who recently resigned, called for. The Government’s caveat that more money may come, with no suggestion of when or what it might look like, provides little comfort. It increasingly looks as if the Government plan to bundle together various pots of funding on an ad hoc basis and call it an education recovery package, but that is not good enough. We need a bold vision for truly transforming the lives of our children and young people. Warm words need to backed up with action and funding.
It is vital that Government trust headteachers to tailor what little support is available to the needs of their schools and pupils so that it can be used most effectively. The Government’s proposals focus heavily on tutoring, but academic research shows that small groups and individual work can be effective for pupils who are struggling—it does not have to be external tutoring. If schools want their staff, who know the pupils, to provide support, as many schools in the north-east have chosen to do, they should have the flexibility to access the funding that works best for them.
While we all want to see academic progress, the past 15 months have been a frightening time for our children, with disrupted routines, reduced contact with friends and relatives, and fear of the virus, so it is disappointing that there is not any funding to support the crucial social enrichment on which many children have missed out, including sports clubs and music lessons. Funding plans must recognise the need for mental health support. Given that the long-term impact of the past 15 months has still to unfold, we will not be able to sustain the academic progress that we all want to see without additional support for the wellbeing of our children and young people. The two go hand in hand.
The Government have failed to show the ambition needed to meet the scale of the education challenge. They must change course and invest in our children now. Failure to do so is not only wrong but a false economy, as future generations will pay the price in lost earnings and lost opportunities, and our country will be the poorer for it.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
Well, here we are again, with another Opposition day debate and another attempt to grab negative headlines. It did not work last time, and did not gain the publicity or the traction on social media that the Opposition wanted, so they are back for a second bite of the cherry on the same issue. Perhaps they stayed up late watching “Groundhog Day”, rather than doing their homework, or simply resorted to copying instead.
Efforts to facilitate online learning must be applauded, but we know that there are many children who have missed face-to-face teaching, with the added advantages that that brings. As a former teacher, I know the value of delivering lessons in person. The academic part of the job is important, but teachers play a vital pastoral role in maintaining the social and emotional wellbeing of their pupils. Most adults realise the isolation felt by many when they are unable to see their colleagues, friends and family members, and that is why I am pleased that we are finally returning to something resembling normality.
So far, we have committed over £3 billion to deliver targeted interventions. That is only one part of our long-term education recovery plan. The next stage of that plan includes investing £1.4 billion, with about £1 billion for tutoring courses to recover lost teaching hours, and £400 million in training and development for teachers and staff. We have made an unprecedented investment in education, and have seen the biggest increase in funding for schools in a decade. That includes additional special educational needs funding, with £730 million for high needs this year, building on the £780 million that we have made available for 2020-21.
Let us not pay too much attention to the Opposition’s criticisms of investment either, when they are not even using like-for-like comparisons with other countries and have failed to take into account the entire package being offered.
So what exactly are we looking at from the Opposition: changes to the structure of school holidays, or extended school days? No—they provide no serious plans whatsoever other than simply saying that whatever figure is presented, it is not enough. When I grew up, I remember the old commercials with the Man from Del Monte. At least he occasionally said yes to things, whereas the response from Labour and the unions is simply to say no. It more closely resembles a broken record from the ’90s band 2 Unlimited. Labour has shown time and again that it cannot be trusted with our children’s education. Our academy and free school programmes have given children in some of the most deprived areas of the country the chance to attend outstanding schools. Labour did not even want our children back in the classrooms, and, along with teaching unions, wanted closures almost right away. We wanted our children back at school and we are now taking action to help them to catch up.
I commend the work of this Government and once again thank our teachers, support staff, parents and pupils for their hard work and dedication throughout this pandemic and beyond.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
This Government’s litany of let-downs for our children started last March by locking schools down late. That delay by Ministers has cost lives, as we have the highest death toll in Europe, and cost jobs, as we have the worst damage to any major economy. The litany of damage continued with June with the first U-turn on free school meals and the Prime Minister only giving in after Marcus Rashford’s brilliant campaign and support from the Labour party.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Neil Coyle
No.
Then we had the exam grades controversy, with Ministers carping about the SNP in Scotland before being forced to abandon their own algorithm after it caused damage for young people in our country. In September, we saw the launch of the kickstart scheme with much fanfare and the claim that it would create 200,000 jobs for young people. Well, nine months later the figure is about 8% of that. Of the 1,240 unemployed young people in my constituency, kickstart has helped 11, or 1%, using the Department for Work and Pensions’ figure, which is inflated to include schoolchildren on work placements.
In October, the Prime Minister humiliated his own MPs when he forced them to vote against free school meal provision and then changed his mind and gave in, again, just a few days later. In January, we saw the utter farce of schools returning for one day after Ministers again ignored advice, causing chaos for schools that have done so much to try to ensure that our children had a quality education throughout this crisis. It goes on. In January, we had Chartwells, the Government’s contractors, going viral with pictures showing how poor the quality and quantity of the food parcels being provided was, causing ridicule for the Government. Then, in February, we had the devious cut to the pupil premium, leaving 1,000 children in Southwark actually facing a loss this year. The total loss to Southwark schools is over £1.2 million—a cut.
Now we have Ministers rejecting their own commissioner’s recovery plans and offering less than 10% of what he claimed was required to equip our children for the future. Instead they offered a derisory package of £50 per child, compared with £1,600 per child in the United States or £2,500 per child in the Netherlands. That pitiful offer says a lot about how poorly this Government value our children, our young people, and the future of this country.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in this debate. The debate does seem somewhat familiar, but despite that, it gives me the opportunity to thank those who work in teaching across my constituency—we owe them all a debt of gratitude for their dedication, their passion, and all their hard work—and of course the pupils who just got on with it.
I also thank Labour Members for the opportunity to reiterate that children’s education is this Government’s priority. Providing over £3 billion in catch-up support is just one part of a long-term plan for education recovery. At the start of the pandemic, there was a £1 billion commitment to ensure that pupils were able to catch up and £650 million for the catch-up premium. Nor should we forget that there has been money for mental health, summer schools and summer activities. Over £450 million has been spent through the food voucher scheme. There has been £400 million to provide laptops, tablets and internet access, with over 1.3 million computers built to order, imported, configured and delivered to schools. There has also been £139 million provided to help schools to cope with the exceptional costs they faced during the first lockdown.
Compare and contrast that with Labour Members, who have spent the past year equivocating over whether schools should open, damaging public confidence and confusing the message. Their mooted £14.7 billion education plan, which proposes spending more than 10 times as much as the Government are suggesting, would be fantastic if it were realistic and if we knew specifically how it would be funded, but we do not. Nor should we forget that when Labour was trusted with education, we fell down the international league table for school performance. Even now, we are having an Opposition day debate about a paper trail instead of focusing on what really matters.
What really matters is this: children are resilient if we allow them to be. My concern is that confusing messages and debates from Opposition Members do nothing but undermine that and provide uncertainty when kids need certainty. Across my constituency, supported by the Government, everything has been done to keep children in the classroom and prioritise the safe reopening of schools. From the onset of the pandemic, safeguarding education has been the top priority of a Government focused on saving lives and accelerating the vaccination programme—a Government who have acted.
All of us in this great place had a childhood and an education that was not marred by a pandemic. Let us not let this pandemic mar our children’s or grandchildren’s futures with misleading messages or debates, but focus collectively on ensuring that no child is left behind and that every child has the same opportunity and future as all of us.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the school leaders in colleges and schools across south Bristol, and particularly to the parents and young people, for getting through this difficult year. They all had high hopes of the education recovery commissioner, whom the Government had asked to come up with a plan to ensure that schoolchildren could catch up on what they had missed out on. However, the Government ignored the evidence-based plan, awarding just a 10th of the necessary funding and then forcing him to resign because their behaviour, in his words,
“betrays an undervaluation of the importance of education”.
I recently met the Minister to discuss the pupil premium and educational outcomes in Bristol South. I am grateful for his time and attention; he is a Minister who usually does his homework, unlike many others. However, I also recently met school leaders in Bristol South, as I do every year. I meet primary and secondary headteachers as a group, because I want to understand their shared issues and ambitions and help to improve outcomes across south Bristol.
Such a meeting now happens rarely across south Bristol because of the evolution of the multi-academy trust system. There are six secondary schools in Bristol South, covered by six multi-academy trusts; in all, the nearly 40 state-funded schools in Bristol South are run by 12 different organisations. I do think that some MATs act well as a family of schools, but I do not think that they serve the families of south Bristol as well as they should or could.
Families live in the communities of south Bristol, not in the community of the MAT. In some cases, vertical support through the MAT seems to be working well, but while headteachers are accountable upwards within the MAT, south Bristol families live in local communities. Parents expect each child to be supported and educated well in their community through early years, primary, secondary, post-16 and higher education, but children are experiencing too many different organisations as part of that journey. Crucially, there is no accountability across south Bristol for the outcome of that journey, which is the destination of those young people—their chance in life.
In my six years as MP for Bristol South, my focus has been on further education and apprenticeships post 16 to help young people fulfil their potential, but I have realised that the lack of ownership and accountability for destination, success and outcomes is a major problem that no number of well-meaning piecemeal initiatives will solve. I now see that the pandemic and the loss of learning must be the catalyst for taking this seriously.
We will not solve the problem of poor education outcomes for these children without focus on the context of their lives. That focus has to be local and at the transition between all levels. For me, supporting further education is the only approach that can capture those children and, with the right professional support and stability of funding, help them to reach their true potential. Covid-19 has exacerbated the disproportionate impact of poor education on young people. We absolutely need to use this opportunity to make things better for the future.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The point I would like to make in this debate is that we should not fall into the trap of thinking this is all about money. There are factors behind success and achievement other than money, and it is debilitating to think that is the only thing that counts.
Before I go on to illustrate what I am talking about, I would just pick up on the comment the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) made that the UK has the worst death rate in Europe. There is no doubt that the UK has been hit pretty hard, but there are actually 16 countries with a worse rate than the UK in the world, including six across Europe—Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Belgium and Italy. It is important that we do look at the actual facts. He is a far more friendly chap outside the Chamber, particularly in Strangers Bar, than he is in here.
Neil Coyle
It is unfair of the hon. Member to reveal that I am nicer outside the Chamber.
The hon. Member is actually using a different figure. He is using a per capita model, not the raw death toll. We have the highest death toll in Europe by number of population overall.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is what the hon. Member said, and I apologise, but I think it is important to look at the context, and I think the per capita figure is very relevant.
The other point I would like to make is about the motion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) made this point very well. It does endanger candid advice if the Opposition are simply going to request all the information and all the debate behind the scenes. Actually, I do not agree with him on one aspect—we would still get candid advice; it just would not be written down, and I do not really think that is very useful. I know it has been some time—I do not mean this rudely—since the Opposition have been in government, but the reality is that there is bound to be frank and open discussion behind the scenes about different policies on different things. I do not think it is right that simply getting at all the debate behind the scenes will be useful on this particular issue.
The Government have put a package together. As has been said, they may well need more money to address this issue fully. Nevertheless, 6 million packages of 15 hours of tuition is quite a significant investment, and no doubt there will be other things coming along as well. A number of Members have asked why we did not simply follow Sir Kevan Collins’s recommendation to commit £15 billion. That is obviously a matter for the Government, but I have heard the Opposition say on a number of occasions that there would be a £100 billion payback from that £15 billion. I do not know whether the shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), has used that figure, but I have heard the Leader of the Opposition use it. Having been in business quite a long time, I have had various department heads come through my door on lots of occasions and say, “I’ve got this great idea to spend x amount of money, and it will result in this kind of payback.” People can make anything look good on a spreadsheet. The Opposition cannot guarantee that the £15 billion would have a £100 billion effect.
The reality is that we have to choose. In government, we have to choose, and of course if we do not choose—I have heard this in so many debates over the last few years—we have the Opposition calling again and again for more spending. I think somebody should really add up all those numbers, because I am sure it would amount to trillions of pounds of spending. We simply cannot go on like that. We have at some point to try to balance the books. I do not think that is something either party has done that well in government, on the basis that very rarely—I think in only five years out of the last 40—have any Government balanced the books, and we have to make difficult choices to do that.
My final point, in the 30 seconds I have left, is to look at what happened in North Yorkshire. I said that it is not all about money, and it was disappointing that our county council took a number of weeks to facilitate online learning in many of the schools across North Yorkshire. It was simply wrong to take eight weeks to develop a policy on online learning using Zoom and the like. However, schools such as Malton School—a very good local authority maintained school—had already put in place a package of support using iPads. It had done that years before, so it was able to do this. Excellent teachers can find solutions without simply having lots of Government money thrown at a problem.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
Just four months ago, we heard the Government make promises that every young person would be supported to catch up on their education and gain the skills and knowledge they need to be able to seize opportunities in future. After the catalogue of errors in dealing with the pandemic, with schools going back for just one day in January after the Prime Minister could not decide whether they were safe while hospitals were filling up with covid patients, it was encouraging to hear that the Prime Minister had hired the highly respected Sir Kevan Collins to step in and oversee the recovery from the biggest crisis our schools have ever faced.
Sir Kevan, knighted for his services to education, did exactly what was asked of him and led a comprehensive programme of catch-up aimed at young people who had lost out on learning during the pandemic. He estimated, with a strong evidence base, that £15 billion was needed to ensure that the nation’s children were not blighted by the huge hit to their education. Teachers agreed, parents agreed, but unfortunately the Prime Minister and the Chancellor did not. They gave away millions to friends and Tory donors for contracts that did not deliver, and they wasted billions on a test, trace and isolation programme that was a total failure when we needed it most, but when it comes to our children’s education, the purse strings are pulled tight, with just £50 per pupil per year to make up for the last 18 months.
Even today, because the Prime Minister failed to protect our borders, children are being sent home to isolate because of the delta variant. They are still being affected. The Government have offered just £1.4 billion, a pitiful offer to our children, who have had so much of their lives impacted. Their mental health and wellbeing have been severely challenged. Sir Kevan’s resignation letter to the Prime Minister says it all, really. He made it perfectly clear:
“I do not believe it will be possible to deliver a successful recovery without significantly greater support than the government has to date indicated it intends to provide.”
Certainly the teachers I have spoken to in Bedford and Kempston have told me that the funding announced by the Government will not scratch the surface in helping children to catch up. A primary school headteacher I spoke to yesterday told me that he is already trying to provide a quality, broad and balanced curriculum and to make up for the children’s time away from school on reduced funding. That was hard already, but the challenges posed in trying to provide what each child and family needs following the pandemic are monumental. That headteacher is ready, willing and able to offer interventions to give our children the best chance in life—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, Mohammad, you have run out of time.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
We see yet again, don’t we, that Labour will always push for a debate that focuses solely on money and not on real outcomes? That is quite ironic from the party that left a note saying
“I’m afraid there is no money”
when it was in charge. In their media appearances, Labour Members show a total inability to set out how they would finance their grand plans for education, let alone to relate any of the spending to outcomes.
I was a school governor for several years. I have seen the financial inner workings of schools, and I have seen what good investment and bad investment can do to the quality of education. My schools in Dudley North were left underfunded and unsupported by Labour, so I welcome this Government’s plans and their promise to deliver on levelling up our education system as we build back better. That will be achieved through targeted investment to improve school buildings in the worst conditions and to increase funding for children with special educational needs. A good education for every child will give them the best start in life.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) once described the pandemic as a “good crisis” for Labour to make a political opportunity out of. That says it all. Is there any substance behind her calling this debate, or is it yet another opportunity for her to provide selective soundbites for her social media channels to make it look like Labour cares about our children getting an adequate education? Labour could not seem to decide what its policies were over the past 15 months. Did it want schools to open or to remain closed? Does it want teachers to teach more, or does it want them to spend time being glorified babysitters over the summer, so that children can relax and enjoy life? Unlike the Opposition, throughout this pandemic this Conservative Government have consistently tried to get children back into the classroom where they belong and where they are at their happiest. The Opposition have more flip-flops than a Havaianas shop. They cannot seem to decide, even with the benefit of hindsight.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am grateful to the shadow Treasury and Education teams for bringing this important debate to the House. Undoubtedly, one of the biggest challenges that our nation faces is supporting the millions of children and young adults studying across the country following the devastating impact of the past year, so I am hugely disappointed that once again the Government have ignored the experts and offered less than 10% of what the Government’s own education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, called for.
Frankly, it is insulting to the teachers, parents, school staff and early years providers, who have ensured that children in Slough and beyond could access education throughout one of the most disruptive periods that they have ever seen. Without their tenacity, determination and commitment in wanting the very best for future generations, our children would not have received the care, support and education that they needed over the past year. They achieved that all after a decade of Government neglect, which delivered the largest cuts to school funding in 40 years.
Just last year, Slough headteachers wrote to me to say that they had
“become increasingly disillusioned by a persistent lack of effective and credible leadership emanating from the Department for Education.”
Sadly, with the so-called catch-up plan the DFE has continued that trend, with funding that covers less than £1 per day that children were out of school and a tutoring programme that reaches just 1% of pupils. It seems that the Prime Minister and Chancellor have blocked the much needed funds that were initially asked for, letting down an entire generation. Do they think that it makes economic sense to not invest in our children?
Labour’s fully costed plan would deliver exactly what parents and teachers have been calling for: a well-rounded catch-up plan including mental health support, drama, sports, book clubs, continued development for teachers and an extension of free school meals over the holidays. That provision would be targeted with an education recovery premium to ensure that those who faced the greatest disruption are given additional support.
What is worse is that this Tory Government know the consequences of the inadequate support that they have offered. As Sir Kevan Collins noted in his resignation letter,
“the settlement provided will define the international standing of England’s education system for years to come.”
That is consolidated by reports from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, showing that if students had lost an average of six months of schooling they could see a reduction in their lifetime income of 4%, so why will Ministers not stop treating children as an afterthought in our recovery and prioritise their wellbeing, education and life chances? Inaction now will fail generations for decades to come.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I have not yet had an opportunity to pay full tribute to the teachers in schools in South Ribble, who did such a stunning job during the pandemic, including inspirational educational leaders such as the guys at the multi-academy Endeavour Learning Trust—my thanks to them.
In her opening remarks, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) questioned the decisions made about massive sums of money, national changes and big-ticket items. Was the idea that such big decisions would be made quickly, with no evidence on what works? Personally, I support the idea of a longer school day, which I think has huge advantages, but I would not like to see it implemented nationally without evidence of its effectiveness. Without such evidence, Government Members do not support commitments to spending billions.
In her opening remarks, the shadow Minister described wanting to ensure that vast sums of money are spent effectively as misguided dogma. No, not really. She asked to see the working-out. Let me step back a little in history to show what Labour’s version of working-out looks like in the education space. As a snotty young IT coder, I was in the Department for Education and Skills back in the early noughties, working on the independent learning accounts recovery programme. The first programme had been put out to achieve a headline—get Mr Tony Blair’s grid.
What happened? Millions of pounds went out the door in fraud. The National Audit Office report from the time is on the record. I assure Members that having seen the data, my little, snotty IT coders and I reckon that about 10 times that money went out the door. It went out the door because Labour was chasing a headline. It was throwing millions at an idea without having a plan, without having thought it through and without having evaluated it. That is not what we are doing here. We all care about children; it is hugely important. The Opposition are proud of “Education, education, education”, but that should not be at any cost, not at unlimited and uncontrolled cost and not producing ineffective outcomes that have not been evaluated.
There is no knee-jerk headline chasing on these Benches, because what we want is the effective use of Government money, in the best way to target and help children. I see a game-playing motion here today, and I will not support it.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
For many children, especially in my constituency of Easington, home learning has been very difficult. I point out that 36.9% of children in my constituency were classed as living in poverty in 2019-20. The effects of the pandemic have not been felt evenly, with disadvantaged children in the poorest areas hit hardest.
Despite the existing inequalities and challenges, and our schools in many areas being at breaking point, Ministers seem to have found new ways to cut school funding, and that is something I take the opportunity to highlight. The north-east could lose up to £7 million due to administrative changes to how pupil premium funding is calculated and allocated, with the Government switching from using the January schools census to using the October census. What that means is that schools with children who became eligible for funding during the pandemic will not receive any additional funding for another year.
Using the October census date rather than the January date is significant, because many children were not at school then, so it was not such a priority for parents to register. In my constituency of Easington, 20 out of 28 primary schools will be affected. The average loss will be about £9,400. When we are talking about the additional sums—I heard the Minister’s opening statement—I believe it is about £6,000 for the average primary school. The average loss will be £9,400 in my constituency, but the worst-affected schools will lose nearly £30,000. The total loss to schools in my constituency is £180,000.
It is absolutely reprehensible to remove resources from schools at any time, but to do so after the biggest public health crisis for a generation, when more funding is urgently required, is unconscionable. Funding education is an investment in our children, and society will reap dividends today and in the future. The Government have had an opportunity to make a statement of intent by implementing the recommendations that Sir Kevan Collins, the Government-appointed education tsar, made. He gave them the evidence. That would have helped every child. I hope parents will reflect on the decision and think about the loss of funding for schools in areas such as mine when they hear Government Members talk about levelling up.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The reason I did not interrupt you, Grahame, is because we have had a few withdrawals and we are able to put the time limit to four minutes for every contribution at the moment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Well, I didn’t stop you, Grahame. I call Ben Everitt.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) is welcome to intervene if he wants his extra minute. It is a definite pleasure to follow him, because he ended with the phrase “levelling up”. Education is about levelling up, so today’s debate is really important, despite the déjà vu from debating the same thing as last week. Why, oh why, are the Opposition using these debates to say the same thing? It is good news for us, though, because education is at the heart of levelling up.
Even prior to the pandemic, we introduced our new 10-year plan to transform schools across England, with 500 new projects over the next decade and spending prioritised to the schools with buildings in the worst condition. We are cracking on with it, and we were before the pandemic. Work started this year on the first 50 projects, backed by £1 billion of Government funding. Before the pandemic, we had already delivered the biggest funding for schools increase in a decade—£14.4 billion over three years, with the core schools budget up last year to £47.6 billion, rising in 2023 to £52.2 billion.
Of course there are those on the Opposition Benches who will always call for more and say, “It’s not enough,” but even before the pandemic we had been working on levelling up educational opportunities—giving every child in England a funding boost, with a minimum £5,150 per pupil in secondary and £4,000 per pupil in primaries. Now, faced with the damage to children’s learning that the pandemic has caused, we are taking even more action, targeting funding at children who need it the most. So far, we have committed a total of £3 billion to fund targeted interventions for students who need it now, focusing on those who have found learning tough during the pandemic.
Too often in this place, we are guilty of using the word “investment” when what we actually mean is “spending”, but in this area, there is a business case for saying that we are investing in our children; we are investing in our future. Britain—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is the greatest country on planet Earth, and its citizens are the best people on planet Earth. We owe it to future generations to provide a quality education to children. That is why there are elements of the support package that are rolled in to the impacts that it will have on future generations—training and development for teachers, language skills, resource investment, giving children the digital skills needed to compete on the global stage and to be the pioneers for global Britain. We are delivering the right targeted interventions to those who need them the most. We will have a generation of brilliant young minds. Building back better means nurturing those minds to be leaders—the leaders of global Britain in future years.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Barbara, I don’t know if the good news has reached you, but we have put the time limit up to four minutes.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
It has—thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Today’s debate cuts to a central issue with this Government. Although there is much talk of levelling up, the reality is that the Chancellor holding the purse strings has no interest in investing in vital public services. It is telling that there is no Treasury Minister here today to defend his decisions. Trying to do recovery on the cheap simply will not work after the damaging year that our children and young people have had during the pandemic. The Government’s announcement means just one hour-long session of tutoring every fortnight; funding for this is only £1 per child a week. There is nothing for children’s mental health, wellbeing or socialisation. Importantly, there will be no dedicated support for disabled children.
Those are financial decisions with a real human impact. The Disabled Children’s Partnership makes it clear that the difference between current and pre-pandemic levels of support for disabled children is vast: 70% of disabled children have been unable to access services such as occupational therapy or speech and language therapy, and 60% of their families are still experiencing delays and challenges in accessing the health appointments they need. The lack of access to multiple education and health services has been detrimental to the health of parent carers, with their disabled children and wider families also persistently isolated. All that, sadly, now brings the threat of children developing additional long-term health problems.
In response to that, the Government have offered nothing. They have offered nothing to provide children with social activities to make up for a year spent isolated from their friends. They have offered no funding to help crucial services, such as speech and language therapy, to step up their delivery to make up for lost time. They have offered no funding to allow unpaid carers to take the respite breaks they need after the extra caring workload they have shouldered during the pandemic. Those are specific, targeted interventions, which the Treasury has decided are not worth the cost.
The education recovery fiasco shows that the Prime Minister does not care enough to stand up to the Chancellor over the challenges facing our country. How else can the Government explain Ministers telling Sir Kevan Collins that money is no object and then signing off on only a tenth of what is needed? If the Chancellor can simply say no to the Prime Minister’s own education tsar, what does that mean for other areas of investment? If the Chancellor will not support our children, how can we be sure that he will give the NHS the support it needs to address historic waiting lists? Will he provide the change that our social care system needs so that older and disabled people can live independently in their own homes, rather than being forced to sell their home to pay for care? Will levelling up turn out to be just another unfunded soundbite that does nothing for areas that desperately need change?
Our public services need a Government who are fully behind them, not a Chancellor who is more interested in his own profile and a Prime Minister who seems happy to take a back seat. Otherwise, the next few years will look much like the last decade: cuts for our crucial public services just when we can least afford them.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).
The Government’s proposed recovery plan is woefully inadequate, completely underestimates the scale of the recovery required and provides nothing to boost children’s mental health, wellbeing or social development through the creative arts, sports or simply play, despite parents saying that that is their top concern after the isolation of lockdown. The Prime Minister’s own education recovery commissioner, Kevan Collins, called for an investment of £15 billion—the equivalent of £700 per pupil over three years—to support children’s recovery, yet the Government’s package is 10 times less, offering only £50 extra per student per year.
What Kevan Collins has described as a “half-hearted approach” that
“risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils”,
I would describe as shameful and an insult to the hardworking pupils, parents, teachers and school staff in Luton South, who have gone above and beyond over the past 15 months. If Conservative Members truly believe that the level of ambition in the Government’s plan is sufficient, it means that they are happy to neglect the future of the children in our country. Kevan Collins’s resignation is a damning indictment of the Government’s meagre proposals, and it demonstrates that the Government will fail to deliver the bold action that our children deserve.
The public deserve answers: why are Ministers and the Chancellor acting as obstacles to our young people’s recovery? The Government must come clean and explain why the substantial recovery plan proposed by the Prime Minister’s own education recovery commissioner was blocked. If the Government will not provide an adequate explanation as to why they rejected Kevan Collins’s proposals, they should publish all Treasury correspondence, and the official evaluations and impact assessments of the proposals, so that the public can make their own assessment. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, will explain what urgent steps will be taken to address Kevan Collins’s concerns by increasing the investment in the recovery package.
The Labour party’s children’s recovery plan will match young people’s ambition for their own futures, give schools the resources to transform the extracurricular and enrichment opportunities available to every child, and invest in targeted learning for the children who need it most. Our comprehensive plan would deliver breakfast clubs for every child, quality mental health support in every school, additional investment for children who have struggled the most and support to help teachers develop, and it would guarantee that eligible children receive free school meals every day this summer. Will the Minister explain which part of that plan she opposes?
The long-term costs of not pursuing such a plan will be much higher than the upfront investment that is required. The Education Policy Institute has said that doing nothing would cost our economy £142 billion in the long term. That is almost 30 times more than the cost of our package. We must pursue a bold, ambitious strategy. Our young people’s futures and the future of our country depend on it.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I start by again thanking the teachers who work in my constituency; the people who work in and around schools and early years; those who work at our university, Royal Holloway; and everyone who is involved in supporting, looking after and educating our children. It has been a very difficult year for everyone, in particular for our young people and everyone who works in the education sector. I just want to say thanks to them again.
I really enjoyed last week’s debate, so I was absolutely delighted and surprised that the Opposition seemed to enjoy my contribution so much that they wanted to hear it again. Here we go:
“Education is one of the best opportunities”—[Official Report, 9 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 981.]—
but if Members wish to see my speech, they may go to Hansard or to my website, where it is up and subtitled; the very daring may subscribe to my newsletter for regular updates.
This groundhog day debate gives me the chance to say something that did not make the cut of my education debate speech version 1.0, so I will try a different ending. We have talked a lot about education, and it is said that irony is a very difficult concept to teach, perhaps best taught through example. This past year, we have moved heaven and earth to keep schools open. We tried to reopen them as soon as possible, but the Opposition and the unions pushed back. Now, they complain that the support is not enough. The irony, a lesson to us all!
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought a few more were before me.
Paul Howell
That is probably why I have a couple of minutes more.
The £1.4 billion is the next instalment. That is on top of the previous sums poured into education, including £400 million into remote education. They total more than £3 billion. Given the large figures that have been flying around for the past year in the wake of the crisis, we need to remember that £3 billion is a lot of money. It is a huge amount of money that will fund huge improvements, and I am sure that the Treasury will find more funding, should it be convinced that the plans are fully understood and costed.
The proposals from Sir Kevan included huge sums to increase the school day. Sir Kevan’s job was to advise what would help children to catch up, and he did, by suggesting that they literally make up the hours lost. Having met brilliant local schools, such as Ferryhill, Woodham, Bishopton and Wellfield, I absolutely confirm that schools have been working full throttle in the past year.
In fact, to go back to Wellfield School for a second, I had the pleasure of going there last week. It is a school that has turned around over the past 10 years, from completely failing with no intake—an intake of 78, instead of 180—to now being oversubscribed. That is just a shout out to an incredible school that has done some incredible work over the past few years.
The school bell ringing at 3 pm does not equate to a teacher’s day, or the school day, finishing. Teachers take home marking, lesson plans and extra tutoring. The rest of the school staff are dealing with the many complications of a covid world throughout this pandemic. They have regularly needed to enable teaching and learning simultaneously in the classroom and online. Schools and teachers need our thanks and engagement, not the imposition of more work under a misguided assumption that they have anything left in their tank. At the very least, if we are to consider extending the school day, surely a consultation is imperative.
With a little more time than I anticipated, I also make a shout out for some certainty, please, on the school sport premium funding, which I saw at first hand at Walworth and Sedgefield primary schools recently. We also need to ensure that teachers are working more effectively, rather than longer and harder. We simply cannot afford teacher burnout. That is largely where the Government’s plan focuses.
Teacher training with £153 million will provide the opportunity for evidence-based professional development for early-years practitioners, while a further £253 million will expand existing teacher training and development and give 500,000 schoolteachers the opportunity to access world-leading training. Having access to such training, teachers will be able to ensure that their teaching time is even more effective and efficient, and strikes the balance between providing excellent education and not overstretching our teachers.
We need to trust that, having been given that training, teachers are the most qualified and best placed experts to teach children and to get their education back on track. That is the job that they have spent years of their life readying themselves for.
Getting funding approved for those methods that are widely agreed to be most effective, such as teacher training, while looking to consult on the effectiveness of less conventional areas, such as extending the day, reflect on a Government whose own methodology is to get on with it and not to sit on the fence. At times like this, we need to deliver the obvious and not let perfection frustrate progress. Should robust evidence be presented in favour of less-obvious educational methods, I have no doubt that the Treasury will take another look at them.
To conclude, I reiterate my thanks for the school and all the staff who have worked tirelessly and selflessly this past year. I will continue to support the Government’s initiative to have them working smarter, not harder, and I hope that they manage to have a break over what I hope will be a lovely, covid-free summer.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
I simply cannot believe that after spending last year debating whether the Government should feed hungry children during the pandemic we are now, for the second time in a week, debating just how much children’s futures are worth as part of the recovery. Have we ever seen a Government who cared so little about the people they were meant to be serving?
During the pandemic, pupils’ education has been displaced and disrupted, moved between classroom and Zoom. School staff have gone above and beyond to ensure that pupils have still received an education—parents were instrumental, too—and they have my total admiration. Although we desperately need a comprehensive recovery plan to make up for lost development, it is testament to the graft of school staff that the situation is not as dire as it could have been, so it is shameful that all we hear from Government Members is the scapegoating of burnt-out staff and calls to pile more work on their shoulders.
Fortunately, the Labour party has proposed a catch-up plan that prioritises the interests of students and staff. While the Government’s plan is based on penny pinching, Labour’s is based on expert advice and investment. Our plan calls for breakfast clubs and extracurricular activities. It would make small-group tutoring available to all who need it and provide the quality mental health support necessary to meet the challenges ahead. Our recovery plan matches young people’s ambition for their futures and gives schools the resources that they need.
We in the Labour party are often accused of being too ambitious—of offering too much—but when it comes to delivering the brightest future possible for children throughout society, can we ever be ambitious enough? Pupils have been deprived of a full education at a critical stage in their development and socialisation. It has been a hugely difficult year for young people and we cannot avoid the fact that it will take serious investment to correct it. As we know, when Sir Kevan Collins delivered his recommendations for a catch-up plan, the Government offered 10 times less than the funding he recommended. It really is not the time to be bargain hunting. We have one shot at this recovery and the Government simply must get it right, because the futures of millions of young people are at stake.
Throughout this pandemic, when the Government have attacked education unions for standing up for the interests of staff, pupils and parents, they have insisted that their priority is having children in the classroom and supporting their education; well, children are now back in the classroom, so it is time for the Government to decide whether they are going to invest in them or abandon them.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
Over the past year I have been lucky enough to visit many of the schools here in Broadland, including, last Friday, Buxton Primary School, where year 4 students gave me a hard time about single-use plastics and the Government’s plan for the environment. The overwhelming impression given by all my visits has been one of determination and energy, with schools having risen to the challenges thrown up by covid-19.
Unlike Labour, the Government have been clear from the start that schools should be the last organisations to close under lockdown and the first to reopen. As we look at the past year, it is clear that that decision was right—and it was taken in the teeth of opposition from Labour. When school closures became unavoidable, teaching moved online and the Department for Education became the world’s largest purchaser of laptops, buying an astonishing 1.3 million devices to make sure that as many people as possible were able to take part in online learning, irrespective of their family circumstances.
Schools have adapted too. Any school visitor will recognise the huge difference in the quality and quantity of educational offering between the first lockdown and the second. Our teachers have learned a vast amount about how to teach well within the restrictions they have faced, but there have been enormous costs. A few weeks ago, I visited a secondary school where the atmosphere was positive and encouraging, and it was quite clear that the vast majority of students had bounced back. Yet that school now calls an ambulance to site several times a week to assist with pupils who have symptoms of extreme anxiety. The school has now recruited an additional two welfare staff to help smooth the path back to educational normality. I spoke to them, and they are extremely busy.
The point is that covid has not affected every student in the same way, so our response to recovery should recognise that and be targeted at the students who have really suffered the most. As we emerge from the pandemic, the Government are right to focus on areas where the evidence shows results, with support for great teaching and high-quality tutoring for those who need it. The national tutoring programme to provide 6 million 15-hour tutoring courses for struggling schoolchildren comes at enormous cost—£1 billion—but it is an intervention that can be focused by teachers where it can do most good. Those teachers’ own catch-up skills will be enhanced by a further £400 million of training support. That programme fits the real needs that I have seen in schools when I have visited them, and it is the right first step in the plan for educational recovery.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
We expect a competent Government to step up and give the nation’s children the support they need. I think we all need to know why this Government are ignoring their own commissioner.
Children in deprived and disadvantaged circumstances need the Government to care about them and their future. During the pandemic, those of us on the Opposition Benches have had to fight to ensure that schoolchildren are not left without food. We have seen poorer families lose out on digital learning, and we have seen school heads struggle to manage a depleted budget and ever-changing situations with little guidance. And now, instead of investing in each child to give them a bright future, the Chancellor has decided that they will receive less than £1 a day to make up for the days they missed from school.
Education attainment gaps are only getting wider. That will have implications for many children; children with disabilities, refugees and asylum seekers, and children from poor and diverse backgrounds will be affected for decades to come if the Government do not do the right thing. In my constituency, black Caribbean boys are some of those who need the greatest therapeutic and educational support. We should not have to put a price on the gift of education for all children, but £1 is certainly not enough.
The Government had a chance to show that they care about these young lives by just listening and learning from their own education recovery commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, but they did not like the reality he showed them. What is the point in hiring an education recovery commissioner and then refusing to enact their recommendations to support the recovery? It is shocking and disgraceful.
In my constituency, around 34% of children live in poverty, with their parents or carers struggling to cover the cost of uniforms, food, new school shoes—and, with growing feet, new school shoes again—not to mention energy bills and rent; the list goes on. In February, all parents, carers and grandparents were told that every child would be supported to catch up on their education. Now, we find out from the Government that that is just not true.
Finally, I thank all school staff, including teachers, admin staff, caretakers and so on, for all the work they have done and will continue to do to educate our children during the pandemic and in times—hopefully much better times—to come.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I want to start by paying tribute to all the education establishments in Liverpool Riverside and all the amazing staff who have done a great job over the last 15 months.
I have listened with incredulity over the past couple of hours to Government Members, who I think must have selective amnesia about the 11 years of austerity we have experienced and the hollowing out of funding to our schools—clearly not levelling up. The Government’s pitiful proposal of a mere £50 per pupil for catch-up funding is utterly indefensible and a stain on our country; it is less than one tenth of the requirement laid down by their own education recovery commissioner, who just last week resigned over the refusal of the Minister to rise to the scale of the challenge, revealing just how little the Government value and prioritise the lives of working-class children growing up in this country.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds have suffered most from the learning lost due to covid, with the attainment gap expected to widen by between 10% and 24% and estimates by the Education Endowment Foundation showing this could reverse a decade of progress in closing the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils. My constituency of Liverpool Riverside has one of the highest poverty rates in the country, with one in three children growing up in poverty. Liverpool has among the worst education attainment rates for persistently disadvantaged children in England, the most vulnerable being often two whole years of learning behind other students by the time they take their GCSEs. This is particularly acute for black children growing up in my constituency and across the country, who are more likely to be growing up in poverty. Half of all black children are growing up beneath the poverty line, and they are more than three times more likely to be excluded from school than their white peers and four times more likely to fail to gain any qualifications at age 16 than those who are not excluded.
The Government must wake up now to this crisis of child poverty and rampant inequalities that they are presiding over and commit to significant funding if they are to avoid creating a lost generation. The Government talk big about prioritising education catch-up while in reality cutting pupil premiums by stealth by £133 million, with nearly £1.5 million set to be cut from funds to support the most disadvantaged children in Liverpool.
Can the Minister look me in the eye and tell me how he sleeps at night when his Government have just cut funding for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children at this time of acute crisis? The Government show a complete lack of understanding about—or maybe a lack of willingness to see—the essential foundation that education sets for our country’s economic recovery. Lost attainment will translate into lower productivity, and if not tackled now, threatens to cost the economy upwards of £100 billion, with the impact greatest in disadvantaged areas.
To do justice to the next generation will the Minister agree here today to disclose all Treasury correspondence and evaluation of the proposals by the education recovery commissioner, and will he take up calls to appeal to his Government to put their money where their mouth is? That means having higher funding commitments per pupil, closing the digital divide, introducing smaller class sizes, reversing the cuts to pupil premiums, providing free school meals during the holidays so no child goes hungry, and, most importantly, reversing the soaring levels of child poverty that have risen so drastically under a decade of Tory austerity cuts even before the pandemic.
Education is the key to pulling the next generation out of this poverty and providing them with better life chances. The Government have a duty to make education a priority coming out of covid; anything less threatens to create a lost generation.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
One of the things that pleased me most about the Government’s response to the global pandemic was the fact that schools were the last institutions to close and the first to reopen, because the classroom is the best environment for children to learn in. The vast majority of teachers and their support staff in Peterborough agree about that and were champing at the bit to return. But of course, on social media and in newspaper columns, the Labour councillors in Peterborough scared parents, peddled conspiracy theories about the effects of covid on children and said that children should not return, which undoubtedly led to some parents keeping their children away unnecessarily, impacting on their future. I make no apologies for holding those councillors to account for that, and they undoubtedly took their lead from the national leadership of the Labour party, who repeatedly refused to say that schools were safe.
Today we are repeating a debate from the last week and there are just three points I wish to re-emphasise. The first is that Peterborough schools have coped well. We did come together in Peterborough to support one another during the pandemic. Schools played their part, but they will, as we recover, need support. That is why more money into targeted tutoring is welcome. That is why more money into teacher training support is welcome, and that is why more money into mental health is welcome.
Secondly, let us remember what the Labour party said about schools at the last election and what its priority would be if it were now in Government. Its priorities would be to abolish academies, abolish Ofsted, and abolish league tables. While we build back, Labour would tear down.
That brings me to my final point, and a point that I made last week. If Labour were serious about recovery, it would embrace with an open mind the idea about extending the school day. This would be welcomed by parents. It would improve physical fitness. It would improve the social skills of young people, and, of course, it would improve academic attainment. The buildings are there; they are open. Let us use them properly to catch up. I speak all the time to headteachers in my constituency who would back this and embrace it 100%. If it is good for them to embrace, then we should embrace it, too.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Like parents across the country, I have been more involved in the education of my two children—one at primary and one at secondary—than at any other time. I saw how the schools did their best making the transition to home learning. Teachers’ workload increased. They had to teach face-to-face and support children learning from home. Schools were given woeful provision for those who did not have equipment for home learning. I could see how big the gap was, even for children like mine who had everything at home. Parents with deficiencies like me had to recall how to do quadratic equations or to explain what an adverbial is—do not ask because I still do not know. Our children falling behind, and falling behind in an interconnected world where knowledge and skills are the key to the future, is just not acceptable.
When the Government announced just £1.4 billion in catch-up funding, I was appalled, not just as an MP, but as a parent. As a parent and an MP, I want to know what reason the Government had for blocking Sir Kevan Collins’ proposal for our children’s education, and what assessment the Chancellor made of those proposals. I want to know why the Government are not delivering what is needed, and also why we are not delivering a world-class catch-up programme. Instead, the Government’s measly tutoring offering amounts to less than £1 for every day that the children were out of school over the pandemic.
Meanwhile, Ministers are throwing more taxpayers’ money at a failed tutoring programme that is reaching just 1% of pupils and that schools have said to me is difficult to use. In Leeds, we are already seeing a huge educational gap appear. As Councillor Pryor, our executive member for education in Leeds, said:
“Even before COVID there was a huge gap between disadvantaged pupils and those who were better off. Some of that is kids who have educational, care and health needs plans and some is kids in poor quality housing, have parents working two jobs and don’t have the same opportunities to help them all the time.”
I want to ask the Government today: where are the breakfast clubs and new enrichment activities for every child; where is the quality mental health support in every school; where is the funding for small group tutoring for all those who need it and not just for 1% of pupils; where is the continuity development for teachers who have had the most difficult year in the living memory of schools; and what about an education recovery premium supporting every child to reach their potential?
The Government also need to fulfil the promise that the Prime Minister made to Marcus Rashford to ensure that no child goes hungry. Under a Labour Government, no child went hungry. By extending free school meals over the holidays, including the summer break, they would not go hungry again. Our early years staff worked all the way through and without protection. Where is the package of support for early years, which has been starved of funding for years?
The Government must now commit to funding a proper programme with the measures that we are putting forward today and not fail a whole generation of our country’s children.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am very grateful to all colleagues who have contributed to today’s debate. Sadly, however, they did not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a single Treasury Minister. It is always a pleasure to hear from the schools improvement Minister, but Labour did not call this debate for a repeat of what he said last week. I do not doubt the importance that he attaches to children’s educational recovery, but he and, more importantly, the nation’s children and young people have been let down by a Prime Minister who, despite claiming that children’s education was his priority, has not lifted a finger to help them as they recover from the pandemic, while a parsimonious Treasury and a Chancellor of the Exchequer so economically illiterate that he cannot make the connection between children’s education and our country’s success and prosperity have refused to invest in their future. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) asked where was the Secretary of State for Education, but the question to which we ought to have an answer this afternoon is, “Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?”
The contributions made by my Opposition colleagues are a reminder of what the Leader of the Opposition has said—that education is the Labour party’s No. 1 priority. It has never been more important. The disruption of the past year has seen pupils miss half a year of face-to-face schooling; they have had half a year of time away from friends and teachers. That is of concern to every Member in the House. Every Member recognises that if we do not do anything to address the impact, the consequences will be huge for our society and economy, but most of all for our children. That is why Labour proposed a bold, multi-year, £15 billion plan to give children time to socialise, learn and develop, and so that we can invest in the children who need it most and support a world-class teaching profession.
Katherine Fletcher
Given that the hon. Lady has a multi-year plan, and that we need to give children more time in school, would she be willing to support an extension to the school day if properly costed and evaluated for effectiveness?
Kate Green
I do not think that there is an argument between us about the extended school day. We all agree about extra time; we all agree about the importance of a range of activities to boost social and emotional development, as well as learning. We all understand that those activities could include art, music, sport, homework clubs, reading groups, cooking and coding; some of those things were suggested by the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) in last week’s debate. The Chair of the Select Committee on Education said last week that we needed to use the time for a combination of catch-up and extracurricular activities to improve mental health and wellbeing. The problem is that we do not have that plan or those activities from the Government. All that we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) pointed out, is, despite all the noise, a promise of a review.
All that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) is suggesting is that we review whether an extended school day would be a good idea and how we should deliver it. It is hardly surprising that Sir Kevan Collins himself complained that the Government were acting too slowly. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, pointed out, they were acting so slowly that more than 300,000 children will have left school altogether before they have the chance to benefit from any proposals.
I am appalled by the complacency of the Government’s claims, beginning with those made by the Minister for School Standards, for whom I have the utmost respect. His complacency on the attainment gap was profoundly shocking. There has been no progress on narrowing that gap in the past five years; indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), the pandemic has exacerbated it. There is utter complacency about regional disparities in school attainment, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Easington (Grahame Morris) pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington also rightly pointed out the loss that schools have suffered as a result of the Government’s pupil premium stealth cut.
On free school meals, for all the boasts of the Conservative party, it was only when Marcus Rashford stepped in—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) pointed out—that we saw action from a Government and a party that had previously suggested that supporting families with free school meals during the holidays would simply lead to mums going down the crack den. That was utterly disgraceful. Even now, the Government’s plans will cover only 16 of the 30 weekdays this summer.
We heard from Conservative Members that the Government had supplied digital resources, yet we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that families were having to study on mobile phones, so slow was the roll-out of laptops. As for the claims of a significant increase in school funding, with the £14 billion that we have heard about—following a decade of austerity that means that schools are now 9% worse off in real terms, the abandonment of the Building Schools for the Future programme, and a situation in which schools have been required to meet covid security costs out of teaching budgets, the Conservative party frankly has a nerve to suggest that schools are now doing fine financially. That is certainly not what headteachers are telling us.
The national tutoring programme, another boast from the Conservative party, is reaching fewer than 2% of children. As the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), pointed out this afternoon, it misses a substantial proportion of the most disadvantaged children.
In the Government’s plans there is nothing at all for disabled children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out. There is little—other than something in the teacher development package—for the early years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) pointed out. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) also drew attention to the failure to invest in the school sports premium.
It is therefore hardly surprising that so many of my hon. Friends had to complain this afternoon that what we have seen from the Government, far from being generous funding for schools and for a recovery package, amounts—shockingly—to only 10% of what not only Labour, but the Government’s own education recovery tsar, Sir Kevan Collins, said was needed. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Feltham and Heston, for Newcastle upon Tyne North, for Coventry North West, for Leeds North West, for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) all pointed out the massive shortfall in what is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), perfectly correctly, asked why, if the funding that the Government are bringing forward is sufficient, Sir Kevan Collins felt the need to resign. He, at least, was extremely unhappy.
By contrast, Labour has a plan to invest in children’s recovery and life chances, in their mental health and wellbeing, in their education and in the teaching profession. We have proposed billions of pounds of investment in breakfast clubs and in creating new opportunities and more dedicated time for children to play and learn at the end of the school day.
Children are optimistic and ambitious about their future and excited to be back with their friends and teachers. Their recovery from the pandemic deserves to be supported by the Government. That will be the defining challenge for Ministers, but tragically, from what we have seen so far, they are unwilling and unable to rise to it. After a year of unprecedented disruption, the Government’s response, as Sir Kevan said,
“is too narrow, too small and will be delivered too slowly.”
The Conservative party ought to be ashamed of the paucity of its ambition for our children, but today we are not even asking for a change in its policy or a U-turn on its inadequate plans; we are simply asking for transparency. We are asking the Chancellor, who has not seen fit to attend today’s debate, to come clean with Parliament and the public about why he blocked a plan for significant investment in children’s recovery. That is all that today’s motion does. I commend it to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
It is great to have the chance to stand up once again and summarise this debate on how we are putting children and young people at the heart of our recovery. My hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) described this as a groundhog day debate, but I thought we only got groundhog day once a year. However, we can never say thank you too many times to all those who have supported our children and young people, and to children and young people themselves, during this incredibly difficult time.
A number of Members spoke about experiences in their constituencies. Some named particular schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) gave particular praise to Wellfield School in Wingate, for reasons including its academy proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) spoke of Buxton Primary School and its interest in the environment. I am sure that every single one of us would like to say good luck to Lisa Ackley from Ormiston Horizon Academy and send our very best wishes for her place as a finalist for the TES award for the best classroom support assistant of the year. I would like to add my thanks to the year 8s from The Boswells School in my constituency, who put me through a right quizzing on Friday. How come it is so much more intimidating when we are quizzed by our young people then when we are on “Question Time”? It is because they value that education and interest.
To address the specific motion before the House, I believe in transparency. The Government recognise and respect that this House has rights in relation to the publication of any papers, but the Government need to balance a commitment to transparency with the long-standing principle that civil servants and advisers can give candid advice, as well as the collective responsibility of Government. With respect to education and educational recovery, I want to be clear that this Government will do whatever it takes to give children from all backgrounds a first-class education and to overcome the impact of the pandemic. Far from what has been alleged by those on the Opposition Front Bench, that includes substantial investment from our Treasury.
Neil Coyle
The Minister says that the Government will do whatever it takes. Will the Government do what the commissioner asked for?
Vicky Ford
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what we are doing. The commissioner himself has praised the Government for the work that we have done, especially on the tutoring and teaching elements of his work. He also advised on extra time in education, on which we have announced a consultation.
Vicky Ford
It is really important that we understand what Sir Kevan, who is a hugely respected man, was asked to do. He was engaged to provide advice and make recommendations, not to give a formal report. That is what he said to the Education Committee. We have worked on his advice, we have made those recommendations, and we are doing this deeper review.
Many Members have spoken of the record funding that is going into our schools, and before this virus hit, we committed to the biggest school funding boost in over a decade. That means that the whole schools budget will be over £52 billion this year.[Official Report, 6 July 2021, Vol. 698, c. 10MC.] The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) just intervened on me and made a suggestion that school funding is dropping. May I suggest that he checks his maths, as the cash funding and core schools budget in his constituency this year is going up by 4.7%, well ahead of the rate of inflation? The high needs budget is now over £8 billion. The pupil premium will be over an estimated £2.5 billion this year. That funding is targeted to support those eligible for free school meals. The £1.4 billion that we recently announced takes the investment in educational—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is getting a bit noisy on both sides of the House. We do need to listen to the Minister.
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), who served for nearly a decade as a school governor, spoke about the importance of targeting funding where it is most needed and has most impact. The recovery funding is targeted at top-class tutoring and teaching because the evidence shows that it has a significant impact.
The Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is not in his seat, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) gave many numbers, most of which were right, but it is not actually £67 million that we put into local authority welfare assistance—it is £269 million, including ring-fenced funding for families to help with food and schooling.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) suggested that funding is not going into special schools or speech and language therapy, but I have visited special schools and seen first-hand how they are using the education recovery money to support children with complex needs, including through extra speech and language therapy.
Mental health is really important. Our wellbeing for education return scheme has provided free expert training for staff to help children who face trauma, anxiety and grief. We have just announced another £17 million of mental health and wellbeing support for schools, as well as the £79 million through the Department of Health and Social Care.
Over the past year, we have put in place mental health support for every school, extended free school meals to more groups of children than any other Government in the past half century, and put extra money into breakfast clubs and extra-curricular activities. Let me remind the House of Labour’s plan: it calls for mental health support for every school, extending free school meals, and putting more money into breakfast clubs and extra-curricular activities. I am glad that the Opposition are catching up, but in our schools our teachers tell our students that plagiarism is not okay. While the Opposition have been copying our homework, we have got on with the hard work of keeping children’s education on track.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) sounded a bit low. Can I recommend that he pops down to his local holiday activities and food scheme this year? It is being expanded all across the country. It enables children of lower-income families to take part in free holiday clubs and enjoy enriching activities. I have seen first-hand how these programmes lift the spirits of children and young people. I think it would really cheer him up. It leads to real, tangible benefits for our kids. The evidence shows that, by taking part, the wellbeing and mental health of young people has improved. We will be saying more about these exciting plans tomorrow, so I encourage Members to stay tuned.
Many Members have spoken about the benefits of tutoring, including the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), and many others on both sides of the House. I know that they will welcome the £17 million investment we have put into the Nuffield early language intervention, which is focused on children at reception age and in which 40% of schools are already taking part. It has identified a quarter of a million children for screening and is providing one-on-one or small-group tutoring to over 60,000 four and five-year-olds. The most recent package of recovery funding also includes £153 million for early years practitioners.
We make these smart investments because we know from research that early intervention works. Early education is critical. Last year, we invested around £3.6 billion in early years entitlements, following record investment in early years before the pandemic. Over the past decade, we have improved the early years curriculum so that by the time children reach school they have the building blocks needed to learn quickly and effectively, as well as to foster a love of learning. I am enormously proud that the most recent time we assessed five-year-olds, nearly three out of four of our country’s youngest children had reached a good level of development. Back in 2013, the year for which the first comparable data is available, only one in two of our children achieved that good level. The House should remember that those are the children born in the last years of the Labour Government. To put it another way, back then one in every two of our children was falling behind; now, three out of four are achieving ahead. I therefore say again what I said last week and will repeat week after week: when it comes to supporting our children and young people, I will take no lessons from Labour.
Question put.
Covid-Secure Borders
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 256 / Noes: 363 - Question accordingly negatived.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that there must be a clear, simply understood and proper hotel quarantine scheme in operation at the UK border to minimise the risk of introduction of new variants into the UK; calls on the Government to immediately scrap the Amber List category of the Government’s Traffic Light System for travel and place all of those countries currently on the Amber List onto the Red List, whilst maintaining a tightly managed Green List, so as not to risk undermining the UK’s successful NHS Covid-19 vaccination programme; further calls on the Government to work with international partners to introduce an international vaccine passport allowing for the safe resumption of travel, to publish all data on international travel arrivals, and to provide details of the decision-making process on the Traffic Light System; and reiterates the need for a sector-specific support deal for aviation.
I rise to speak to the motion in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to be standing here yet again calling for this Government to act to secure our borders against the threat of new variants of covid. The news that the Prime Minister has announced a delay in the reopening on 21 June was a hammer blow to people across the country. Freedoms that have been denied us for so long seemed within our grasp, yet they have been snatched away. Let us be absolutely clear: the impact of what the Prime Minister announced last night is devastating, but it was not inevitable. That delay is happening because of the delta variant first identified in India, and the delta variant is here in such force because of lax Conservative border policy.
The fallout from that chain of events is enormous for pubs and restaurants that were desperate to open up properly again; for friends planning group holidays that have been ruined; for our towns and city centres hoping to have been bustling with workers again; for concerts, sports stadiums, theatres and festivals that were supposed to be filling up; and for families looking forward to great big get-togethers, celebrating milestones, birthdays, children being born and marriages. I want my thoughts today to be with all those who have seen their wedding plans turned upside down. I realise of course that weddings are legally allowed, but with singing and dancing banned, I do not think they will look like the parties that many of us know weddings to be.
This will be a desperate blow for so many people, and the cost of this delay will not just be felt in people’s disappointment and ruined plans. UKHospitality says that a delay of a month will cost its sector £3 billion in sales, with warnings that 200,000 jobs in the sector could go. Some 5,000 gigs are set to be cancelled at a cost of £500 million. Let us be absolutely clear: the responsibility for breaking the promise of freedom day lies squarely with this Conservative Government. The Prime Minister apparently says that his political hero is the mayor from “Jaws”, keeping the beaches open while swimmers were getting attacked. The truth is that he has let the shark take a huge chunk out of the British economy this week. People across the country have every right to be angry about being let down so badly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, through you perhaps I can echo the strong words of Mr Speaker yesterday in condemning the shoddy way in which the Government have treated this House on an announcement of national importance. Our role is to represent our constituents, and the Prime Minister failing to make the statement to this House or to offer himself for questioning was, frankly, an insult.
Everyone knows that managing the pandemic is a huge challenge for Governments across the world, and of course the British public can forgive mistakes, but what is unforgivable is making the same mistakes time and time again, putting the health and prosperity of the British people at risk. As an island, our border protections should have been one of our strengths. Instead, they have been an Achilles heel. Time and again, I have stood here and warned that the UK Government’s border measures are far too weak, yet from the very outset of the pandemic, Government actions at the border have been too little, too late.
At the outset of the pandemic, just 273 people out of the 18 million that arrived here by air were formally quarantined between 1 January and 23 March last year—just 273 people from four flights. In fact, on 13 March last year, even the voluntary guidance that was in place on self-isolation when coming from parts of China and South Korea and from Iran and Italy was lifted. We have never had a credible explanation for that. All this came at a time when we saw the terrible scenes in northern Italy of hospitals being overwhelmed, when our constituents were contacting us and questioning why there were not better and more effective controls at airports, and when the Government’s own chief scientific adviser said that
“a lot of the cases in the UK didn’t come from China…they came from European imports and the high level of travel into the UK at that time.”
There is no point in the Government claiming that they have the toughest border protections in the world. In that same month, March 2020, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada and New Zealand restricted entry to residents and citizens and introduced a 14-day quarantine for all arrivals. It could be done, and it was done; it just was not done by this Government. I wrote to the Home Secretary in April 2020 to ask her to learn the lessons from that, but still the UK remained an international outlier. In May 2020, the UK stood with only Iran, Luxembourg and the US Virgin Islands in having no border protection measures in place, and that, I am afraid, has been the story of the pandemic at the borders.
This Conservative Government have been late to formal quarantining. It was not introduced until June 2020, and even then only 3% of the people meant to be quarantining were successfully checked. The Government have been late to mandatory border testing, which was not introduced until January 2021, and late to start hotel quarantining, which started in February 2021 and even then covered only 1% of arrivals. They have been late and lacking in strategy, with no proper plan, just lurching from one position to another. It is no wonder that the border policy of this Government has been a tale of systematic failure. The Government did not so much leave the back door open to covid and its variants as leave the front door open the whole time.
Let me pay tribute to Border Force, the police and our wider law enforcement community. They have worked heroically. The gaps in our defences that have existed and do exist are not their fault, but the fault of Ministers. That chronic failure has been crystallised in the utter mess over hotel quarantining. On 1 February, we on the Opposition Benches forced a debate and a vote on covid security at the borders. I said that day:
“Labour is calling for decisive action today through a comprehensive hotel quarantine policy, and that would mean a policy of enforced quarantine restrictions on arrivals…Failing to adopt that policy risks undermining the huge gains that have been made by the vaccine roll-out, threatening life and hope.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 753.]
I then asked:
“How on earth can the Government be assured that the measures will prevent emerging strains from countries outside those on the red list? The truth is that the Government cannot answer that question. As a result, the policy is fatally flawed. A comprehensive quarantine policy would give us the best possible chance of preventing a new strain from undermining the astonishing collective sacrifice of the British people.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 755.]
It gives me no pleasure to say it, but that new strain is exactly what came to pass.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
How long does the right hon. Gentleman think his policy of scrapping the amber list and moving everything to red, hotel quarantine, would last? He says it is to deal with the risk of new variants being introduced into the UK. That risk could last indefinitely, so does that mean that his border closure would, by its very nature, also be indefinite?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely not. I have said, and it says in the motion, that there should be a growing green list now. The reason we are unable to grow the green list to the extent that we want to is the danger being created by the ambiguous amber list, by people mixing at airports, and by the mixed messaging from the Government about whether people can actually travel. It is not the fault of the people who are travelling. It is the fault of this Government with their mixed messaging.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to take action. The Prime Minister promised some of the toughest border measures in the world—but we had another example of what defines this Government: overpromising and underdelivering. Instead, they have let people down and delivered a complete mess. It was the Government’s short-termism and refusal to take tough decisions in time that has led to us ending up in this situation. When we called in February for comprehensive hotel quarantine measures in February, the Government Members did not even turn up for the vote—not one of them is shown has having voted in the Lobby.
Let me be clear. We want to get back to safe international travel as soon as possible, but we have to protect the gains of the past 14 months, which have been secured by the sacrifices of the British people. Yes, the comprehensive quarantine policy is tough politically; it is a message a lot of people did not want to hear, but it was necessary to keep variants out. Advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies was that it was the only measure that would work, and the Government’s chief scientific adviser said:
“You’ve got to go hard, early and broader if you’re going to get on top of this. Waiting and watching simply doesn’t work.”
Yet the Government ignored the warnings, time and again.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a tougher border policy to keep out variants. Can he explain why the delta variant is present in Australia?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Because nobody can provide 100% protection against anything—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Conservative Members jeer, but it is about time they took a bit of responsibility for the failure of their Government. They argue with me about comprehensive hotel quarantine, but not one of them had the courage to vote against it in the Lobby in February. They have completely failed to put in place every possible measure that they should have implemented. That is a comprehensive failure.
Between 6 January, when the third national lockdown in England began, and the end of April, 1.59 million people flew into the UK. Only a tiny percentage underwent hotel quarantine. Most damaging of all was the abject failure to add India to the red list in time. Even if the Government had refused to introduce hotel quarantine, which they should have done, it was clear that more countries needed to be added to the red list. Pakistan and Bangladesh were added on 9 April, yet the Prime Minister waited 14 more days before adding India. Civil Aviation Authority figures suggest that at least 20,000 passengers who might have been infected with the delta variant arrived from India between 2 and 23 April—a staggering number. It is unbelievably reckless that on his list of priorities, the Prime Minister put having his photograph taken with Prime Minister Modi ahead of protecting jobs and the safety of this country. Nobody is blaming people who travelled when they were permitted to do so. The blame lies with the UK Government for their unjustifiable delay.
Last night at the Dispatch Box, the Health Secretary claimed that he took a decision based on the evidence available to him at the time. On 1 April—the day before he says he took the decision—India recorded the highest one-day spike in 2021. It was hardly a secret; it was on newspaper front pages. Cases were surging, and there it was—publicly available—but it seems it did not prompt him to act. It has also been reported that on the same day, Ministers knew about the delta variant being discovered in the UK, but that did not prompt him to act either. The Government must now publish the risk assessments that were done on India by the Joint Biosecurity Centre, so that we may have maximum transparency on exactly how that disastrous decision to delay was made.
Last night, I heard the Health Secretary claim that we on the Labour Benches called for India to be added to the red list with the benefit of hindsight. What nonsense! If the Conservatives had listened to us on the Labour Benches and voted with us, protections would have been in place from February. I have the Hansard, and the Health Secretary can check the facts in Hansard, if he wants to. Let us hear no more about hindsight. We want Ministers to show some judgment and foresight.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Government listening to the Labour party and taking your advice, but had we done that, last year we would have listened to the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), when the Labour party was calling for the Government’s quarantine measures to be lessened. Had we listened to you, we would have had fewer restrictions at the border than we have at the minute.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use the word “you”.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that, because he is talking about the Government’s own failure. Last summer, the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), and I were speaking about the fact that 14-day quarantining was unnecessary if we had testing up and running. We could have had a test and release system with release after 10 days. We were highlighting the complete failure of the Government on testing, so I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman gave me the chance to make that point.
I give Ministers another warning. As we speak, countries with large numbers of delta variant cases are on the amber list, which has been proven clearly not to work in stopping infections reaching the UK. Thailand and Vietnam are on the amber list, despite having rocketing cases and, potentially, yet another new variant that has already entered the country. Thousands more are on flights coming and going from holiday destinations across the world. Again, we put the Government on notice: put in place proper covid protection at the border to end the culture of failure that has been their record so far.
That is why, today, we are forcing a vote again on securing our borders. The Government must take clear steps to avoid the disastrous mistakes of the past: scrap the amber list and move it on to the red list with the proper hotel quarantine system; continue to have the green list, which can grow safely over time; work with our international partners to introduce a universal, worldwide, standardised international vaccine passport; and introduce the long-awaited sector support deal for the aviation sector, called for many times by my hon. Friend the shadow Transport Secretary, saving jobs and ensuring environmental protection.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Stobart Air, which has connectivity between Belfast City and many cities across the UK mainland, is on the edge of collapse—indeed, that will happen. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is important to give the aviation sector the help that it needs to ensure, when we come back, that there will be something that we can build upon?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to see a proper ambitious support package, with the money properly targeted to meet its aims.
Appalling hire-and-rehire tactics should be outlawed—that practice has no place in our country—and we need staff salaries protected, with a clear commitment to workers’ right. Let us also see a commitment to cleaner fuels, UK-based suppliers, tax paid here in the UK and compliance with consumer rights regulations. Inaction—continuing inaction—is not the answer. Those are steps that could be taken right now. They would reduce the risk of yet more variants reaching the UK.
When people are working so hard to contain the delta variant at home, this Government run the risk of bringing in yet more from abroad. The irresponsibility has to stop. Up and down the country, people have done their bit. They have given up their freedoms, queued up for the vaccine, given up precious time with loved ones, abandoned planned family events and sacrificed attendance at funerals. They have done all they can to protect the country; the least they can expect in return is that Members of Parliament will do the same by supporting our motion to ensure that we can secure our borders from covid variants, allowing lives to return to normal in the near future.
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
I welcome today’s debate on a matter that is, rightly, of significant public interest. It is slightly disappointing to hear the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) being found out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) for really not understanding how viruses spread. If we are going to live with this virus, there will be variants. He has been asked over and over again, “What would you do?”, and unfortunately he has been found failing. Throughout the pandemic this Government have taken all the steps necessary to protect the public and help prevent the spread of the virus.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Absolute nonsense.
Nadhim Zahawi
Well, we shall see. As of today, 30 million-plus people have had two doses. We are at 72 million doses in the United Kingdom, and we aim in the next four weeks to offer the double dose to two thirds of all adults. That is delivery, my friend.
Sometimes taking all the steps necessary means making difficult decisions—not that the Labour party understands these things—such as the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of the decision, informed by the data, to pause the move to step 4 of the road map. We are clear that the public expect a clear message that these decisions are based on the science. Public health has always been our No. 1 priority and we will not risk throwing away our hard-won achievements through the vaccination programme that have only been possible through the work of the British people.
Being led by the data and the science has also informed our approach at the border. The Government have put in place some of the most stringent covid border measures in the world. Each of the measures that we have put in place—informed by the latest scientific advice—adds layers of protection against importing the virus, including through reducing the risk of importing new variants.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I just praise the work that my hon. Friend is doing? It has been an incredible journey to vaccinate this nation. With his leadership, the team that he has put together have done a massive job. We all know that the way to get out of this dilemma is to vaccinate, so I pay tribute to him for what he has done.
We have spoken much about the Indian variant. Would my hon. Friend take a second or two to talk about a new variant that is coming on the horizon—the echo variant—which has been seen in Nepal?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we have to remain vigilant. Part of the reason why the decision was made to place countries such as Portugal on the red list, unfortunately, was because we are seeing further mutations from the Indian variant to the variant that has first been spotted in Nepal. That is why we have invested so heavily in our genome sequencing capability and capacity in the United Kingdom. In many instances, we are able to identify variants in travellers from those countries before those countries actually identify them.
The really important point to land is that no single measure can remove the risk entirely; I think it is on this point where the real division lies between the two sides of the House. However, each layer of protection that we have introduced helps to reduce the risk and protect the hard-won progress that we have seen, including for our world-leading vaccine programme. Let me set out for the House some of those measures, which include our clear r assessment of the risk posed from overseas, as set out in the traffic light system; our approach upstream at the border, including the vital work carried out by Border Force staff; our robust in-country measures around enforcement and managed quarantine; and the world-leading scientific expertise informing our entire approach.
The traffic light system essentially categorises countries based on risk, in order to protect public health and the vaccine rollout from variants of covid. The Joint Biosecurity Centre produces risk assessments of countries and territories. Decisions on red, amber or green list assignment and associated border measures are taken by Ministers, who take into account the JBC risk assessment alongside wider public health factors.
The JBC’s risk assessment includes a number of critical factors, including the general epidemiological situation in a country, and the presence and prevalence of known variants of concern, or new variants, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has just pointed out. Genomic surveillance capability is critical to the second issue, and the reality is that many countries cannot match the UK’s world-leading capability in that field. We have been open about this approach, and indeed a summary of the JBC’s methodology has been published on gov.uk, alongside the key data that supports Ministers’ decisions.
The rules are firm but fair for passengers arriving in the UK. Red country arrivals must quarantine in a managed quarantine facility for 10 days and take tests on day 2 and day 8. Amber country arrivals must self-isolate in their own accommodation and have a test booked for day 2 and day 8. For green country arrivals, no quarantine is required, but they must have a test on or before day 2 after arrival. All passengers from red, amber and green countries must have a negative pre-departure test. In the interest of continuing to protect public health, the public are advised against leisure travel to countries categorised as amber and red.
Upstream, the success of our travel system relies on everyone playing their part. Carriers have a key role here and are under a legal obligation to check that each passenger has proof of a negative test. They are liable for a fine of up to £2,000 for not complying. The Civil Aviation Authority has issued 630 fines since 1 February to airlines carrying passengers without the right documentation. International arrivals from red countries are required to arrive at designated ports.
Border Force works tirelessly to check all passengers coming into the country. It is continuing to ensure that it has the right level of resources to carry out its duties, maintaining border security and public health, while trying to minimise wait times at the borders at all times. To put that in context, we currently have the highest level of staffing since the 2012 Olympics.
We have been taking steps to significantly improve and speed up processes at the border by digitising a number of checks, including the passenger locator form so that it can be used at e-gates. Those automated checks happen behind the scenes, meaning that people may not be asked to show their passenger locator form to a Border Force officer, but that does not mean that the checks are not happening. However, we have been clear with the public and industry that queues and wait times will be longer if passengers have not completed the necessary requirements to enter the United Kingdom.
Our border measures are backed by a robust enforcement regime. As of 8 June this year, there had been 328,860 amber quarantine compliance visits by a service run by the Home Office, as well as over 600 fines for breach of home isolation. The Home Office runs a service to check that amber arrivals are in fact quarantining at home or other appropriate locations.
We have also taken strong steps where travel from certain countries poses a particularly acute risk to the United Kingdom. On 15 February, we introduced a managed quarantine facility for those arriving from red list countries. That list is under regular review, and we have taken the decision to add countries to the red list to help prevent the spread of variants of concern to the United Kingdom.
All international arrivals from red list countries are expected to quarantine in a Government-approved hotel for 10 days. Before flying, they need to pre-book their hotel, and their testing package for day 2 and day 8 tests, on a Government booking system. They are not allowed to use the test-to-release scheme for early release from quarantine. Those measures are kept under constant review, including the important impact on individuals with family ties in other countries.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister has outlined the protections that are taken, and the work that has taken place has been very impressive. Will he just explain a little more some of the separation arrangements in airports themselves—those points of transit where people come together?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: as of 1 June, Heathrow has introduced a red list country terminal. Of course, all airports and ports have a responsibility to ensure that passengers arrive and are separated safely when entering.
I am proud that we are also protected by our world-leading genomic sequencing capability, including testing those positives that are discovered on entry. That allows us to analyse the test results of arrivals to identify any new variants of concern as quickly as possible. It not only helps us at home to protect ourselves, but helps the rest of the world, too. It is this world-renowned sequencing capability that informs the traffic light system, allowing us to take swift informed decisions to protect public health. That is something we have not shied away from doing, even in the most difficult of circumstances.
Recognising the strong strategic rationale and success of the vaccine programme, we have commenced work to consider the role of vaccinations in shaping a different set of health and testing measures for inbound travel. Individuals in England who have had a full vaccine course will be able to demonstrate their vaccine status through the covid-19 vaccine certification for outbound international travel, while border health measures at destination countries will be set by the receiving country. Those requirements will be set out for the public to check entry requirements before travelling.
In closing, this Government understand the importance of international travel to the UK public and the success of the United Kingdom itself. We are determined to ensure that the United Kingdom restarts international travel in a safe and considered way, when the science tells us the time is right to do so.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Minister talks about international travel going forward, and it is obviously important for the Government to be as open as possible. Will he give a commitment from the Dispatch Box that the risk assessments on India that were done by the Joint Biosecurity Centre will now be published by the Government?
Nadhim Zahawi
The right hon. Gentleman continues to hark back. Let me give him some details: on 23 April, India was added to the red list; on 29 April—that is, seven days later—that variant became a variant of interest, not a variant of concern, and at that very point, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care insisted that we take further measures because of his concern; and it was on 7 May that that particular variant became a variant of concern. This Government will not take any lectures from those on the Opposition Benches.
This Government understand the importance of international travel to the UK public and the success of the UK itself. We are determined to ensure that the UK restarts international travel in a safe and considered way when the science tells us that the time is right to do so, and I repeat that message because it is an important one to land. The global travel taskforce, led by the Department for Transport and reporting to the Prime Minister, is working across Government and industry to do just that.
We have made enormous progress this year in tackling the pandemic across our country. That progress has been hard-won in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, and it is vital that we do not risk undermining it now. This Government will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that our response, including on international travel, continues to meet the challenges that covid brings us.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I start by commending the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), the shadow Home Secretary, and his colleagues for bringing this important debate to the House. His motion makes some important, very solid points with which we agree. We need clear, simple to understand and proper hotel quarantine restrictions to minimise as far as possible the introduction of new strains. Secondly, measures introduced at the UK border have not worked as we all would have wanted, and the Government need to improve how the scheme is operating. There needs to be transparency on decision making and the data used.
There has to be international co-operation and discussion of how vaccine passports might support the return of safe travel, and there is absolutely a need for a sector-specific support deal. On the suggestion that we move immediately from a full traffic light system to a red and green system, it is fair to say that we could be persuaded. That is something that could be looked at, but we would first need to see the expert advice on that issue, including the view of the JBC.
Before I expand on two or three of those points, let me pay tribute to and thank all the staff—Border Force and others—who are working as hard as possible to try to keep us safe at the border in what are incredibly difficult circumstances. Along with other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, last week I had a chance to visit Heathrow airport, where we spoke to airport and border staff. They are doing their best in difficult circumstances, and we thank them.
Turning to the motion, of course we need strong border measures, which should include clear, simple and robust systems for self-quarantine as required. Almost every country in the world has used border measures to help to control the virus. As the Minister rightly pointed out, that is only one part of a wider and larger strategy for disease control but, nevertheless, it remains a crucial part of the overall effort to combat covid.
The second key element of the Opposition motion deals with the fact that the UK’s border measures have, on several occasions, fallen short, and the covid pandemic has been worse in the UK as a result. That was, for example, true last year when, as countries around the world were tightening restrictions at the border, the UK went from 13 March to June with essentially no additional requirements for restrictions on arrivals beyond what was imposed on the population as a whole. The Home Affairs Committee has reported that the 10 days prior to lockdown were a particularly disastrous period, during which huge numbers arrived in the country bringing huge numbers of cases with them.
Similar mistakes were made earlier this year. When the strong advice was to put a comprehensive health quarantine system in place, that is what the Scottish Government did. The UK Government took the wrong approach—a different approach—and have deservedly been pilloried for their delay in putting India on the red list of countries for which hotel quarantine is required. The consequences are there for all to see, with the Delta strain dominant, increased infectiousness and increased resistance to a single vaccine dose knocking weeks off our recovery.
Linked to those mistakes and, indeed, perhaps a key cause of them, is a lack of transparency about decision-making processes and the data that have driven them. When the Home Affairs Committee repeatedly asked to see the advice that justified the UK lifting measures for travellers 10 days before lockdown last March, what followed was months of obfuscation and stonewalling. Similarly, it has been hard to see the scientific justification for delaying hotel quarantine for arrivals from India—certainly, in terms of published figures, there seems to be absolutely none. In both cases, we are left to conclude that the basis was shaky and, in the latter case, more likely driven by the Prime Minister’s planned visit to India and trade ambitions there, rather than health implications.
The serious consequences of the failure to add India timeously mean that full disclosure and transparency are merited, but we are a long way from seeing that. Indeed, the Minister’s response to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Torfaen illustrated that perfectly. Going forward, further requirements, including quarantine, will continue to have a crucial role. Again, we need full disclosure and transparency about decisions that have been made so that we can understand them, interrogate them and hold Government to account. At the moment, the impression is of constant battles between the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care in which scientific advice and public health are not always the deciding factor.
Turning to the suggestion that we move immediately from what is a full traffic-light system to a red and green system, as I said at the outset, it is fair to say that we could be persuaded of that case, but we are not persuaded yet. Our position simply is that Government should make decisions based on data and expert scientific advice. Those in government must not hesitate to challenge pushback and interrogate recommendations, but decisions must follow the outcome of such discussions, not prejudge them. If the data show, and the advice from the experts is that a red-green system is the right way to go, we are open to that. All that we are saying is that such changes need to go through a proper system of scrutiny and development first.
There clearly have been significant challenges to the use of home quarantine. During our visit to Heathrow, it was clear that border officials were fully stretched checking passenger locator forms and other requirements, even with a comparatively low number of arrivals. The capacity to cope with any increase in traffic must be seriously questioned, and we need to hear much more from the Home Office about how it is going to respond to that challenge.
There are limits to what checks and forms can realistically be completed at the airport. Few phone numbers or addresses have been checked, which creates difficulties for any in-country enforcement. Surely, there must be ways to check phone numbers and addresses, even before someone steps on to a plane to come here. There is no reason why that cannot be looked at away from the border, and anything that can help frontline staff and make the amber list work better must be considered. Challenges in airport mixing have rightly been raised, and were still present when we visited Heathrow last week. Terminal 4, the dedicated terminal for arrivals from red-list countries, is absolutely welcome, but it does not completely fix the problem, because of the related problem of indirect arrivals from red-list countries, which highlights another problem: passengers from red-list countries who have been mixing on indirect flights with passengers from amber and green-list countries. The challenges remain.
As we look to the future, and hopefully to recover, we could, and probably should, have a full debate on the role of so-called vaccine passports and their implications, but their use and requirement for international travel is simply a fact of life. It is important that the Governments of all the UK nations remain involved in discussions with international partners on how they should work, to set standards and to address ethical challenges that arise.
The motion also rightly points to steps that need to be taken to protect the aviation industry and to support its gradual rejuvenation. That is why, for example, the Scottish Government decided to extend the 100% non-domestic rates relief for the aviation sector for yet another year. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has repeatedly made the case for further targeted support from the UK Government in terms of furlough, taxation and direct support, but the response has been underwhelming to say the least.
The UK Government have been weak on restrictions at key points, weak on transparency and still are today, and indeed weak on sector support. It is essential for public health and to protect jobs that they up their game very quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
There is a five-minute time limit in place. A few colleagues have withdrawn from the debate, so I will try to keep it at five minutes for as long as possible. Obviously, the clock displays the time count, and for virtual contributions it is on the screen. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the issues that the international travel and, indeed, the health regimes face. I do so in a somewhat perplexed state, because normally I am very critical of my Government’s approach for being too cautious, but here I find that the Opposition motion is even more cautious and, in my view, would finish off the international travel industry, which is already on its knees.
What I find perhaps most galling about the motion is that all the measures that would compromise business, having no regard for those who have worked so hard and lost their job in the sector, can just be swept up in the last line, which refers to
“the need for a sector-specific support deal for aviation.”
The international travel industry does not want to be bailed out; it wants to be able to get on and do its job. It is all well and good for the Opposition to put that line in at the end as the catch-all, but it is effectively saying, “We will make you bankrupt, but don’t worry—we’ll appoint a receiver for you.” Frankly, I find it very disappointing indeed.
I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), has moved away, because I was hoping that he might intervene to clarify something. When I asked him about the effectively perpetual state of the red list, with the amber list being scrapped, he stated that, under the motion, the green list would be grown. In fact, the language is that the Opposition would maintain
“a tightly managed Green List,”
so it does not seem to indicate that at all. I ask the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), if he is listening, to clarify whether the countries currently on the amber list, such as Malta and the Balearic and Greek islands, would move to the green list or move to the red list, resulting in quarantine.
It is simplistic in the extreme to constantly cite Australia and New Zealand as an example that this country should follow. We are an island trading nation. It is extraordinary listening to the Opposition, whose contributions in this debate I compare with those over the past couple of years in all the debates on Europe, when they said that we could not divorce mainland UK from our European Union partners because of trade and our close links. Yet all of a sudden we can throw a ring of steel around ourselves and have everyone—I assume that means the 10,000 heavy goods vehicle movements that come into this country delivering our trade—put into a red quarantine list and therefore into a hotel.
If everyone is not to be put into a hotel, we have just punctured the ring of steel, in which case what is the point in bringing the international travel industry down? Why not have the halfway house of an amber list, as the Government do? Then we have testing and mitigations in place, but at least allow travel to occur. As soon as we puncture the ring of steel there is no point in having it at all. That would be my point to the shadow Transport Secretary.
If we reduce flights virtually to zero, because no one will travel on them if they are all going to hotel quarantine, that ignores the fact that 40% of our trade comes in the belly of passenger planes, so trade will not come through either. That then results in more trade coming through on more lorries, which of course increases the risk, so there seems to be no logic to that at all.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; I look forward to his responses. I hope he pays some regard to my comments, as I am very critical of my own side too. I am accusing him of trying to have it both ways—of trying to show some support to the international travel industry while closing it down, and of suggesting that we can close our borders down, Australia-style, while ignoring how our country interacts and works with Europe. I do not buy it for one minute, and I am afraid to say that it strikes me that the Opposition are showing a bit of red meat to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator, rather than trying genuinely to help the international travel sector recover while balancing health concerns.
That leads me to my last point. This motion seems to ignore the fact that we have a world-class vaccine that has been rolled out. In Sussex, 85% of those in cohorts 1 to 9, the over-50s, have been given both doses. We should be talking about the future and giving optimism and positivity and some signs of milestones to unlock people from the threat of job losses in the international aviation and maritime sectors, giving people hope that they will be able to see their loved ones. I ask the Opposition please to focus less on baseline politics and instead to focus on the industry—stop thinking that they can throw a blank cheque at an industry that wants to get back to work.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
We are in this situation now because of the delta variant: there are over 40,000 cases across the country, up from just a couple of hundred two months ago. Without it, the covid rate would by now be very low and pubs, cafés and clubs would be back to normal, but because of the delta variant the Government are having to be careful and we are having to take more time. This was not inevitable and it was predictable. Ministers could have slowed things down and given more time for the NHS to get the vaccine rolled out by putting India on the red list earlier—weeks earlier. They could and should have taken a precautionary approach. They did not do so, however, and in those few weeks in April hundreds of people with covid arrived from India with, it is estimated, hundreds of separate cases of the delta variant.
Ministers are saying that they acted as soon as they had the information to do so, but they did not. Even when they finally announced that India was going on the red list, they inexplicably delayed for a further four days—but why? They allowed dozens more packed flights to return and people to go home to family and friends, accelerating the spread of the delta variant.
More importantly, there were serious signs way before then. Covid cases in India were already accelerating in March, up from 11,000 a day at the beginning of the month to 80,000 a day by the end, and doubling again by 9 April. That alone should have set alarm bells ringing. Canada was warning about high rates of covid cases on flights from India by 20 March. We are told, too, that the delta variant was first identified in the UK on 1 April; I hope the Minister will confirm in replying whether that is true.
The Government have said that they were acting slowly because they did not have the full case-positivity data on people arriving from India for several more weeks afterwards, but that is a nonsense argument, because we know that that data does not tell us what is happening now; it tells us only what was happening several weeks ago. We could not afford to wait for several weeks when we already had the evidence that the India cases where accelerating fast. We know that the Government were reluctant; we know that they wanted to wait until the last possible minute so that the Prime Minister could make his planned trip to India, but the lesson of covid is that we cannot wait until the last possible minute; we have to act early.
If the Government are confident that they took the right decisions, why are they still not publishing the advice and risk assessments from the Joint Biosecurity Centre, which the Home Affairs Committee called to be published back in August last year? Why the secrecy? The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies papers are all published, so why not publish the Joint Biosecurity Centre analysis? They should publish it on Portugal, publish it on other countries—publish it on all countries across the world so that we can have proper, transparent debate about the risks and challenges and what action needs to be taken. It would be far better to do that.
Why will the Government also not recognise some of the weak points in the current amber home quarantine system that the delta variant has exposed? People with the delta variant travelled home under the amber system and the variant still spread, in part because people can travel home by public transport from the airport without any test on arrival and can go home to their friends and family, who do not have to self-isolate or even get tested. By the time the asymptomatic traveller tests positive, their flatmates or friends could have been in work or in shops, which means that new variants can spread.
Time and again I have called on the Government to learn from the South Korean model of home quarantine, which has tighter rules. I still believe that they should learn those lessons in order to look forward with a sustainable approach as international travel opens up. The real tragedy is that, time and again, they have not listened and learned. In the first wave, we had no covid border measures in place for months; as a result, an estimated 10,000 people arrived and accelerated the pandemic at an earlier stage. It is reported that, during the summer, people returning from summer holidays in August and September contributed to the second wave, because we did not have a proper testing system in place at the border.
We now face a new challenge because of the new variants and the failure to put India on the red list. The Government need to learn these lessons: first, we need much greater transparency so we can have a proper and open debate about where the risks are; secondly, we need a better surveillance system so that we have up-to-date data rather than waiting for any lags; and thirdly, we need to strengthen the quarantine system so that we can prevent new variants from spreading. People have done their bit across the country to support the vaccine programme. Now the Government need to do their bit and not let people down at the borders.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Let us cast our mind back to January 2020, when we were first learning about the new virus. I remember the approach taken at the time to people coming in from parts of the world with a higher number of cases, because many of them were quarantined just down the road from me at Arrowe Park Hospital. No chances were taken then, but all that stopped very shortly afterwards: we carried on as normal, welcoming people—and the virus—from all over the world. We saw images from Spain of cases rising, yet Atlético Madrid fans were still allowed to enter the country for a champions league game in early March, contributing to an increase in cases and—according to one study—to an additional 41 deaths.
Perhaps some latitude can be given because at the time we were dealing with a new virus, but I find it hard to reconcile the actions that were taken with arrivals from Wuhan, where we knew that there was an outbreak, and from Madrid, where we also knew that there was an outbreak. Hardest to reconcile is the fact that, while the country was in lockdown from March last year onwards, thousands of people were still entering the country every day.
Turning to more recent events, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the reason that the full unlocking of the country is not going ahead is the decision to delay putting India on the red list, which has led to the delta variant rapidly pushing up case numbers. All that good work and all the benefits of the vaccine were blown because the Prime Minister was once again too slow, just as he was too slow with the first lockdown, the second and the third. His incompetence has cost this country dear.
I know that the Government will say that they acted as soon as they could on the information that they had, but I do not accept that. The only data that they have released on the Indian variant shows that they should have acted sooner. Indeed, the explanation for why they did not act sooner has shifted in the past few days, as we have heard again today, from the data not supporting action to the variant not having been identified as one of interest or concern. That is not the explanation that was advanced originally; nor does it explain why Pakistan and Bangladesh were treated differently.
The Health Secretary told the House on 19 May that when the Government decided to put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list two weeks before India, it was because positivity rates were higher. He said:
“The positivity rates…were 1.6% in India and 4.6% in Pakistan”.—[Official Report, 19 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 732.]
That seems a fair enough reason—except that I cannot find those figures anywhere. Indeed, the Government’s own figures on the variant show that in the period from 25 March to 7 April—the closest period to when the decision was made—the positivity rate was 3.7% for Bangladesh, 5.1% for India, and 6.2% for Pakistan. Those are nowhere near the figures cited by the Secretary of State.
That is not the only data that contradicts the Government’s claims. Their own data on the number of variants that they detected from those countries in the period from 25 March to 7 April shows that they detected four from Pakistan, 12 from Bangladesh and 50 from India. Actually, we did not even need data to know what was going on—we could just turn on the TV to see what was happening in India.
The only credible explanation that I can find for treating India differently is that the Prime Minister did not want to scupper his trade visit and photo opportunity with the Indian Prime Minister. It is no wonder that he does not want to come here in person and explain to the House why his road map has been put on ice, because it is his own vanity and his own incompetence that has led us to where we are today.
Does the new traffic light system give us confidence that the Government finally have a system in place that manages risk? Well, not really, as we have had Ministers contradicting themselves on that as well, particularly on travel advice. This is what happened in just one day following the announcement on international travel reopening: the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that people could fly to amber-list countries if they wanted to visit family and friends; the Health Minister in the other place said that nobody should travel outside Britain at all this year; and the Welsh Secretary said that some people might consider holidays abroad as essential. The following day, the Prime Minister set another definition. He said that people should travel only in extreme circumstances. That is four definitions in 24 hours, which is the nub of the problem. Everyone can have their own view on what is essential, which means that there is an ambivalence at the heart of Government policy that this virus can exploit.
For the past year, we have painstakingly legislated for every facet of our lives: when we can leave home; what time we have to leave the pub; and how many people can attend a funeral. On international travel, though, we seem to have a free-for-all.
Finally, I just want to say a few words about the absolute shambles that the Government have made of the day 2 and day 8 testing for those quarantining at home, with hundreds of people who book covid tests from firms that are listed under the Department’s own website complaining that they have either not received those tests, or that they have not received the results on time. These private companies, some of which did not exist at all last year and have zero experience in this area, are benefiting from an open-door policy from Government, because it seems that they can request to be added to the list of approved suppliers on the Government website simply by self-declaring that they meet the minimum standards required.
I find it absolutely astonishing that we are operating one of the most critical parts of our defence in such a reckless way. Fewer than 10% of those companies actually turned out to be accredited, so the Government really do need to do something to tighten that up as well.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
During the covid pandemic, it is vital that we have ways to manage our borders to allow for travel where it is safe, as well as protecting our population at home. However, this motion talks about the UK’s borders, but we know that the position is not that straightforward.
International travel has sadly been yet another example of a failure of our four-nations approach to tackling the pandemic across the UK. Until very recent weeks, different rules were in place across the four nations, with travellers from some countries arriving in England and being able to quarantine at home, while those arriving in Scotland, for example, needed to quarantine in a hotel. Even now, when we are seeing an alignment in the traffic light system, confusing as it is, there are differences with Scotland. For example, it does not have a test to release scheme. Just because Scotland has done it differently does not mean that it has always done it better. The Scottish Government, like the UK Government, acted too slowly last summer, failing to protect against new variants entering the country or to set up a test, trace and isolate infrastructure effectively to prevent a second wave. During that time, the quarantined travellers’ spot-check target was missed for four months in a row, which was highlighted by my colleague and friend the MSP for North-East Fife.
What we have seen across the UK is no clarity or certainty, which is exactly what is required to enable public confidence. There is no clarity or certainty for the tourism industry or for those wanting to reunite with family members abroad who see a narrative of desperate holidaymakers and watch others here with their loved ones. There is insufficient support for those who need to isolate and still not enough funding available for tourism businesses that have no customers. This is not just about vaccine success in the UK. UK-inbound tourism is vital to North-East Fife, particularly in relation to golf, which I have highlighted several times in this House. This lack of clarity and certainty devastates the industry, with cancellations in 2020 and now in 2021.
Most of all, a lack of a meaningful four-nations approach leads to confusion. If people do not understand the rules, or do not understand why the rules are different across the UK, despite best intentions, they end up not following them. I was contacted by one constituent, a seafarer, who was subject to different rules and quarantine, depending on where he returned to in the UK. He was reaching out to my office in the hope that I could provide clarity, but there are simply inconsistencies. We see the risks of that confusion now as the delta variant, which many have already spoken about, has quickly become the most prevalent variant across the UK in recent weeks.
If the UK Government had worked properly with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and taken a more joined-up approach, clear rules could have been agreed and adhered to consistently. This problem will not be solved until the covid-19 pandemic has been tackled globally, and although I welcome the UK Government and G7 pledges on vaccinations, they are simply not enough. Until the pandemic is tackled globally, we need to find a way for safe travel, proper border checks, clear rules and support for those who need it, and to do that in the UK, we need the four nations working together.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
There almost comes a time in these debates at which points are repeated. I shall approach the debate from an internationalist and security perspective.
I intervened on the Minister and mentioned the echo variant. It is absolutely worth stressing the incredible capabilities that we in the UK have in genome sequencing, which mean that we can identify how this virus is changing, but the new variant illustrates how versatile it is in adapting and mutating again and again. We talk of imposing border controls, but we still know so little about this virus, which is why we had five-week increments for easing the restrictions. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) mentioned in another intervention, even the toughest of border measures in Australia cannot contain its movement.
From a biosecurity perspective we need to learn more about the virus. I take this opportunity to stress the importance of asking China to open up its doors. We still do not know who patient zero was or where ground zero was. The World Health Organisation team was denied access for more than a year. It could not interview the original patients and certainly was not allowed properly to visit the Wuhan Institute of Virology, about which so many questions have now been raised.
The pandemic has shone a light on how frail our world order currently is, with countries retreating from global exposure and becoming more independent, international organisations almost paralysed in their ability to help, and the two most powerful nations—the biggest superpowers—clashing in a war of words rather than collaborating and working together. I therefore congratulate the Government on their G7 summit. The west has been distracted and there has been a lack of unity, but it is starting to regroup, as reflected in the G7 communiqué, which prioritised the need to end the pandemic and prepare for the future. It recognised how OECD countries must help by driving an intensified international effort to vaccinate the world by getting as many safe vaccines to as many people as possible, as fast as possible. The UK is leading that approach through the COVAX initiative, which is absolutely to be welcomed.
At the same time, the G7 will create the appropriate frameworks to strengthen our collective defences against threats to global health by increasing and co-ordinating global manufacturing capability on all continents, improving the warning systems and supporting science to shorten the cycle for the development of safe and effective vaccines. If we do not do that, it will not be the echo, golf or hotel variants but something further down the line that affects us and prevents us from finally turning our back on this pandemic.
The Prime Minister was right to extend the road map, which was created back in February and was always going to be subject to conditions. It was written well before the Indian variant emerged but with new hurdles in mind. In announcing any road map, there is always the risk of disappointment if we have to deviate from it. That is the toughest of calls for any Government to make, with the nation so understandably exhausted and eager to return to normal. The incredible vaccination programme has given us a sense of security and perhaps optimism that we can move forward, but the impact of the Indian variant must be taken seriously, as should the echo variant, about which we still do not know much.
I stress to the Minister and the Government that it is the vaccinations that will get us out of here. I absolutely applaud the work that we are doing internationally, but can we start to move, in September, to vaccinate teenagers as well? Finally, so many people want to travel abroad, so can we co-ordinate efforts and join a travel system with our European partners so that if someone has had two vaccines, they can travel unimpeded and holiday abroad?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The delta variant, commonly known as the Indian variant, did not just miraculously appear on our shores via an act of God. It arrived because our borders were open to hundreds of people infected with it. That is a fact. We only had to switch on the TV to see the horrendous tragedy unfolding in India for all the world to see, yet despite the scientific advice—and, indeed, the call from those on our Front Bench way back in February—the closure of that border and those restrictions were not introduced until 23 April. Curiously, as has been mentioned in this Chamber over and over again today, both Pakistan and Bangladesh were put on the red list some two weeks earlier. That timeframe counts and that decision counts.
The Indian variant is now our variant, accounting for over 90% of cases. A strain identified in an outbreak in the Northwich part of my constituency is now spreading at an alarming rate throughout Cheshire, the north-west and our nation. Hospitalisations have now started to creep up, and we are in a race against time to jab to save lives, while local leaders in Cheshire, Merseyside, Halton and Warrington are pleading for more vaccine supplies. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) referred to teenagers now being a priority, and I concur with that plea.
This did not, of course, have to be the case, and the finger should be pointed firmly at the door of No. 10 and the Prime Minister. It was his desperation to secure a trade deal on his planned trip to India that meant this followed the photo opportunity, not the data. Not only has this incompetence thrown us off track, but it could cost even more lives and livelihoods. The hospitality sector in my constituency is clinging on by its fingertips, with pubs, restaurants and the night-time economy having that hope upon the horizon shattered by the gross incompetence of this Prime Minister and Government. To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are now refusing to extend targeted support to the sector. These callous decisions are putting people out of business and out of jobs.
In conclusion, from Northwich to Runcorn and from Frodsham to Helsby, people in my constituency will remember, and the judgment day will come. No more benefit of the doubt—the truth will truly set us free about this absolute shower of a Government.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate this afternoon. I rise to speak not because I do not accept that coronavirus has created acute and challenging issues on the border, not because there are not difficulties and constraints for many people around the UK who either need or want to travel abroad and not because there are not real challenges for the aviation and transport sectors caught up in a maelstrom created by one of the most unprecedented times in our lives—there are and I absolutely accept those challenges and those difficulties, which I do not think anyone in this House would question. However, the question for this place today is not about that; it is about what the Government could do and what it was reasonable and proportionate for them to do.
In a year of difficult decisions, border policy is a particularly difficult one to get right. Too prescriptive and the United Kingdom runs the risk of withdrawing unnecessarily from the world and of leaving its key role as a member of the international community, all for limited to no economic, societal or health benefit and, compounding that—which then creates an effective Catch-22—the UK’s approach would in effect be determined by things that it does not have primary responsibility over. On the other hand, too laissez-faire, and we run the risk of squandering the great advantages we have built with vaccinations.
Given that tremendously nuanced and sensitive situation, one would hope that border policy could be determined and discussed with a similar level of nuance and sensitivity, but this is of course an Opposition day debate, and as has been the case for the four years I have been in this Chamber, such hopes are dashed each time. Frankly, the illogical arguments we have heard so far from the other side of the Chamber—so eloquently outlined by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), who is no longer in his place—are more a reflection of how this is just another political stunt than a serious attempt to scrutinise the Government, hold them to account or provide constructive attempts to improve the policy.
In the coming weeks, we are going to be one of the first large countries in the world to be pretty much as vaccinated as we can be. In time, that should, and hopefully will, open up new opportunities so that in the coming period, when we are going to need to work meaningfully to properly restart parts of life such as international travel, we should be looking at broadening the tools at our disposal, recognising new ones and accepting that we have a set of balanced judgments to make.
Knowing full well that this is the situation, what does the Labour party propose? Not nuance, sensitivity or thought, but instead, exactly the opposite: the removal of one of the tools—one of the lights of the traffic light—that allows us to take different approaches for different countries, dependent on different situations. We can debate which countries go into which traffic light colour, but surely it is reasonable that there can be more than two options for international travel in the coming months as we try to get it going again.
Secondly, if the Labour party does want a completely binary proposition for international travel, which, by default, can be only no travel or travel, perhaps it could articulate how that is sustainable over the long term and what criteria it would apply to flick the switch from “Don’t travel” to “Do travel” with nothing in between. For countries where the risk is reducing, do we keep them on the red list longer than is necessary for no advantage to our country, or do we move them to the green list in advance of us being totally comfortable with them being there?
If the amber list is going to be abolished, how do the Opposition propose to resource that? Hotel quarantine is a difficult policy and one that appears sustainable at only a relatively small scale. As places such as Australia have shown, there is challenge and unintended consequences within that—people who cannot get home, important family or medical trips that are difficult to go on, and so on. Will Labour stop British citizens coming to the UK, and could Labour Members explain how they are seeking practically to make a policy work that is already strained for a country of 20 million people with 20 million visits and which they are now apparently seeking to try to apply to a population of 70 million, with 145 million visits?
There has also been a liberal sprinkling of references to the arrival of the Indian variant in the UK, starting with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and then the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. There have been nebulous suggestions that this could have been prevented with greater border control. That is just not correct. The Labour party appears to be arguing with science. The Indian variant was here on 22 February, a full month before even the Indian Government highlighted to the international community that there was a variant. Borders were closed 22 days before the World Health Organisation declared the strain a variant of concern. Right now, according to GISAID, on a small sampling, the variant is dominant in Russia, Canada, Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia, and is on its way to being dominant in the USA, Japan, Thailand, Portugal, Luxembourg, Bangladesh, South Korea, Qatar, Finland and most likely many other countries. If the Labour party has a viable proposition for international travel, I would like to hear it, because it has not been articulated yet.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
Time and time again, the Government have shown catastrophic failings during the pandemic. The pandemic was not inevitable, and no one could predict such things, but when the rest of the world was closing its borders and placing their nations in lockdown, our Prime Minister was boasting about shaking the hands of covid patients. This was not inevitable.
It was the Labour plan to have a comprehensive quarantine policy to protect our nation’s efforts and the vaccine roll-out from variants entering from across the world, but this Government failed to listen and implement the policies that we needed. As early as 16 March, I was aware that cases were rising in countries such as Pakistan and, therefore, I submitted a written question to the Department of Health and Social Care asking for the latest data, the Government’s criteria in placing countries on the red list and whether countries such as Pakistan would be placed on such lists. I received no response to that question. On the same day, I put out a statement to my constituents who had questions about travelling to countries such as Pakistan. I made it clear that cases were rising, and that I presumed that Pakistan could be placed on the red list. I reiterated the advice to travel only if absolutely necessary. As a constituency MP, I was able to provide this advice to my constituents on 16 March.
Again, on 30 March, days before countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh were placed on the red list, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to provide the scientific data before such countries were placed on the red list. In the letter, after listing the rates of infection in countries including France and India, I said:
“Given the data, it would be fair…to conclude the following: the Government doesn’t have a coherent strategy in dealing with the red list, and the Government isn’t serious about protecting the British public, as it is applying decisions led by politics, not data.”
Days later, on 2 April, the Government placed Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, and not India. It then took the Government a further 14 days, after media pressure, to add India to the red list. Figures suggest that at least 20,000 people who could have been infected with the delta variant arrived from India between 2 and 23 April.
This is not an “I told you so” moment, because whether it is the delta variant or the “Johnson variant”, as was trending on Twitter last night, the reason for the delay in reopening is not that the British public have not played their part, not that the NHS staff have not worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic and have not done enough, not that the key workers have not risked their lives to keep our economy going, and not that my constituents or those of other Members across this House have not made huge sacrifices: the reason we are here today is simply because our Prime Minister was more interested in following the politics of—[Inaudible]—that would protect our nation’s efforts throughout the pandemic. Now this nation is paying the price in freedom because of our Prime Minister’s self-interest and utter failure. The real tragedy is that we have a Prime Minister whereby failure and callous decisions are inevitable time and time again.
The Minister gave some dates—India being placed on the red list on 23 April and then the Indian variant not being a concern until the week after the 27th. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I would argue that that argument is complete and utter nonsense. We are either being led by the data or led by it only when a variant becomes of concern. The truth is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) outlined very eloquently, that the numbers in India and Bangladesh were lower when they were both placed on the red list.
What is the science? What is the data? What have the Government got to hide? Why cannot they just publish the data from the Joint Biosecurity Centre analysis, because that is all we are asking for? We have a right to know—the public have a right to know—for how long this Government are going to take us for mugs and give us an argument that just does not stack up. The public are not stupid; people are not stupid. We see through this. The Government can give their spiel, as they often do in this Chamber, but the truth is that it was either about the science or the politics. There is no other conclusion that anybody can draw but that the science was supporting the closure of India and putting it on to the red list, and our Prime Minister failed because he put politics before the security of the people.
I urge the Minister at least to publish the data, and not to hide behind arguments that simply do not wash.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have a withdrawal at No. 14 on the speakers list. I will try to put the limit up to six minutes for a while and see if we can manage. It might have to go down, but we can do that for a bit.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The calamity that we have witnessed in recent days is because of the Government’s botched handling of the delta variant. This was not inevitable, but a failure of this Government to act swiftly and without dither or delay against the variant. Indeed, this whole sorry saga is a culmination of blunder after blunder in the Government’s protection of our borders during the pandemic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to point to the repeated making of mistakes. This should not have happened. As an island nation, we should be better than this. Instead we have seen a Government too slow on quarantine at international arrivals, too slow on border testing, and too slow to put India on the red list. It took 22 days between the Government knowing that the delta variant had entered the UK and India being placed on the red list. All the while, the delta variant has spread throughout the country.
The consequences for public health are serious, but so are the consequences for British businesses, not least those in the hospitality industry in Birmingham. The managing director of one events company said that this is
“having a huge impact on my business”.
Another said:
“We understand the need to ban events but the uncertainty and short-term plans from the Government have really hampered any recovery”.
And another said that extra support from the Treasury would be vital because without it
“further job losses are inevitable and ultimately an entire industry will collapse.”
This is the key reason why the Government’s failures will be so costly to British business and British workers.
Thus far, the Chancellor refuses to support those businesses whose suffering will be prolonged because of the Government’s blunders on protecting our borders. Just how can the Government expect those struggling events businesses in Birmingham that have been closed for the past 15 months to be able to pay, for example, 10% of their employees’ wages when they are still unable to operate as normal? UKHospitality has been particularly critical, saying that a failure to act could see the industry suffering a loss of £3 billion and put up to 200,000 jobs at risk. That problem is particularly acute in the constituency that I am proud to represent, because the unemployment figures out today show that we have twice the national average unemployment. I always say that my constituency is rich in talent but one of the poorest in Britain. It will be hit hard with job losses as a consequence of this.
It beggars belief that, after the trauma of the past 15 months, good businesses and good jobs face going to the wall because the Government have thus far refused to support them for the final weeks of restrictions. I say “thus far” because one of the key reasons behind the motion is that we eminently hope that the Government will act in terms of financial support at the next stages. We hope that the House will vote for the motion, because it is about the interests of the British people and their health, welfare and safety, and about protecting British jobs. Without the proper protections at our borders, we run the risk of future variants threatening the road map for relaxing restrictions further, and the devastating impact that that will needlessly inflict on businesses and workers.
In conclusion, our focus is twofold. It is on the interests of British business—of that there is absolutely no doubt, because it matters—but it is also on the health, wellbeing and safety of the British people, because the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. I fear that unless the Government get a serious grip of this situation, they will put their responsibility to the British people in jeopardy.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this debate about secure borders during the pandemic. Measures to limit international travel are obviously vital in reducing the risk of importing cases to the UK from countries where covid-19 remains high. It is right that we take a cautious approach, and the traffic light system is the right one. It is relatively simple to understand as we look towards some international travel returning, although it is clearly beyond the understanding of the Opposition. It remains vital that we continue to take a data-led approach that is regularly reviewed, with restrictions on those countries where the risks are higher, to ensure that we can protect the UK from further outbreaks and variants as we continue to benefit from the incredible efforts being made by those delivering the vaccination programme. I would like to thank each and every one of those who have been involved in the vaccination programme, particularly the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who has made a huge effort to ensure that we vaccinate people as quickly as possible.
Strict measures are in place to protect our borders, with significant fines for those who do not follow requirements for testing, isolating and completing passenger locator forms. I know that efforts are being made to further streamline and integrate checks with existing border security measures. Some have questioned why India was not put on the red list sooner, and although I have some sympathy for that view, the reality is that the virus often evolves faster than many countries are able to detect it. It has already been pointed out that the genome-detecting capability in this country represents almost half of the global capability in genome detecting. As has also been said by a number of hon. Members, India was on the red list before the delta variant even became what is known as a variant under investigation, let alone a variant of concern.
Like all Members across the House, I have many constituents who have had travel plans put on hold or cancelled altogether due to the restrictions on international travel. A number have struggled to get refunds from operators and turned to me for help. Clearly, travel companies are under huge pressure, but it is only right, as the Government have made clear, that people should be refunded when their plans have been disrupted due to covid. The Government have provided £7 billion of support to the aviation sector during the pandemic, and they have also suspended the requirements around slots.
The Government have advised against travel to amber list countries except for essential reasons. It is clear that people should not be travelling to amber or red list countries for a holiday. Of course, many will be impacted by that, but it is right that the amber category remains, to allow some limited travel to continue to those countries at medium risk, recognising that people do not only need to travel for holidays but may have more pressing reasons to make journeys outside the UK.
That has presented a challenge for some when operators continue to run services and make it difficult for people to change their plans or get refunds. I am helping a number of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South in that situation at the moment, and I will continue to do so. I have also had a number of constituents struggling to return from Pakistan after visiting friends and family. The requirement to isolate for 10 days, while totally necessary, has been particularly challenging for some with ill health or some medical conditions. While I applaud the efforts to rapidly deploy and set up a system for those needing to quarantine, I am sure it will continue to improve. I particularly hope that the process for approving those who need exemptions will be further improved to ensure quicker response times, especially for those needing medical treatment back here in the UK.
I want to finish by mentioning an issue that is of particular concern to my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South: the breaches of our border security in the English channel by illegal migrants. In attempting to cross the channel, they risk not only their own lives but those of others by potentially bringing the virus and new variants with them. I thank the Home Secretary for the robust action she has been taking to address the appalling criminal people traffickers who enable those dangerous journeys, and I fully support the Government’s new plan for immigration to address this issue.
We must deter those who think that they can come here illegally with no consequence, and reduce the pressure being put on places such as Stoke-on-Trent. We have resettled more than most other parts of the country, while many have not taken in a single refugee. As I set out recently in a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, it is time for Opposition Members to stop grandstanding and actually do something. Just as they attempt to score political points on the issue of asylum, they have tried to play exactly the same game over international travel, repeatedly changing positions on borders throughout the pandemic and shamefully exploiting the benefits of hindsight.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The coronavirus pandemic has thrown up unprecedented challenges for us all, from adapting to home working and home schooling to the new restrictions that we have all had to live with and, of course, missing time with our loved ones. That is not to mention the hard work of key workers who have faced this pandemic and seen the very worst of this deadly virus. But as more and more of us get vaccinated every day and the end of the pandemic is in sight, we have to proceed with more caution than ever.
It seems to me that undoubtedly the biggest threat to our recovery from the pandemic is the emergence of new variants that not only are able to spread faster but, it is feared, may be resistant to the vaccines at some point. The vaccination programme is our way out of this pandemic, and to jeopardise that is nothing short of reckless.
A report published by Public Health England outlined that more than 90% of new coronavirus cases across the UK originate from the delta variant. The report stated that the delta variant is able to spread quicker, with cases of the virus doubling between every 4.5 and 11.5 days. Additionally, the delta variant has been found to increase the risk of household transmission by 60% compared with the alpha variant. To prevent any further variants, which may be even more threatening, it is vital that the British Government put in place clear testing and isolating rules for international travel. Fundamentally, that means stricter border control.
Time after time, the British Government have been slow to respond and late to act. Whether it was the countless flights landing in the UK from Italy in March 2020, the laissez-faire approach to the P.1 variant ravaging Brazil, or the delta variant, which has caused so much devastation in India and right across the world, each and every time, the UK failed to secure the border.
The fact is that the UK has continually made mistakes over travelling during the pandemic. In December last year, the UK Government announced their business traveller exemption, whereby business travellers did not need to self-isolate when returning from a country not in the travel corridor. That decision was utterly irresponsible and further highlights the UK Government’s ad hoc guidance throughout the pandemic. Only days later did the Prime Minister announce that people across the UK should not travel for the Christmas holidays, and the plans originally set out were revised and reversed due to rising cases. On top of all the obvious public health consequences, this policy underlines how the British Government have put forward one rule for their “high net worth” business mates and another for the rest of the public. The policy perpetuates the cronyism and inequality that have become symbolic of this Conservative Government.
In Scotland, we have put in place clear rules on international travel, employing a traffic light system which is informed by risk assessments prepared by the Joint Biosecurity Centre. The assessments take into account the state of the pandemic in each country across the world and give consideration to variants of concern. The Scottish Government will continue to take decisions that they consider right for Scotland and will not sign up to decisions that might put that progress at risk.
This haphazard Vicky Pollard-like approach to border control has highlighted one of the major deficiencies in the current constitutional settlement in these islands. An independent Scotland would have full control of its borders and not be subject to the whim of the British Government’s ad hoc decisions. The end of the pandemic is almost in sight. After an incredibly difficult year for so many of us, we need to tread carefully as we recover from this virus. We in Scotland are clear that, when we have recovered from coronavirus, it is vital that the ability to choose Scotland’s own future in every aspect of policy, including border control, be in the hands of the people of Scotland. Westminster is not working for Scotland. This latest farce perhaps highlights that better than any SNP leaflet ever could.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. I will start by paying tribute to UK Border Force, NHS Test and Trace, ministerial colleagues and officials in the Departments for Health and Social Care and for Transport, and the Civil Aviation Authority, and by saying a huge thank you to airline and airport workers, many of whom live in my constituency of Guildford and work at the nearby Heathrow and Gatwick Airports. They have all worked incredibly hard in their roles to keep our borders secure while, crucially, making sure that the importation of vital food and medicines, important to our citizens, was not disrupted.
It is also important that we thank all our constituents who have followed all the measures laid down by the Government when they needed to travel. They are not all going on a jolly or on holiday; a lot of them, including colleagues of ours, have had to travel to deal with serious issues in their personal and family lives, such as bereavements, and on their return they have done a great job of complying with every measure the Government have set out.
The enormous success of our vaccine roll-out is the route out of lockdown, and I welcome the short delay in moving to step 4, as that will give us the opportunity to double jab those in their 40s and to give every adult at least one jab. I encourage everyone to take up the offer of a jab when it is made, even if their age group has already been called and they have not got round to it, because so far the vaccines are proving to be highly effective against each of the variants, including the most prevalent delta variant, and hopefully will be against emerging variants, such as the echo variant mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
The motion before the House starts:
“That this House believes that there must be a clear, simply understood and proper hotel quarantine scheme in operation at the UK border to minimise the risk of introduction of new variants into the UK”.
It is clear. My constituents understand it. My daughter, who has been working abroad this year—I know I do not look old enough to have an adult daughter, Madam Deputy Speaker—understands it as well. She is to return in three weeks, and this morning I was talking to her about all the tests that she has to undergo if she is to return here and then reintegrate into society, and to ensure that she does not put anyone else at risk. This is something the vast majority of our constituents do.
Having spent the first 24 years of my life in New Zealand and Australia, I have been watching closely to see what they have been doing because I have family and friends there. I care deeply about this country and my constituents, and about my friends. I have seen that, even with the tightest security on the borders, virus still gets in—it just takes one case and the virus spreads. We ought to be careful about making international comparisons because not everywhere has been able to deal with the virus very effectively and we do have secure borders.
Protecting public health is our priority as we reopen international travel safely. We will maintain 100% health checks at the border to protect our constituents. We have some of the most stringent border measures in the world. Border Force will check every passenger who arrives at the border to ensure that they have complied with the health measures, take the mandatory 10-day quarantine for those arriving from amber countries and have a managed facility for those from red countries. Our red, amber and green travel list is reviewed every three weeks. If we take out the amber, it is not really a traffic light any more, is it? But we will not hesitate to act sooner if the data suggests that that is necessary. At each stage where we have had the emergence of variants and have had to act quickly, we have taken decisive action to update the list.
Today, Labour is playing political games again. Last year, Labour was flip-flopping all over the place. When we decided to shut our borders, the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), called it a “knee-jerk action” and
“the introduction of a 14-day, blunt-tool quarantine with almost no notice”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 850.]
I do not think anything we do would please Labour, but what are we doing? We are securing our borders, vaccinating our citizens, gifting vaccines to the world and recovering our economy so that we can build back better from the pandemic. We have a plan for jobs; Labour’s motion today would cost aviation jobs. While Labour is playing political games, this Government are getting on with the job of ensuring that we recover from the virus.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
This Government talk a lot about control of our borders, but their actions on covid-19 tell a different story. We would almost certainly be in a better place, looking forward to the planned removal of further lockdown measures next week, if the much more transmissible delta variant had not become dominant so quickly. It did so because the Government did not act swiftly enough to place India on the red list and I think they know that.
A month ago, I asked the Health Secretary whether the decision to delay putting India on the red list—despite Pakistan and Bangladesh being added with lower daily infection rates—was influenced by the Prime Minister’s imminent visit to India and his desire to secure a trade deal. At that time, the Health Secretary told me that it was because more testing was being done in India, so the case rate per 100,000 in Pakistan and Bangladesh was likely to be inaccurate. Yesterday, he changed tack, telling the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), that it was because the delta variant had not been designated a variant of concern or investigation at the time. Today, the Vaccine Minister added new reasons. Perhaps it would be better if the Government just admit they got it wrong, as Members across the House know. In doing so, let us learn lessons and apply them to some of the issues coming up over the next period.
In that context, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international students, I would like to make a genuinely helpful proposal, which enjoys cross-party support and to which I hope the Minister will respond in winding up. Because of the excellence of UK universities and the success of the Government’s global education strategy, which I am pleased embraces many of the recommendations that the APPG made, we can anticipate substantial numbers of international students arriving in the UK for the new academic year in September.
We cannot know exact numbers at this stage, because places have not yet been confirmed, but in the last academic year more than 500,000 international students were enrolled at UK universities. Of those, more than 100,000 were from what we would now designate as red-list countries. Recruitment is strong for the coming year, so we can anticipate that that there will be many new students coming from those countries in September. There will also be many who are continuing their studies—those who have been learning remotely and want to return to the UK.
On Friday, the Home Office updated guidance for student sponsors, confirming an extension to the date by which international students must be in the UK to qualify for the graduate route and a temporary removal of the 28-day rule for students applying for an additional course. It is now advising both previous and new cohort students to be in the UK by 27 September in order to be eligible for the graduate visa route. This threatens quarantine chaos.
The Government have not confirmed the current capacity for red-list quarantine facilities, but when the list was introduced in February capacity was reported to be about 4,600 rooms across 16 hotels. Even if on a conservative estimate—I think it is conservative—just one in five of the cohort similar to the last academic year arrived this September, we would be looking at more than 20,000 students from red-list countries arriving here and overwhelming quarantine capacity by a ratio of four to one; that is if we are still in the same position in September, although let us hope we are not.
Ministers should be working with universities to build partnerships with local hotels to offer quarantine and extend capacity, but there is also an urgent need to avoid the surge of students coming to the UK at one time in September. This would easily be achieved by further extending the tier 4 visa flexibility; allowing international students, particularly the 2021-22 cohort, to study via distance and blended learning; and offering a further extension to the date required to qualify for the graduate route, preferably until Christmas 2021.
That is all that is needed, but Ministers must make a decision now because universities are already issuing CAS—confirmation of acceptance for studies—numbers for visa sponsorship, and students will be applying for visas, booking flights and arranging accommodation. There is not the space to make decisions in the days before arrival in a way we have seen in the past. Failure to make those decisions now will not only destroy the hopes of students whom we want to welcome to the UK; it will also sabotage covid-19 border security.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of making the decision urgently and respond to the comments that I have made, and that we will see a further update to the guidance as a matter of urgency.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am grateful to be called in this debate and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).
Time and again throughout the coronavirus crisis, we have seen delays, mistakes and U-turns from the Government. The shambolic last-minute approach to the border policy has fundamentally put people across the UK at risk. The Government were too late to start formal quarantine, too late to start testing at the borders and too late to add India to the red list, even when all the evidence suggested that they needed to act swiftly. More than a year down the line, we continue to feel the impact of the delays and the Government’s utter incompetence.
The delta variant is now the dominant strain in the UK, with 29,000 cases reported in one week alone. Ministers simply cannot say that this has taken them by surprise or that they did not have time to act. The Government knew that the delta variant had entered the UK on 1 April, yet it took them 22 full days—more than three weeks—to move India to the red list. They also cannot say that they were not warned. Time and again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and many other Opposition Members urged the Government to act swiftly, and time and again they were ignored. During this delay, at least 20,000 people, many of whom could have had the delta variant, arrived into the UK from India.
I am very pleased to see reports today that two doses of both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines provide more than 90% protection from hospitalisation with the delta variant. It would be remiss of me not to put on the record my sincere gratitude to all the incredible staff and volunteers, who have worked extremely hard, especially in Wales, to vaccinate our population. In Wales we have a world-leading vaccination programme, and every adult has been offered at least one dose of the vaccine. However, the Government’s ongoing failure to get a grip of border policy opens us up to the very real and very dangerous possibility of vaccine-resistant covid strains.
The amber list causes chaos and confusion for my constituents. The last-minute change in Portugal’s status left people paying huge amounts of money for flights with little notice, and many were left panicking about invalid insurance and insufficient protection from the UK Government. Even once back in the UK, the situation is no better. We have all heard the horror stories and the all-too-frequent cases where the quarantine system has failed our citizens. I have heard in depth from one of my constituents, who has recently returned from the United Arab Emirates. He outlined the many steps that he has taken to keep himself and others safe, which include following local guidelines, having two vaccinations as well as a vaccination booster, weekly PCR tests and antibody test results—the list goes on.
However, all my constituent’s efforts seem to have gone to waste, as there was no control system of social distancing in place while he was in transit to Amsterdam. Despite travelling from a red list country, upon his arrival at Birmingham airport he was free to mix and collect his luggage with all other passengers. Surely more thought needs to be put into those logistics. The Government simply must see the error of their ways and immediately bring an end to their haphazard, last-minute, catch-up approach to border policy.
I feel a great deal of sympathy for those with family living abroad. Many will have gone more than a year without seeing their loved ones, and I can only imagine how hard that must be, but we must be cautious. We cannot risk further lockdowns and further deaths, especially when we consider the huge sacrifices that people have made in the last year to follow the rules and to bring down cases.
As we wait for travel to be safe again, let me once again plead with the Minister to work with his colleagues to introduce proper sector-specific support for the aviation industry. GE and British Airways in my constituency of Pontypridd have already had to make significant staffing cuts, but staff are worried that there are more to come. While trade unions such as my own, Unite, are doing their best to support workers in the industry, their warnings to the UK Government have been dismissed and ignored.
We really are at a crossroads. While I am grateful for the positive work on the vaccine roll-out, and the work of our fantastic NHS across the devolved nations, enough is enough. I urge the Minister to hear our pleas and work with colleagues across Government Departments and across the House to act now to bring an end to this utter chaos.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate, and a particular pleasure to follow my friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), although I do not think that she will be surprised to know that I did not agree with all her points. However, I was particularly struck by her tribute to the roll-out of the Welsh vaccine. I share her praise for all those who have been involved in the vaccine roll-out, which I think is a success of this brilliant British Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) started her eloquent speech with a wonderful tribute to various professions that have helped to keep our borders safe and our travel industry going in the form in which it has needed to operate in covid times. I fully endorse the list that she gave in her wonderful speech.
The borders policy that we have implemented as a Government is proportionate to the risks that we face at the moment. It is a sensible policy. As time has gone on, we have implemented a clear quarantining policy. We have a traffic light system that, if we took out amber, may not be a traffic light system. We have a passenger location form system in place, and I was very pleased to see recently that we have increased the number of checks on those who come into the country to ensure that they are where they say they are. Of course, we also have the testing regime. Those of us in the House who were involved in that in April last year will remember when the number of tests that we were doing was minute. The way in which we have grown the testing system in this country is phenomenal. It has been a huge success for all the scientists, Government Departments and businesses involved.
I am a little reluctant to stray into this “toughest border policy ever” argument and to play political ping-pong on who can sound the toughest on borders. I appreciate, after all that happened from 2016 onwards, that the Labour party would like to gain some credibility on that front.
We are in danger of not acknowledging that the world in which we operate is based on risk. The reason why we call what was previously known as the Indian variant the delta variant is that it is the fourth variant to become particularly significant. I have concerns about the proposals outlined by the Opposition, because we will face other variants in future. We will face situations that shift, and over time we will have to learn to live with covid, in whatever form it takes, as we have learned many times in the past to live with different diseases. If we go down the route of making our border policy the toughest ever, that will have a huge impact on various industries, whether aviation, tourism or the travel sector.
Many of my constituents work in those sectors. I think of the pilots who have come to me and said, “Please let us fly out.” I think of all my constituents who want to go on holiday, but cannot do so at the moment—and quite rightly. I worry that, over the next few months and even years, if we play the game of “We can sound toughest on borders”, we will not act in proportion to the risks that we face. That is particularly significant in relation to yesterday’s announcement, because we are well ahead in vaccine policy and roll-out in this country. We will be in a position where we can live with covid, and we will have to learn to do so. Everyone will have to make decisions about the risks that we face.
I am also concerned about the “toughest border policy ever” approach, because this is complicated, and we need to acknowledge that the side-effects of just sounding tough make things difficult for other industries. Are we really suggesting that we should reach a point where we cannot import vaccines or food supplies? If we go down the route of playing the game of who can sound toughest, is that the kind of side effect that we want to have? I have had constituents who have been stuck abroad in the past year or so, all of them in incredibly legitimate circumstances. Many of them were in incredibly vulnerable states, and we were able to return them. Travel is not necessarily, as many of my colleagues have said, about going abroad for a jolly. There are reasons why people need to travel, and we need to be really careful about nuance and the unintended effects of the proposal that we are debating.
I shall conclude with the proposal at the end of the Opposition motion on vaccine passports for international travel, which has some merit. I am concerned that it will be discriminatory for young people. We are looking at a policy that favours certain demographics over others, and will have a particular effect on certain countries. I suggest that, again, further consideration and thought need to be put into what the Opposition are asking for today, which is why I do not support the motion.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
We have a number of weapons with which to fight covid. The key one is the vaccine programme, on which even Labour is struggling to criticise the Government’s performance. There is an additional weapon, which is the control of our borders, to minimise the importation of additional infection and new variants from elsewhere.
What is the right policy to apply to international travel in the midst of a pandemic? A knee-jerk reaction would be to close our borders, and to sound tough on covid. Labour now talks of a ring of steel, but sensible Government need to recognise that no modern trading country can totally prevent new covid variants from crossing borders. Even a country as geographically remote as Australia, which does not rely on thousands of border crossings every day for the supply of food, has not been able to keep the delta variant out.
As for the United Kingdom, 38% of all of our food is imported every day—much of it in the bellies of passenger airliners, let us not forget—and that is just a single example of our absolute need to continue international travel. What we can do is slow down the arrival of new variants and the spread from countries with higher infection rates by prohibiting all travel to the highest risk countries, by limiting international travel to high-priority activities for the medium-risk countries, by quarantining new arrivals from at-risk countries and by aggressive test and trace, including surge testing when new outbreaks emerge. I break off to take this opportunity specifically to pay tribute to NHS Test and Trace. This is an organisation that is habitually traduced as an article of faith by Labour, but which is in fact a highly effective operation that has saved many lives.
All these actions by the Government have bought us time—time that allows our vaccination programme to get to a level that provides us all with an effective defence so that we can truly live with covid. As we were reminded just yesterday, we are tantalisingly close to achieving this milestone, but not quite yet. There is a criticism of the Government implicit in this motion that they were late in imposing travel restrictions to India in response to the emergence of the delta variant, but despite the protestations of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), this really is just another shameless example of Labour hindsight hard at work.
As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) admitted in her speech, it was the emergence of the delta variant, not India’s pre-variant infection rates, that changed the risk profile of travel, yet the Government placed India on the red list two weeks before the delta variant was identified as a variant of concern. In fact, it was six days before it was even deemed a variant of interest. The Labour fox is truly shot on that very important issue.
The UK does have a strong policy of restrictions at the border and remains vigilant to new variants, but it is a complicated, nuanced issue. We cannot just sound tougher on borders—it will have huge complicating and unintended consequences. I fail to understand Labour’s call for the removal of the amber list, other than that it is some kind of attempt to politicise public health messages. The traffic light system is a sensible approach, and amber covers countries where the risk of some travel with caution can be accepted if the benefit of that travel is high. It is a classic risk analysis—the risk of an event happening and its severity, and mitigation to reduce that risk to an acceptable level. In business, we do it all the time.
To remove this classification would be to prohibit important business and humanitarian travel to amber list countries without supporting data, putting at risk even more aviation and travel jobs. I suppose it would be called collateral damage. This should not be an issue for party manoeuvres. We should not be trying to out-tough each other in areas such as this. Labour should be working with the Government in the national interest to drive home simple travel messages. I am surprised and very disappointed that it is not.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We are an island nation, and we rely on our connections with the world for trade. I am sure that many Members would, like me, celebrate and congratulate the Government on the historic trade deal that was agreed today. We rely on our connections to get freight and to meet our friends and family. Many businesses and jobs rely on international travel. In my constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge, it is our lifeblood. We depend on our connections, both domestic and international, for jobs and to support businesses.
I therefore reject the premise of the motion that the Opposition have put forward today. They would have us isolate from the world as if we were some sort of zombie island—or maybe a zombie world, depending on how one views the analogy. For all the reasons that I have put forward, we cannot do so, because we are so dependent on our connections.
Our approach must be proportionate. It must be based on science, not on the false “no risk/high risk” dichotomy that has been presented. Covid is here to stay, and with new variants continuing to evolve, we need a system that is immune to them and that can adapt and evolve as the virus does. The Minister and I have had many discussions about the need for international safety standards and the fact that we can, should and must lead the world in supporting international travel—through whatever means, but fundamentally through the use of science and new technologies.
The Opposition’s proposal is backwards. It is built on a world where there are no vaccines and where there is no testing. Our plans have moved on. We have the science behind us, and our border plans are the foundation for safely bringing back international travel as things develop.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is remarkable to hear how extrapolations are presented as facts in this debate. The Opposition, the party of the crystal ball, would have us believe that in their hands the pandemic would have been brought under control more quickly and more lives would have been saved. However, there is no evidence that even the Labour party could stop mutations of the virus reaching these shores, nor that it could ever overcome its ideological contempt for private sector involvement in the health service, whether in delivering world-class research and development or in supporting NHS testing, track and trace, and the vaccination roll-out.
Without the Government bringing together all sectors, we would not have had the incredible progress in vaccinating our nation that we have had. It is difficult to disprove hypotheticals, and if we look to other countries that have tried different approaches, we must recognise that their geography, population density and underlying health issues make effective comparisons impossible. No country found an easy answer to beating the pandemic. The strategy of reducing the spread until a mass vaccination can beat the virus has been adopted globally.
The Government’s investment in the research that delivered the AstraZeneca vaccine, the early purchase of more than 100 million doses while they were still under development, the speedy licensing of vaccines and the phenomenally successful roll-out have saved many, many thousands of lives. That is a fact, yet the Opposition fail to credit the Government for it, preferring to focus on the negatives. If we had imposed earlier lockdowns, they claim, we would have saved thousands of lives; if we had banned travel to and from India earlier, they claim, we could have stopped the delta variant reaching our shores.
We know that the challenge is far more complicated when it comes to closing UK borders. Should we have prevented British nationals who were returning from India from entering the country before the delta variant had been identified as a variant of concern? They were already required to quarantine at home for 10 days. As the Health Secretary told the Select Committee on Science and Technology last week:
“It is harder in a democracy to take some of the steps that some of the authoritarian countries took. Geography matters. Britain is an island…but we are a highly interconnected island…and a huge amount of our freight comes accompanied.”
This Government have always sought to keep the public informed about any decisions relating to the pandemic. In our democracy, we strive to impose any restrictions on people’s freedoms by consent rather than force, which is how we have seen such a high level of compliance, with exceptionally high levels of vaccine uptake among many age groups. Our decisions have been informed throughout by the advice of our scientific and medical experts, and as the advice has changed in line with the epidemiology, so have the guidelines.
We have a tough approach to our borders. The Opposition criticise the Government for moving Portugal’s categorisation from green to amber, and now seek to turn travel into a binary decision by removing the amber category, but life is not binary. Decisions about the road map as we emerge from the worst of the pandemic need to be more nuanced. We have moved on from the phase when choice was a simple one of lives versus livelihoods, to a plan to build back people’s confidence—a plan to re-engage cautiously with normal activities while the vaccination programme powers on to provide the ultimate protection against the virus.
As a global trading nation with an amazing, diverse population, we have to consider travel not just as a holiday activity, but as one that is hugely important to our economy and our mental health. Many people, including me, have family abroad and are desperate to reconnect in person after 16 months of Zoom calls. Many have urgent family business, including, sadly, attending funerals. With the removal of the amber category, the cost of hotel quarantine might preclude many from such urgent travel and would also mean that families travelling to green destinations this summer could find themselves facing bills of thousands of pounds if the status of the country they visit changes before their return. That will hit those who can least afford it, because they will either have to decide not to risk travel or face a debt crisis as a result. I do not believe we should be penalising those who can least afford it.
The Opposition are consistent in their inconsistencies on the issue, guided, I imagine, by focus groups rather than the science: demanding certainty where there can be none as we tackle a completely novel virus; calling for more financial support for businesses while demanding greater lockdown measures, which would hit the economy hard; calling for extensions to furlough schemes and measures to keep workers at home rather than backing our plan for jobs and the gradual reopening of the country; and calling for the Government to introduce quarantine and then criticising its introduction and then calling for it to be expanded. We are looking to a cautious and irreversible route out of the pandemic, building back the confidence of the nation as we emerge from the restrictions; they are looking to scaremonger.
The Government’s approach is the right one, and I urge the Opposition to back it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I must start by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his contribution. We almost got through an entire debate without mentioning the constitution and I was quite worried as to what I might say, but, thankfully, the hon. Member stood up and talked about Scottish independence—and suggested, if I am not wrong, that if Scotland had gotten independence from the United Kingdom, Scotland could be a covid-free country by now. That is incredible; it could be the only country in the world, it would seem, that has no covid. He may wish to correct me by intervening, but that is what I got from his contribution.
The hon. Gentleman suggested, too, that had Scotland been independent it might have taken different decisions from those of the UK Government, and I dare say that that might have been the case, but given the huge swathes of powers the Scottish Government already have over public health, transport, education, tourism and culture, it is incredible that just about every single decision has, with some exceptions, mirrored the decisions made by the UK Government, with some changes in terms of the timeline. I dare say we will find out when the promised public inquiry into covid in Scotland ever happens exactly what those decisions may have been that would have been so different from those taken by the UK Government.
I would also like to thank the Opposition for securing this debate today, because while I do not agree with their motion for reasons I shall expand on shortly, this is an incredibly serious issue that deserves to be debated in the House.
Before I go on, I should express or declare somewhat of an interest: my wife, being a Swedish national, has now not been able to see her family for a year and a half, so the restrictions on international travel are being felt very keenly indeed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) just mentioned, when we debate this topic we should remember that in talking about travel abroad we are not talking about people going off on holiday to lie in the sun; we are talking about families and friends being separated now for an incredibly long period of time. When the Government announced that loved ones were able to hug once again in their homes in the United Kingdom, for those people with family overseas those hugs felt a very long way off indeed.
Before I go on, I would also like to echo the passionate words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)—who, sadly, is no longer in his place—in support of the aviation sector. Thousands and thousands of jobs across the country depend directly on or in support of a thriving aviation sector; those people do not want to be on furlough, and their employers—the airlines, the airport operators, the support services—do not want to be bailed out. They want to get on and do their job; to borrow from British Airways, they want to fly and to serve.
Before coming to the Chamber today, I looked up the passenger numbers for my local airport, Aberdeen International Airport, and as a regular user I would like to put on record my thanks to all the staff there from the very top to the very bottom, who have worked tirelessly over the last year and a half to keep the airport open, operating and indeed safe—and I can say with certainty that that would be the case in every airport across the United Kingdom over the past while. But it has been a torrid year. In the first three months of this year, 62,000 passengers passed through Aberdeen airport, but in the first three months of 2020 that figure was 398,000, so that is a decline of 84.5%. This is completely unsustainable. We need to get people flying again, but we need to do it safely, and that is why protecting public health is and will remain this Government’s No. 1 priority.
I was almost struck dumb with incredulity at Labour Members talking about a clear strategy. When Labour Members come to this place and talk about a clear strategy, we know that they are on manoeuvres. They have never been able to come up with a coherent policy for international travel. Having called for a quarantine, they then criticised the Government for introducing one. Then they changed their line again to making hotel quarantines mandatory for all of those arriving in the United Kingdom. They have called for it to be less and they have called for it to be increased. They have called for it to be expanded and they have called for the amber list to go. It is incredibly hard to keep up.
The motion today would fail to simplify the current arrangements, and instead would create further problems and cause much greater confusion. In removing any middle ground by removing the amber list, which is what they propose today—for which, may I add, there still exists a strictly overseen, mandatory 10-day quarantine period—how do we decide where the cut-off point is between the green and the red, and what about those countries that are placed on the red list yet have far fewer cases than any other countries on that same list? It makes no sense. Such a two-tier system would no doubt cause further disruption to the aviation sector—an aviation sector the Labour party claims enthusiastically to support. The current traffic light system strikes the right balance, I believe, between caution and pragmatism, mitigating the risks of new variants while also allowing travel for essential reasons, and that is why I oppose the Opposition’s motion.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank all Members who have taken part in today’s Opposition day debate. I also repeat the thanks that have been offered to our vital NHS staff, to the military who are supporting its efforts and to all those in our airports, our airlines and, of course, our Border Force, who are working hard to make sure that our country can keep on moving, even in these very difficult times.
As with all Opposition day debates, of course, the Tory Whips Office has been busy sending out the top attack lines. They were distributed with gusto, and congratulations on that. What did not happen, unfortunately, was a genuine exchange about how we can navigate what is—this was said in the debate—a nuanced and very difficult period. How do we land in a way that supports a very key industry, but keeps our borders safe?
Yesterday the nation was watching, at 6 o’clock, the Prime Minister’s press conference. After gearing up for freedom day, as people were promised, over the intervening months and weeks, they were looking forward to getting back to a sense of normality. After so many sacrifices—people losing their jobs, people losing loved ones—and the nation rallying together to try to get us all through this together, naturally people want to know that the end is in sight, that the light is at the end of the tunnel and that their sacrifices have made a material difference.
People also want to know that the Government can be true to their word, and I am afraid that, again, the Government have been found wanting. Not for the first time—we have heard it before—the words do not match the reality. They said we will do “whatever it takes”, but that was not the reality for the self-employed and many parts of our economy. They said we will have a “world-beating” track and trace system, but that was not the experience of local authorities that had to deal with Serco call centres. They said, cruelly, that we will have a “protective ring” around our care homes, but we all know the human price that was paid when the words did not match the reality.
The Government will argue and they have argued—and they have sent out their Back Benchers to make this case—that these restrictions are required because we do not want to undermine the vaccination programme and that, as we are so close, let us just prolong the restrictions a bit longer and get through this together. That is true, which is why we recognise that the restrictions have to go on that bit longer, but the situation in which we find ourselves was entirely avoidable. That is where this debate leads us: it is about holding the Government to account for the decisions they make and their impact.
At the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the red list there were calls for India to be added. With the delay in adding India to the red list, some 20,000 passengers flew into the UK, potentially carrying the delta variant that is now so prominent throughout our country. Some 20,000 passengers arrived in that time. The Government have not been clear about the data they are relying on and that informed that decision. They flip-flop between pointing to one piece of evidence and another, but every single time the evidence is tested, it does not hold up to scrutiny. The public want to know whether the sacrifices they are expected to make will make a difference at all. The Government need to be careful, because the more they send the public to the top of the hill only to let them down again, the more we will see public confidence diminish. We cannot afford that: we need the public of this country on our side.
We all know the real reason and why the Government will not release the data: if they were to release it, the data would show that India absolutely should have been put on the red list at the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh were. That is what the data would show, but that did not sit comfortably with the Prime Minister, who was planning his trade visit. That was the real reason why the change was delayed. That one trade visit—that photocall and bit of publicity—was worth more than jobs in hospitality, in our wedding industry and in tourism and aviation. The photo shoot, the propaganda—it just was not. The Government say that it has to be about following the data and we absolutely believe that—we have been saying that from day one—but when tested, I am afraid they just do not pass the test.
We have heard some fantastic comments today, and I again thank all Members for taking part in an important debate. As the House would expect, I have a great deal of respect for the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who unfortunately is not in his place as we wrap up the conversation. He has done a good job of holding the Government to account and scrutinising the data, but I found his current position, expressed in this Opposition day debate, frankly quite baffling. To suggest that aviation is not asking for a bail-out completely contradicts every conversation I have had with airline operators, airport operators and people in the wider supply chain. They are crying out for financial support.
Our airports have kept supplies, including of the vaccine, coming into this country. Their operating costs cannot be reduced any more than they have been. By the way, the Government take a third of many airports’ operating costs in taxes and levies; that has not reduced but has continued. While airports have continued to keep the show on the road, they have had to deal with incoming passengers from high-risk countries—the red-list countries. They have had to get additional staff and put in additional measures, and the additional costs that have come with that have been significant. That has combined with the lack of consumer confidence.
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), laid out the case succinctly. The delta variant accounts for 40,000 cases in this country. The Government knew on 1 April that the strain was in this country, so there was plenty of time to respond proportionately to make sure that it did not spread disproportionately in the way that, unfortunately, we have seen.
Some have pointed out a world of difference between red-list countries and amber-list countries, but they can actually be very close in respect of the risks they present. Why is someone who arrives from a red-list country escorted on to a coach and put into a 10-day quarantine in a secure hotel, but someone who arrives from an amber-list country can just go on the tube? They go home and the people they go home to do not have to self-isolate in the same way as the person who has arrived does, despite the fact that they could well be carrying the virus.
All we are asking for is a simplified system: it is either safe to go or it is not safe to go. If it is safe to go, we should give people the confidence to get back to flying and to take the holiday they deserve with absolute confidence; if it is not, it should be absolutely clear. We have heard Members on the Back Benches say that, in some cases, travel to amber-list countries is safe. At the same time, Ministers are telling members of the public not to travel to amber-list countries. Even the Government cannot make up their mind about the status of the amber list, let alone the public. The list also does not talk about what it means for the host country. It is all very well saying that we have a green list of countries that are safe to fly to, but they could have incoming restrictions that means it is impossible for British travellers to go there in a way that makes a break meaningful.
There have been plenty of misinterpretations of Labour’s position. We have been absolutely clear from the outset that any intervention taken in isolation will not keep this country safe. There should be a number of interventions, which, taken together, provide the protection that this country needs and that the public of this country deserve.
When we intervened on the 14-day quarantine, our criticism was twofold. First, we were late coming to that decision. We saw millions of passengers enter our country with no restrictions at all—one of the last countries in the world where they could do so. The 14-day quarantine did not take into account the risk that different countries pose. On that we are clear, countries and nations do not carry the virus; individuals carry the virus. It could well be that the virus is more widespread in certain countries—that follows a logic—which means that we must have a system that, first, accounts for higher-risk countries, and that, secondly, deals with the individuals who are coming into the country to make sure that they are tested, traced and, if they are a risk, quarantined.
Interestingly, we said, “Let’s get a system in place that deals with pre-testing, testing on arrival and then a further test a number of days afterwards to reduce the need to quarantine.” Call it hindsight, but the Government soon followed suit, and that is exactly what the Government have put in place. We have plenty of other ideas if the Government want to listen. We are happy to offer them, too. Providing that the evidence base is there and it is followed in the right way, then we on the Labour Benches will always support the Government effort, because the truth is that we need the Government to succeed. If the Government of the day do not succeed, we will not defeat the virus and none of us will succeed in beating the virus.
We had fantastic contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). All really homed in on the data. What do we know that points to why India was not on the red-list of countries that has led to the restrictions being extended and livelihoods potentially being affected? I am afraid that the Government have not come up with a compelling answer at all. It is all well and good for them to say that any ideas and suggestions that are put forward are not worth the paper they are written on, and then to dismiss them out of hand, which is exactly what has happened from day one. With the Government found wanting, we may raise the issue again, but they will come out with the usual spiel—that it is all about hindsight. However, on borders, on keeping the country safe, on quarantine, on pre-testing, and on having a clear system with our international partners, we have been absolutely consistent and have led from the front from day one.
The Government need to focus now on what Labour is saying today, because we have been leading from the front on this issue. We have the support of the aviation industry on this, and we have the support of many scientists as well. They do not want to be dragged into politics. They want their advice to be taken at face value; they do not want it to be dismissed out of hand and not published because it does not suit the Government’s agenda.
Our suggestions today are clear. First, the Government should take leadership on an international agreement on vaccine passports to give confidence to people that, when it is safe to do so, they can enjoy all that aviation and tourism have to offer. That will support that vital industry that provides 1.5 million jobs directly and through the supply chain. They should scrap the amber list, but then, within the red and the green lists, they should publish a direction of travel, so, if a country is on the green list today, is it going in the right direction or the wrong direction? There will be a number of people who booked a holiday in Portugal who will be wishing that they had not.
We are also asking for a robust hotel quarantine system. The Government need to do far more to ensure that the demand can be satisfied. We need to learn to live with covid—that has been stated a number of times—so what on earth are the Government doing to ensure that the supply of hotel accommodation can meet what could be increasing demand?
Finally, we need an aviation sector deal to ensure that that critical industry can build back from a point of strength, not weakness. We must ensure that we are a world leader in aviation and, critically, that we meet our climate change objectives by supporting it to grow from a point of strength, leading the world in clean aviation technology and supporting new jobs and new industry. That is what we are offering. Rather than looking back in six months’ time with hindsight, I suggest that the Government listen today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a great honour to conclude this important debate. We have heard so many wide-ranging and constructive contributions from both sides of the House. I know that everyone in the House is determined to keep this horrendous virus under control, and the Government’s priority is to protect the public and the gains that we have made through the roll-out of our world-leading vaccine programme. I know that I speak for everyone in the House when I pay tribute, as many hon. and right hon. Members have, to all those involved in that roll-out.
We have some of the toughest border measures in the world to protect our country. We are taking a cautious, robust, sustainable approach to opening up international travel at a time when the vaccine roll-out is ongoing and infection rates are low. Everyone in this House wants to see international travel reopen fully as soon as it is safe for it to do so, as was said so eloquently by a number of Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). That is for all the reasons we have heard: to support the travel businesses that are so important to our constituencies and our country, and to enable people to see the friends and family that they have been separated from for so long.
That was put hugely eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who quite rightly pointed out that families have been kept apart. This is about far more than holidays, important though the travel business of course is. It is important, too, for people to do business and, yes, for people to go abroad and see the wonders of the world. That is something that, when it is safe, we all want to do.
However, there are those urging us to take tougher measures. They include the Opposition, of course, as well as the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). It is essential that any steps we take around international travel are safe, sustainable and proportionate. There are difficult decisions to be taken in government. We heard them explained so brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley). Those difficult decisions are what being in government is all about.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
This is not just about taking difficult decisions; it is about taking them quickly, in a timely manner, so that they are effective. Why did it take 22 days for the Government to put India on the red list after the delta variant was first identified?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member is quite right: of course it is essential to make the difficult decisions, to make them quickly and to get them right. I will explain in just a moment how we have done that.
Before I do so, on quarantine measures, the Opposition have called for
“a clear, simply understood and proper hotel quarantine scheme in operation at the UK border to minimise the risk of introduction of new variants into the UK”.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) among many others, that is exactly what we have in place. Currently, every passenger is checked by Border Force and the brilliant Test and Trace scheme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) quite rightly paid tribute and which has been running for so many months now.
As of 15 February 2021, British and Irish nationals and those with residency rights in the UK who have passed through a red list country within 10 days of their arrival in the UK are required to quarantine for 10 days in a managed quarantine hotel. Passengers arriving from red list countries may enter the UK only at certain designated ports. Individuals who fail to book travel to the appropriate port will be denied boarding by the carrier.
On arrival in the UK, passengers required to enter managed quarantine will be met at passport control and guided through baggage reclaim and customs to the dedicated hotel transport, where they will be transported to their hotel. Direct flights from red list countries are only able to arrive into dedicated facilities at airports, including entire terminals, so long as passengers are segregated from other arrivals. At present, Birmingham and Heathrow airports are both operating dedicated facilities, and that may expand to include other airports in the future.
New variants present a worldwide challenge, as we have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) told us how many countries have experienced the challenges of variants, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). The Government continue to monitor new variants closely, and it is worth remembering that approximately 40% of the world’s sequencing capability is found in the UK. We have also put in place enhanced contact tracing for individuals identified as having a new variant, in order to minimise onward transmission. The new measures build on the tough action that the Government have already taken to increase security against the new variants from abroad.
We will keep all our measures under constant review to ensure that they remain necessary and proportionate. There are checkpoints in June, July and October. The measures are not set in stone; what we have designed is intended to be adaptable to the evolving epidemiological picture, and the UK Government are prepared to take action at any time to protect public health.
I notice that today the Opposition are trying to produce some sort of dodgy dossier, with a timeline of dates relating to our borders policy. The first date in that document is 6 January 2021, when they claim they urged us to get a grip on our borders. I am not entirely sure what they think that achieves, other than to illustrate how hopelessly behind the curve they are and how desperately they hope that hindsight will find them a way through. By the time Labour had woken up to this issue in January, the Government had already introduced self-isolation for all arrivals into the UK—a full six months earlier, on 8 June 2020.
Let me give the House some more dates that the Opposition might find interesting. On 8 June 2020, the Leader of the Opposition criticised our quarantine measures. On 29 June 2020, the shadow Transport Secretary called for quarantine to be replaced. On 3 July 2020, the Labour party called for
“the government’s quarantine measures to be lessened.”
Jim McMahon
I thought that, by intervening, I would allow the Minister a few seconds to sit down and bring himself back together. As he knows, in the original quarantine, where people were asked to self-isolate at home, only 1% of those who were asked to do so were contacted.
Robert Courts
That does not answer the point remotely; I am disappointed. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that, let us fast-forward to this year for a real fiesta of inconsistency.
On 2 February, the shadow Home Secretary called for mandatory hotel quarantine for all arrivals. On 23 March, the shadow Chancellor was saying it should just be done on a case-by-case basis. On 20 May—less than a month ago—the shadow International Trade Secretary said that the borders had to be opened because the international economy needed us to get going again. As usual, the Labour party is all over the place on this, trusting in hindsight and ignoring the facts.
Let us look at what actually happened. The delta variant did not become a variant of concern until 7 May 2021. By that point, India had already been on the red list for a full two weeks, and let us not forget that, even before it was added to the red list, passengers arriving had to take a pre-departure test and complete a passenger locater form, then self-isolate for 10 days on arrival—always the toughest measure—taking a test on day 2 and another on day 8. That is not a weak system, but one of the toughest border arrival systems in the world.
This morning the shadow Home Secretary—the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who I am delighted to see back this place—was unable to say when he would have acted on the delta variant. What he seems to be suggesting, as most of the Opposition seem to be suggesting today, is that they would red-list any country any time they saw a mutation. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that at any given time there are hundreds of mutations. Are hon. Members seriously saying that we should stop all travel from wherever, whenever there is a mutation?
Sarah Owen
If, as the Minister says, the border policy was such a success, why is the delta variant now the dominant variant in this country, and why are we seeing an extension to the lockdown rules?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member clearly was not listening to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire when he listed all the countries in the world where the delta variant is now becoming dominant.
Let us look at another aspect of the Opposition’s policy, in which the right hon. Member for Torfaen championed Australia and New Zealand and said we should emulate them to keep out variants of concern. Given that Melbourne now has the delta variant, I am somewhat confused as to how he thinks that would have helped. He ought to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson). Another factor he ought to remember is the many citizens from those two countries who are currently unable to get back to their own country. Is Labour going to choose who gets to come back and who does not? Is that what is really proposed?
Exactly what is the right hon. Gentleman proposing? The Opposition cannot tell us how long they would keep the borders closed, they cannot say when they would have red-listed India, and they cannot say how freight would keep flowing. We have heard that 40% of our freight comes in and out in the bellies of passenger aircraft. Opposition Members do not even realise that there is a problem there, let alone try to address it.
The right hon. Member for Torfaen said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), that he wanted to see a growing green list, but in the motion he says he wants to maintain a “tightly managed Green List”. They are proposing closing down and opening up simultaneously. That is the level of policy we have from the Opposition. They play politics, but they do not have policies. They are drifting, desperate, and wise only after the event. They do not have a plan. It is this Government who are working to keep people safe and get our country through the pandemic, with strong border measures, providing testing and rolling out vaccines, and with a plan and a purpose. That is why people put their trust in us.
Question put.
Business without Debate
McVitie’s Tollcross factory proposed closure
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Since the news broke that Pladis, the global company that owns the McVitie’s brand, plans to close its factory in the east end of Glasgow, local people have certainly not been shy in expressing their opposition, and there is a groundswell of support for saving the 470 jobs at the Tollcross site, which is heartening. The petition organised by workers at the factory currently has over 52,000 signatures, which is a staggering number in such a short space of time.
In presenting the petition to Parliament in support of the McVitie’s workers, I hope to catch the attention of Pladis, to show it that the public are not happy with its proposed withdrawal from Scotland. The Glasgow East factory has stood on that site for almost a century, and it would devastate the local area and economy if it ceased operations. Generations of families, often simultaneously, have worked at the factory, and the loyalty of the workforce cannot be questioned, as many people have been employed there for decades.
Generations of families in the east end of Glasgow have helped to propel the McVitie’s brand to contemporary dominance over the domestic biscuit market, outselling the next seven biggest brands combined. You would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that McVitie’s stands on the shoulders of its dedicated workforce, past and present, and the strength of feeling among the general public about that is apparent.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with Pladis and advise them to reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Notes that the Tollcross McVitie’s employs 468 people from across Glasgow East; declares that as such the proposed closure of the factory would be equivalent to economic Armageddon to what is already a fragile local economy; notes throughout the pandemic, Pladis Global’s employees worked at the Tollcross factory as key workers whilst much of the country safely worked from home; notes the workforce has been loyal and committed for many years, with some employees working at the Tollcross factory for decades; notes that many employees also have a family history of working at the factory and in some cases, several generations of the same family currently work at the factory simultaneously; notes that the McVitie’s company has had a continuous presence in Scotland since 1839 and that the brand has become synonymous with Scotland; declares that Pladis should honour the history of the McVitie’s brand in Scotland and the loyal workforce in the Tollcross factory and fully engage with local and national government, and ultimately reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to engage with Pladis and advise them to reverse the proposal to close the Tollcross site.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002669]
Kenly Wind Farm
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The University of St Andrews is the oldest university in Scotland. It is notable not only for being where the Earl and Countess of Strathearn met and recently celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary, but for being a world leader in education, as a university ranked first in Scotland and third in the UK last year. It is a hub of groundbreaking research and innovation, and the largest employer in my constituency of North East Fife.
As part of that innovation, St Andrews has championed sustainability for over two decades, long before it was the dominant issue that it is today. Always leading the charge, the university has pledged to reach net zero by 2035, which is a significant commitment, given not just the date, but the approach that the university is taking. The university, led by its environmental sustainability board, chaired by Professor Sir Ian Boyd FRS, chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from 2012 to 2019, and now professor of biology at the university, is taking on the net zero challenge, alongside local community organisations and businesses. Indeed, I attended the first meeting of the outreach group only last month. Under complementary environmental sustainability and carbon management plans, the scope of its approach encompasses procurement activities and the travel of international students coming to the university to study. I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in congratulating it on its progress to date.
Reaching that goal involves a number of practical elements, including a biomass plant on the university’s Eden campus, which was supported via the joint working of the UK and Scottish Governments on the Tay cities deal; increasing the use of solar technology; and harnessing the wind power that my hair is often subject to in North East Fife by building a small wind farm at Kenly on land owned by the university.
Planning permission for that project was initially granted in 2013—eight years ago, in a time before referendums. At that time, the Ministry of Defence seemed to be happy to work with St Andrews, supporting the university and its application. The MOD is a statutory consultee in the UK planning system for developments that could impact MOD sites, which includes wind farms. That is a critical issue, because also located in my constituency is the former RAF, now Army, base at Leuchars and its airfield. The MOD rightly has to consider issues such as the potential for wind turbines to interfere with radar systems. While the MOD raised an objection in the formal planning process, the application was granted on condition that an agreement could be reached on mitigating any interference. It was at that point, for reasons that remain unclear, that the MOD’s willingness to engage seemed to break down.
In the past eight years, St Andrews has put forward multiple proposals and made numerous, repeated and high-level attempts to explore a solution with the MOD. Indeed, I myself have already attempted, prior to this evening, to facilitate some movement, but the MOD has refused to provide any real meaningful engagement to date. It says that the proposals to mitigate interference with the radar are not good enough, but fails to articulate what would be enough.
This is not just an isolated local issue. There are 782 onshore wind farms around the UK, amounting to over 11,000 turbines and up to 66 MW of energy each year—enough to power 18.4 million homes—and this trend is not slowing down. The trade group RenewableUK is predicting that onshore wind will continue to be a preferred alternative energy source as we work towards meeting net zero goals. Organisations are being encouraged by this Government to make the switch. Last year, the net zero business champion, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), was appointed. Organisations are encouraged to join the United Nations’ Race to Zero campaign and are celebrated when they do. Part of these commitments will inevitably involve switching to clean energies such as wind. Simply put, there will be more applications for wind farms such as Kenly.
Kenly is not alone in being proposed near a military base. There are 33 RAF bases around the UK, of which at least 13 could be classed as coastal. Coastal areas have some of the best weather conditions for turbines. The Plymouth coastline, south Wales, north Norfolk, Liverpool, Belfast and the East Riding of Yorkshire are all areas where there are both wind farms and an RAF base. The question of how to safely build wind farms near to RAF and other military bases is not unique to Kenly, and this has implications. First, it highlights the lack of transparency in the system, whereby some projects have been allowed to go ahead with mitigations agreed, while others such as Kenly have failed to progress. Just up the road from Kenly, at the now former Michelin factory site in Dundee, two wind turbines were erected. The MOD also objected to this application when it was first made on the ground that it would interfere with the radar at Leuchars, but none the less an agreement was made. Without transparency on how these agreements were reached, St Andrews does not know why or how that project was allowed to go ahead while Kenly was not.
The fact that more onshore wind farms are likely to seek permissions and the likelihood that a proportion will be near RAF bases shows that it is vital for the MOD to put in place a comprehensive plan to work with developers to find meaningful solutions. If the MOD is not working to support wind farms such as Kenly, I wonder what it is doing. On 30 March this year, the MOD published its own climate change and sustainability strategic approach with a foreword by the Minister himself. This includes a commitment to working sustainably, to encouraging the development of low or zero carbon solutions, and to being a partner in the UK’s green transition. In fact, it includes an action plan, which includes a pledge to:
“Grow awareness inside and outside of Defence with a communications plan on commitments and work on climate change and sustainability, inspiring understanding among our people, the wider public, industry and international partners.”
To me, that sounds like the sort of commitment that would involve engaging with projects such as Kenly wind farm and constructively engaging with initiatives to tackle the climate emergency.
The MOD, it is true, is looking at mitigation solutions and novel technologies for use at offshore wind farms. I am sure the Minister will point out that there is an ongoing competition for proposals which closes this week. However, this is not relevant to the 782 onshore wind farms such as Kenly around the UK, as different mitigation solutions—different ways of using technology—are understandably used on land compared with offshore. Even if the solutions were relevant to onshore windfarms, this is a very slow process. It began when the MOD last directly engaged with St Andrews in 2015, and some six years later the competition is only just entering its second phase. Proceeding at this rate, it will be 2033 before the process finishes—too late for St Andrews and its goal to achieve net zero by 2035, and frankly too late for all of us. We all know that to limit global warming to 1.5° C we need to make significant changes now. We cannot afford to wait to finish this process to get started. Organisations that take on this responsibility—that are putting themselves forwards to tackle this challenge—should be supported and not stopped.
It is now two years since this House declared a climate crisis, and the situation has only worsened since that time, with the UK’s contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions continuing to outstrip its share of the global population. This is an issue that my constituents in North East Fife care about deeply. As a prospective parliamentary candidate in September 2019, I took part with other candidates and the then MP for North East Fife in the Line in the Sand climate strike ably led by young people from local high schools. During the subsequent election, students supportive of the Kenly development attended the main hustings in the constituency and made their voices heard. Yes, there were local objections during the planning process, but the rapid development of wind technologies will result in a more efficient and less obtrusive development.
The Government state that they are putting a green recovery at the front and centre of their plans, and we know that a shift to clean renewable energy has to be a key part of that process. Just this week, the Prime Minister was in Devon for the G7 summit, where commitments were made to tackle the climate crisis at home and globally, including a commitment to green energy. Later this year, the UK—Glasgow—will be hosting COP26, where I am sure pledges will again be made on green energy. We are told that it is a priority for the Government, and that may be true for some parts of it.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published a 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, and the Scotland Office has signed up to the previously mentioned Tay cities deal, which supports sustainable initiatives. So, I hope that this is a case of the MOD just needing to catch up. However, if, as the Minister himself wrote in his foreword to the MOD strategic approach, it is determined to play its full part in helping the Government to address climate change head-on, that needs to happen now.
St Andrews has been trying to work with the MOD on the conditions needed to build Kenly wind farm for eight years. The wind farm would save 7,500 tonnes of carbon per year. It would secure energy pricing into the future, freeing up funding for world-class teaching and research for a sector already hard-hit by the covid pandemic. The Government should support that as part of their aspirations for the UK to become a global innovation hub. Ultimately, it would allow St Andrews to become self-sufficient in electrical energy.
St Andrews accepts the need to work with the MOD. It was for that reason that it engaged with the MOD so early in the planning process. Its frustrations at a lack of ongoing meaningful discussions are entirely understandable. It needs to know what the MOD wants, so that it can try to provide it. If there are no ways to mitigate the risks to RAF radar, that needs to be communicated with full reasoning.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to indicate in his response whether he will agree to meet representatives from the university, the MOD’s wind farm team, me and other stakeholders so that finally a constructive way forward can be agreed.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for raising this important issue. I know from correspondence how keen she is to support the interests of her constituency, and it is a pleasure to respond.
I recognise that the status of the planning application for a wind farm at Kenly is matter of concern for her, the University of St Andrews and her constituents. We certainly share her desire for a swift and amicable resolution to an issue that, as the hon. Lady said, has become far too protracted. She paid tribute to the staunch work of the University of St Andrews and its ambitious plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2035. I would very much like to echo those remarks.
The impressive measures that the university has already taken to do that include using modern technology to drive energy efficiency and its Eden campus project. Since 2018, as I understand it, a 20% reduction in the university’s carbon footprint has already been delivered through solar energy and biomass heat. The Government share St Andrews’ enthusiasm to reduce carbon emissions, introducing our legally binding target of net zero by 2050 and working towards what we all—including the hon. Lady—hope will be a successful conclusion to COP26 in Glasgow later this year.
In the integrated review, the Government set out how climate change was our No. 1 international priority. We in Defence are determined to play our part in achieving the UK’s ambitions. In our climate change and sustainability strategic approach, which the hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to and which we published in March, we set out how our approach to sustainable procurement, carbon reduction and better utilisation of our estate can help to deliver results even as we learn to adapt and operate in increasingly unforgiving theatres. At President Biden’s recently inaugurated discussions on climate change, at which the Secretary of State spoke, the US Defence Secretarty, Lloyd Austin, commented that UK defence had “raised the bar” on climate change as an issue. We certainly hope to continue to do so.
We recognise the vital importance of renewable energy in helping us to meet our goals. Within the defence estate, we recently announced a £120 million project to deliver four solar farms over the next five to seven years, resulting in £1 billion in energy-efficiency savings and reducing emissions by 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The use of wind energy on the estate is very much an option to which Defence is open, where it is viable and consistent with training.
The Government are delighted to have seen the increase in the use of wind and solar energy, which now account for such a substantial proportion of total UK electricity generation. However, the very welcome expansion in wind farms has had to be monitored, and continues to be, for the impact on radar and, in particular, on civil and military air traffic control. We have a duty to protect the security and wellbeing of the people of the United Kingdom. That requires us to be able to use radar effectively to monitor our airspace where required. There is in particular a vital task of ensuring, as I say, that air traffic control has clear line of sight to help air traffic, its passengers and crew to land safely.
Many wind farms have been able to proceed, after consideration, without issue; however, we have also been keen to support the sector to find solutions that can enable further projects to go ahead. The Royal Air Force, in partnership with the Offshore Wind Industry Council, has formed a joint taskforce to develop radar mitigations. The hon. Lady is right that it focuses particularly on offshore wind and air defence radar, because that is where the greatest capacity can be released to achieve our important renewable energy targets. We also expect the lessons that we learn to be applicable, and more useful, in a wider context, including onshore.
Last year, the RAF, the UK Defence and Security Accelerator and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ran a competition to seek new technological solutions to mitigate the impact of offshore wind turbines on air defence systems. That included ways to reduce radar clutter caused by wind farms, improvements to the probability of intruder detection, the capability to fill or remove gaps in radar coverage, alternatives to radar and alterations to the design of the wind turbines.
In the first phase, DASA awarded contracts to Thales, QinetiQ, Saab, TWI and Plextek DTS to fast-track their ideas for technologies that can mitigate the impact of wind farms on the UK’s air defence radar system. Phase 2 of the competition has just closed and the winners will be announced on 8 August. I therefore assure the hon. Lady that the Ministry of Defence is keen to see the opportunities presented by wind farms expanded and, what is more, is working creatively and with the active participation of the sector, which I would like to acknowledge, to find mitigations that work and that will allow further expansion.
Having laid out the context, I turn to the specifics of Kenly, and St Andrews’ plan to build six wind turbines, capable of generating 12.3 MW of electricity and saving over 9,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. The unfortunate reality, as the hon. Lady recognises, is that the project is just eight miles from the air traffic control radar at Leuchars Station. That is why, back in 2011, the MOD was involved in the initial planning process and undertook a thorough technical and operational assessment. The findings were clear: the turbines, as the proposals stood, would cause an unacceptable impact upon the air traffic control radar. Not only could they be mistaken for aircraft, but they could cause confusing radar clutter.
We cannot afford to take a risk that could put lives at risk, but to be clear, we did not rule out the proposal. Instead, we agreed with the developer that the project could go ahead as long as they provided an appropriate radar mitigation scheme before the turbines were erected. To assist developers we have a clear approach to such schemes based on a three-phase model: the identification of potential technical solutions, the trialling of preferred technical solutions, and the implementation of the technical solution.
I appreciate that the developer has made a number of attempts to proffer mitigation for the wind farm. Two such attempts involved an infill radar solution based on Edinburgh airport air traffic control radar. Those attempts were unsuccessful for various reasons, including that the proposal would have resulted in the loss of radar for an important area in the approach to the station below 900 feet, which would have presented a significant safety risk. There were also concerns about the ability to achieve seamless integration between the Edinburgh and Leuchars radars.
I do not think that it is fair to say that the MOD is not responsive. We have continued to engage. I recall that a proposal was made for a holographic radar, which I believe was the basis for the original 2013 planning application and to which the MOD did not raise objections. However, it was a higher-cost mitigation and required further evidencing. I do not believe that it was progressed by the developer but, to be clear, if a way forward that will provide mitigation can be found by the developer, through that hologram radar or other routes, we would be very keen to look at the proposal afresh and see if we can make it work.
The good news is that since 2011 significant work across the sector has been undertaken, and that continues. The hon. Lady mentioned Dundee. I do not know the details of that off the top of my head, but it is in all our interests that technology and solutions are shared. Provided that there is not a commercial or other confidentiality reason, I see no reason why that information could not be shared. I undertake to look at that for her and see if anything can be shared. I apologise in advance if there are commercial reasons that prevent it, but it is a fair and reasonable request, and I will take it under advisement and return to her.
Further to the hon. Lady’s request, if she would be kind enough to work with me I would be pleased to facilitate a meeting between St Andrews and my colleagues in the Defence Equipment and Support wind farm team. I appreciate that they have met before, indeed as recently as September 2020—again, I think at her prompting—but the MOD remains open to considering any radar mitigation scheme proposed in future. If such a meeting would be helpful, I will certainly ensure that it is facilitated.
A solution that benefits the environment, cuts carbon and maintains our radar safety net is surely the best solution for all concerned. If my team are able to guide St Andrews on our views on the most recent technological developments and wider MOD thinking, which may help it to produce a solution that is acceptable, that is something that we should all certainly welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Zarah Sultana |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) | Kenny MacAskill |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Zarah Sultana |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Zarah Sultana |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Zarah Sultana |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) PC) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela, at my first delegated legislation Committee. I hope that everyone is relatively gentle with me.
The draft order was laid before the House on 14 April 2021 and debated in the other place on Tuesday 8 June. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the important matter of environmental governance in Scotland.
Scotland’s environment, its wilds places and its habitats, is world renowned for its beauty and diversity. It is fundamental to the health and quality of life of the people of Scotland and our economy. Today’s debate is important to ensure Scotland’s high standards of environmental governance are maintained and perhaps exceeded.
The order will implement the establishment of Environmental Standards Scotland, a new environmental governance body for Scotland, which I will subsequently refer to as the ESS. With environmental matters largely devolved to Scotland, the order represents an excellent example of this Government’s commitment to strengthening the devolution settlement and delivering for the people of Scotland.
This statutory instrument, known as a Scotland Act Order, is made in consequence of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, which I will subsequently refer to as the continuity Act. Scotland Act Orders are a form of secondary legislation made under the Scotland Act 1998. That Act devolves powers to Scotland, and the orders are used to implement, update or adjust Scotland’s devolution settlement.
The order before us today is a section 104 order, which allows for necessary or expedient legislative provision in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In this instance, provision is required in consequence of the previously mentioned continuity Act. That Act received Royal Assent on 29 January 2021. As many hon. Members will know, that Act allows Scottish law to continue to keep pace with future EU developments, following the UK’s exit from the EU.
The Act also establishes a new system of environmental governance for Scotland, including establishing the aforementioned governance body, the ESS. That governance body, independent of the Scottish Government and accountable to the Scottish Parliament, is tasked with enforcing compliance with environmental law by Scottish Ministers and devolved public authorities in Scotland. For the purposes of the Act, the “environment” is defined as
“all, or any, of the air, water and land”
and
“includes wild animals and plant life”
and their habitats.
The purpose of today’s debate is not to consider the content of the continuity Act, as that has been done by the Scottish Parliament, but to examine the amendments to reserved legislation that the order seeks to update.
The order will make the ESS part of the Scottish devolved Administration. That will provide for its designation as a non-ministerial office. Furthermore, the order amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 by adding the ESS to the list of bodies whose members are disqualified from being Members of the House of Commons. That is required to ensure the independent basis of the body’s work, as without it, members of the ESS could, in theory, stand for election to this place.
The order also ensures that the Lord Advocate cannot sue or be sued in place of the ESS by disapplying the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857 so that it does not apply to the ESS. The order is deemed necessary because without it, and the minor amendments it makes to UK legislation, the ESS could not be confirmed as a body of the Scottish Administration by the Scottish Government. The territorial extent and application of the order is, however, the United Kingdom. Although environmental governance is a matter devolved to Scotland, UK-wide extent and application is required as the order amends reserved legislation.
Up until now, the ESS has been operating on a shadow basis since 1 January 2021. However, the provisions of the continuity Act, which establishes the ESS as a statutory body and provides it with statutory powers and functions, cannot function until the order has been passed. It is necessary for the ESS to have its full range of statutory powers to ensure that there is no gap in environmental governance now that the UK has left the EU.
The ESS will also provide scrutiny of the effectiveness of environmental law, its implementation and its application. It has been established to replace the role previously fulfilled by the European Commission. The ESS will have powers to investigate compliance with, and the effectiveness of, environmental law and environmental standards, either in response to representations or on its own initiative. It will be expected to try to resolve problems by agreement with public authorities, without having recourse to its formal powers where possible.
The legislative amendments under consideration today are required to reserved legislation to give full effect to the ESS and allow it to carry out its functions. It will assume statutory powers and functions once fully vested.
In summary, the instrument provides strong environmental governance for Scotland, facilitating the full implementation of the ESS by adding the body to the Scottish Administration and amending the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to ensure that ESS members cannot become Members of the House of Commons. It will also disapply the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857 in relation to the ESS, ensuring that the Lord Advocate cannot be sued in place of the ESS.
The instrument has the support of both the UK and the Scottish Governments . The need for an order and its contents have been agreed by officials and Ministers in London and Edinburgh. I must say that it is positive to see Scotland’s two Governments working together to strengthen the devolution settlement. For those reasons, I commend the order to the Committee.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Thank you, Dame Angela—that is something that I have wanted to say publicly for some time. It is great to see you in the Chair. I thank the Minister for his presentation of the order.
The order is about devolving more powers to Scotland post Brexit, so I am very surprised that there are no Scottish National party Members here to celebrate that. It is a great disappointment to me; I thought that they would be here in their throngs congratulating the Minister on what the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) used to describe as a bonanza of powers going to the Scottish Government.
The Opposition supported the order when it was considered both in the House and in the Scottish Parliament, but I have a number of questions. One of the key things for the ESS is to ensure that the laws that the EU used to impose on the country for the benefit of environmental protection are the minimum standard in the future and not the ceiling under which standards can be reduced. The Minister is right that Scotland has a rich environmental heritage that must be protected and enhanced, and the ESS must ensure that. Of course, we also have COP26 coming up in Glasgow, which will probably be the last opportunity for the planet to be saved when major leaders come together to reach not just agreement and targets, but action points. Would it not be great if the lexicon of environmental and climate change vocabulary included not just Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris but Glasgow, which became the byword for climate change? We must ensure that.
One of the big questions for the Minister relates to governance. We know what happens in the Scottish context—no one would shy away from saying this publicly—in that the ESS is appointed by Scottish Ministers and funded by the Scottish Government, so how can we ensure that it has proper independence to follow through on the big actions and responsibilities required of it?
When the order was debated in the Scottish Parliament, the Labour Opposition tabled an amendment to give the ESS some teeth so that it could sanction those responsible when environmental protections and standards fail or regulations are thwarted by activities. The SNP and Conservatives came together to vote that amendment down for some reason, so what can the Minister possibly furnish us with as reassurance that the ESS will have some teeth to ensure that it can do its job properly?
The Minister reeled off the statutory instruments enacted under the Scotland Act 1998 Act and the list of laws and regulations that are made as a result, but in a post Brexit environment, we need to get both Governments not just to work together but to reach a more settled devolution arrangement across the country. In that way, both Governments can then work together for the benefit of the Scottish people and bodies such as the ESS can do the good job that it needs to do to protect Scotland’s environment and natural heritage.
David Duguid
I will attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions as best as I can.
On COP26, I totally agree that it would be great to have the Glasgow agreement listed along with Copenhagen, Paris and Kyoto. That is very much the intention. It provides a unique opportunity to support relationship building and collaboration between not just the UK Government and the rest of world, but within the UK and its devolved Administrations. It will be very important to collaborate across the UK on the COP objectives and to improve scrutiny of climate change by learning from international best practice. Scotland already has one of the world’s most ambitious frameworks for emissions reduction and the ESS mission statement is to
“ensure that Scotland’s environmental laws and standards are complied with, and their effectiveness improved—to achieve Scotland’s ambitions for the environment and climate change.”
As I said earlier, the ESS’s remit relates specifically to the domestic area of Scotland, but in common with every organisation in the UK, it will have something to say about COP26 and the management of climate change in the future.
On governance, the hon. Gentleman asked how we can make sure the independent ESS remains just that, and how it will be held to account. The ESS is a non-ministerial public body, accountable to the Scottish Parliament. After the end of each financial year, it will publish a report on its annual activities and a copy of that will be sent to Scottish Ministers and laid before the Scottish Parliament. As a new body, the ESS must produce a strategy to set out how it will exercise its powers and functions. An interim strategy is under development for release to coincide with the ESS becoming fully vested later this year, and that strategy will be subject to consultation and laid before the Scottish Parliament for approval before its publication. It is expected that the ESS will work hand in hand with the new UK Parliament assigned body, the Office for Environmental Protection. It is expected that they will work in conjunction to ensure that there is not too much divergence within the UK.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the ESS will apply policies that have been developed in Europe to Scotland. Under the terms of the order, the ESS will keep under review developments in international environmental protection legislation, not just according to EU law but best practice around the world. Again, it will work hand in hand with the OEP to deliver that.
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contribution to the debate, and thank you, Dame Angela. By making the ESS part of the Scottish devolved Administration, as a non-ministerial office, the order facilitates the full implementation of Scotland’s new environmental governance body. Amending the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 will also ensure that the body remains independent and can function effectively to monitor and secure compliance by public authorities in Scotland of environmental law. Although we can pass legislation in this place to ensure that members of the ESS cannot become Members of the House, the relevant legislation in Scotland has similar powers to ensure that no member of the ESS can become a Member of the Scottish Parliament. That adds to the body’s independence.
I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 15th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021 View all Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 June 2021 - (15 Jun 2021)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: † Ms Nusrat Ghani, Peter Dowd
† Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
† Benton, Scott (Blackpool South) (Con)
† Cates, Miriam (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
† Davies, Gareth (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
† Fuller, Richard (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
† Glen, John (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)
† Grant, Peter (Glenrothes) (SNP)
† Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)
† McFadden, Mr Pat (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
† Mak, Alan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Opperman, Guy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
† Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)
† Rodda, Matt (Reading East) (Lab)
† Thomas, Gareth (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)
† Williams, Craig (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Seb Newman, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 15 June 2021
(Afternoon)
[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. In line with the Commission’s decision, face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or are medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye in order to speak to all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
Compensation payments to customers of London Capital & Finance plc
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report that considers the circumstances and impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc and that, in the light of that consideration, sets out the following—
(a) the circumstances in which taxpayer-funded compensation should be paid following the collapse of investment companies in future;
(b) the extent of regulatory failure necessary to trigger compensation funded by the taxpayer in future; and
(c) the limits to taxpayer exposure to investment failings.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report exploring the impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc and giving criteria for when the taxpayer should compensate investors for investment failures.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(5) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc under this section, and in the light of that assessment, sets out the following—
(a) an assessment of the regulatory failures that gave rise to the need to compensate the customers of London Capital & Finance plc;
(b) measures the Government is taking to prevent such regulatory failures in the future;
(c) the reasons why the Government is providing compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc but not the customers of other failed investment firms;
(d) criteria for when the Government should be expected to provide compensation following the collapse of investment firms; and
(e) the reasons for the capping of compensation payments under this section at 80% of what customers of London Capital & Finance would have been entitled to under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament that assesses the impact of the Government compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.
Mr McFadden
Thank you for your guidance, Ms Ghani. Later, I will move amendment 2 and, with your help, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East will move amendments 3, 5 and 6, which stand in the Opposition’s name.
Amendment 1 relates to the first clause of the Bill, which deals with the compensation scheme relating to the collapse of London Capital & Finance and which is based on the report published by Dame Elizabeth Gloster, on which we took oral evidence this morning.
Clause 1 enables a very significant Government decision to step in and compensate people for the collapse of an investment firm. The estimated cost given by the Treasury for that decision is about £120 million. As the Minister pointed out on Second Reading, it is rare that the Government do that. He told us that there have been only two other cases in recent decades—Barlow Clowes and Equitable Life—and even those decisions did not always bring matters to a close. With Equitable Life, some investors around the country remain dissatisfied with the levels of compensation that have been paid out. There is an all-party parliamentary group in this House, and we have my indefatigable hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who has led at least one debate, if not more, on these issues, on the Committee. Such decisions do not always bring the matter to a close.
The focus of the amendment is to try to bring some clarity to Parliament and the public about when the taxpayer should be on the hook for an investment collapse, and when not. This issue was raised in oral evidence this morning by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. He used the well-known phrase “caveat emptor”, or “buyer beware”, which applies those who may buy investment products. The trouble at the heart of this case is that the investors did not think they were making a particularly risky decision. LCF sold mini-bonds on the basis of a guaranteed investment return. When those who suspected something might be wrong phoned the FCA, time after time they were reassured that nothing was wrong. To quote one of the FCA’s call handlers, “This is not a scam”. While the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the principle of caveat emptor, how can we blame the investors if the very regulator looking after the thing was reassuring them that there was nothing to be concerned about?
The Government have judged the level of regulatory failure to be so exceptional and egregious that they have decided that the taxpayer has a responsibility to compensate, or as it is sometimes put, to socialise the losses. The level of compensation set by the Government is 80% of the maximum level allowed by the Financial Services Compensation Fund. That maximum is £85,000, so 80% leaves investors with a maximum pay-out of about £68,000.
There is debate about that 80%. Members of the Committee will have been sent written evidence from various LCF investors who think that level is too low. They do not understand why they have been asked to forfeit 20% of their investment because of what the Government acknowledge to be a particularly egregious regulatory failure. The Government will have to debate that. Their justification for any compensation at all is that LCF is a unique case. Both Ministers spelled that out on Second Reading last week. In his opening speech, the Pensions Minister said:
“While other mini-bond firms have failed, LCF is the only mini-bond firm that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to on-lend to other companies.”
He went on to say:
“It is…important to emphasise that the circumstances surrounding LCF are unique and exceptional, and the Government cannot and should not be expected to stand behind every failed investment firm.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 905.]
We agree, and that is precisely what the amendment is about: to try to get some clarity on the Government’s thinking when the degree of regulatory failure is so exceptional that it warrants the taxpayer picking up the bill. When that is not the case, whatever losses there may be should be regarded as normal investment market failings.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend rightly sets out the scale of regulatory failure. Does he think that one of the other potentially unique circumstances of this case is the apparent legislative lacuna about who had the responsibility for regulating mini-bonds? Dame Elizabeth Gloster set out that, on the one hand, the FCA said it should be Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; HMRC was equally clear that it thought it should be the FCA. We do not know whether that legislative lacuna has yet been sorted. Does my right hon. Friend think that was also a factor in the Government’s decision to compensate to the scale they have?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend is right; the lacuna referred to in the report relates particularly to the allocation of ISA status. We asked Dame Elizabeth about that during the oral evidence session this morning. This is important because if there are two things that gave the mini-bonds the stamp of respectability, it would be that prominent in LCF’s advertising was the statement that it was regulated by the FCA, which at firm level was true but was not true of the mini-bonds being sold, and that they could be placed inside an ISA wrapper. Although it is, of course, true that people who invest in ISAs can lose money, for understandable reasons, the ISA wrapper has a certain cachet and a note of respectability.
Dame Elizabeth confirmed during oral evidence this morning that once the ISA wrapper status was allocated in 2017, the degree of investment in those mini-bonds rose markedly, because people would have thought they were investing in something safe. The adverts spoke, in fact, of a 100% record in paying out, when what we were really dealing with was a pyramid scheme where any pay-outs that did come came from other investors and not normal market returns. People thought they were investing in a safe bond. They did not think they were playing investment roulette.
The Economic Secretary also emphasised the uniqueness of the LCF case in his closing speech on Second Reading. He said:
“LCF is unique in that regard; indeed, it is the only mini-bond issuer that was authorised by the FCA and that sold bonds to on-lend to other companies.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 918.]
That is an exact replica, with both Ministers saying the same thing, and I suspect that that phrase has been very carefully honed inside the Treasury. A case had to be made for the uniqueness of this that could not be applied to other investment failures, so I think that form of words is very carefully chosen. However, the Minister may be able to tell us more when he responds.
The amendment is designed to tease out the following point, which I want to clarify with the Minister. Is it the case that even though a number of mini-bond issuers have collapsed in recent years, LCF is the only one that was authorised and regulated by the FCA? The Minister can intervene now or I am happy to wait. As I said to the Ministers on Second Reading, there must have been a discussion in the Treasury about developing a compensation scheme such as the one set out in clause 1. The question would have been asked: if we did this for LCF, what about investors in the Connaught fund or Blackmore Bond or any of the other investment schemes that were raised either on Second Reading or during the oral evidence session this morning? What was the nature of those discussions at the Treasury and what is it about LCF that makes the Government convinced that compensation is due in this case but not in the others? That is why our amendment calls for a report. Having taken the decision to compensate, we believe it would be in the public interest for the Treasury to set out the circumstances under which the taxpayer might be expected to pay when investors lose money. Is it about a firm being authorised by the FCA? Is it about commissioning a report by an eminent and independent figure such as Dame Elizabeth Gloster?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I am very happy to respond at length in my remarks at the end. The distinction we make is that LCF is the only FCA-authorised firm that was on-lending. That is the distinction; not so much the mini-bond issuance but the on-lending nature of it.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful to the Minister. I am just going through this series of things to try to clarify exactly what might place the taxpayer on the hook. Does it require the kind of report carried out by Dame Elizabeth Gloster and commissioned by the FCA into the collapse of LCF? Is there a clear threshold of regulatory failure to be passed? There was obviously regulatory failure in this case, but, as we saw from the witnesses this morning, people will argue that other regulatory failures have applied to other firms.
In this case, the regulatory failures were multiple. I do not want to go through them in detail because we will come on to other amendments in which they can be discussed, but I will mention a few of them briefly: misleading promotions by LCF using the halo effect have been regulated by the FCA yet not adequately dealt with by the financial promotions team at the FCA; a failure by the same financial promotions team to join the dots and alert other parts of the FCA, such as the supervisory team, on the implications of those misleading promotions; and multiple attempts to alert the FCA—more than 600 phone calls, according to annex 6 of Dame Elizabeth’s report. Yet, in the vast majority of cases nothing was passed up the line of pursuit, in large part because the mini-bonds were not regulated by the FCA, so the call-handlers’ instincts were, “You’re phoning us about something that we do not regulate, so we don’t have to pass it up the line”—even though the firm as a whole was regulated by the FCA.
That brings us to the failure to take what Dame Elizabeth calls a “holistic approach” to viewing LCF from within the FCA. One could pose the question of what “regulated by the FCA” means if the regulator then ignores the vast majority of what the company does because it does not fall within the regulatory parameter. In the Treasury’s eyes, those regulatory failures, together with the others set out in the report, were enough to trigger the Bill, in both senses of the word. So, what is the principle at stake? When is regulatory failure so obvious and complete that the taxpayer should compensate investors for their losses? That is what the amendment seeks to clarify. We believe that such clarity would be of great benefit to the FCA in the conduct of its duties and in its task of learning the lessons from Dame Elizabeth’s report. It would also be in the public interest. Indeed, without such clarity, the question will continue to be asked: “Why compensate in this case and not others”?
The final point covered by the amendment is the question of any limitations on taxpayer exposure.
Gareth Thomas
My right hon. Friend is understandably concerned to protect the taxpayer’s interest. Is there not also another dimension as to why the report he seeks is worthwhile? If there is regulatory failure by the FCA in other ways, and not just in the handling of investors’ resources, and if there is no chance of the Government stepping in and offering compensation for that failure, then, for example, if a big financial services company that was not properly regulated by the FCA were to be demutualised, would there not be a reason to offer compensation? Or, if not, would that let the FCA off the hook?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There are many reasons why clarity about the limitations of Government responsibility and taxpayer responsibility, to put it another way, would be extremely helpful. The very fact of producing the Bill will mean that the Government have asked those questions anyway. As I said earlier, the cost in this case is expected to be about £120 million. The costs of clause 2, which we will come to later, are expected to be over £300 million. Over both clauses the cost will therefore be more than £400 million. That is a large sum of public money that will, in the case of clause 2, be recouped over a period of years from pension scheme members.
Of course, it is possible to have investment failings on an even greater scale. Is there any upper limit that the Treasury would see to such taxpayer exposure, or is it always to be on a case-by-case basis? In theory, investment failings could cost billions rather than hundreds of millions. Our amendment seeks to clarify the Government’s thinking on that, which would be beneficial to Parliament and the public.
Those are the reasons why we have tabled this amendment. We think that the compensation scheme and the whole story of the collapse of LCF demands such clarity and that reports such as the one we have called for would be beneficial.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani.
I shall speak to amendment 7, in my name, and in support of the official Opposition’s amendment 1.
Both amendments call for the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on issues that collectively raise many still unanswered questions about the Bill, about the compensation scheme, and about why the scandal of London Capital & Finance was allowed to happen.
By far the biggest criticism of the Bill, which we again heard from witnesses today, is that it has been deliberately framed so narrowly that those questions are in danger of being ignored. I know that the Government will argue that framing it narrowly increases its chances of getting on to the statute book—I accept that argument—but there is a downside to doing that.
The biggest question that is still unanswered is: why do we expect compensation for the victims of one investment mis-selling scandal when so many people have lost so much—possibly a total of more than £1 billion —in other company collapses that share most, and sometimes all, of the key features of London Capital & Finance?
I should make it clear that I am not asking for the setting up of other schemes. We are not asking for approval at this stage, or for other failures to be included in the LCF scheme. All we are asking for is some clear indication that the Government are taking action to look at the wider issues.
The Government’s answer is that London Capital & Finance was regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and that companies such as Blackmore Bond were not. That smacks of looking for an explanation to justify a decision that has been taken for a completely different reason.
Companies such as Blackmore Bond set out to make prospective investors believe that the FCA had a role in protecting their money. Investors in LCF were misled into believing that its own registration with the FCA would cover their investments. The only difference with other company failures is that investors in those companies were misled into believing that someone else’s registration would cover them—a fine point lost on investors themselves.
The Government’s explanation appear to assume that the only problem, or even the biggest problem, with London Capital & Finance was that it was a regulated company selling unregulated investments. That was certainly part of the problem, but, as the written submissions from a number of investors and as evidence this morning made clear, there were other failings and possibly deliberate malpractice within the company and some of its advisers. Other failings of regulation went well beyond those laid at the feet of the Financial Conduct Authority in relation purely to LCF. If the Government constantly remind us that the sale of mini-bonds was not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, surely the elephant in the room is: why on earth not?
The Government will, I know, refer to the principle of caveat emptor. It is correct that anyone making an investment has a responsibility to ensure that the investment meets their needs, but there are hundreds—possibly thousands—of examples in UK regulation where we regulate the market but it is not realistic or fair to expect the emptor to caveat.
We do not expect people to do their own personal survey of a house to make sure it is safe before they buy it. We do not expect people to check the brakes on the bus before buying a ticket. We have regulation to protect public safety, on food standards, on product safety and on a number of financial transactions. It is perfectly possible for the Government to start to look at regulating these investments in future and compensating ordinary men, women and sometimes children who have lost sums that, individually, are not significant to the FCA but are massively significant to their plans for retirement, for paying to support their children at university or for ever.
We must make it clear that we are not asking the Government to approve compensation for every company failure. We are not asking them even to consider the implications of doing that. We are asking them to look specifically at cases where there is clear evidence of the mis-selling of investments, usually to people who the seller knew perfectly well were not suited to that investment. That has been a characteristic of all the cases we have looked at today.
Gareth Thomas
I am particularly drawn to proposed subsection 5(b) of amendment 7. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman shares my view that one measure the Government need to require of the FCA in the future, to prevent further such regulatory failures, is for it to take a more hands-on approach when customers get in contact to raise concerns about particular businesses; and to make it a point of principle that, when a significant number of customers raise concerns about the activities of a firm, the FCA might actually try to meet some of those customers, rather than, as appears to be the case at the moment, only bothering to meet representatives of the board and management of said firm.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. A lot of the issues he raises are covered in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report and recommendations. She even pointed out today that possibly the single biggest failing—certainly one of the biggest failings—was that the Financial Conduct Authority had too restrictive a view of its purpose in regulating the market.
I have to say that it is not only the Financial Conduct Authority that has failed to regulate. What was the registrar of companies at Companies House doing when they got a copy of the audited accounts of Blackmore Bond—the only copy that was ever submitted by that entire group—in which it said, in so many words, that in order to pay the guaranteed interest on money it had already received from investors, it had to keep on getting more and more new investors? It was effectively a Ponzi scheme in all but name. The auditors made similar comments on the accounts but did not seem to be under any obligation or duty to do anything else. Nobody at Companies House, or the registrar of companies, appears to have been under any responsibility to look at the documents submitted to spot the danger signs; nobody anywhere seems to have been responsible for that. Although the Financial Conduct Authority has been rightly and severely criticised for its failure to regulate London Capital & Finance, we are talking about a much wider failure of the regulatory regime. Maybe one of the biggest difficulties is that there are so many people who might be involved and they are quite happy to point fingers at one another, saying that they should be responsible.
I realise I am in danger of wandering off the narrow scope of the Bill. We cannot amend the Bill to set up a more comprehensive compensation scheme just now because of the way it is framed; we cannot even amend it to set up a framework so that the Secretary of State, through statutory instrument, could extend it in the future. However, we can ask the Secretary of State to explain to Parliament not only what the Government are doing to help the victims of this one scandal but what lessons they have learned and what they are doing to make sure these scandals cannot be repeated. I hope the words of the witnesses from the Transparency Task Force this morning are ringing in all our ears. They believe they have evidence that there are other scandals like LCF happening right now and that it is just a matter of time before they collapse and leave yet more investors out of pocket.
Finally, why is it that the Government need to be called to account and asked to explain to Parliament why it is that, while they are supporting the victims of LCF, they are doing nothing to help the thousands of other victims of other scandals that have already come home to roost? For those victims, improvement in regulation alone is far too late.
Gareth Thomas
I do not intend to detain the Committee long, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East made an excellent speech on this issue; I merely want to underline the point that I made in when intervening on him. There seems to be a degree of risk in the Government’s approach. Again, it would be good to hear from the Minister to better understand why the level of regulatory failure in this particular case should merit Government compensation, whereas if there were to be regulatory failure in, say, the case of the FCA’s handling of the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria, that would not merit compensation for the 1 million-plus customers and owners of that financial services business.
I also underline the point that I made when intervening on the hon. Member for Glenrothes, who speaks for the Scottish National party, on the need of the FCA to perhaps rethink its approach to consumers more generally. At least one of the regulators in the financial services business case that I have particularly been following—that of Liverpool Victoria—has met representatives of that organisation some 35-plus times but has not met consumers at all. That seems to be an example of the FCA continuing not to have properly thought through where it might need to change its practices going forward. I know the Minister will be looking at this issue, and I gently encourage him to focus particularly on that aspect of the regulatory failure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East underlined the point in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report that there have been 600 phone calls from customers about LCF’s poor performance, yet that still did not seem to spur on the FCA to take action quickly. There are almost 10 times as many consumers who are members of Liverpool Victoria as those who invested in LCF, which surely further underlines the need to get right how the FCA handles the consumer interests going forward. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
John Glen
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and I thank all Committee members for their consideration of this important legislation.
As I set out on Second Reading, the Bill is a vital step in compensating LCF bondholders, and I will now turn directly to the consideration of amendments 1 and 7. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East set out, amendment 1 seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a set of criteria for when the taxpayer should compensate investors for investment failures. In essence, it brings some clarity about when the mechanism that we are adopting, and hopefully funding, through the passage of the Bill would be used. Amendment 7 seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the Government’s compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.
I have listened very carefully to the speeches made during the passage of the Bill, on Second Reading and today, and to the evidence that we received this morning. I am particularly drawn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who acknowledged that a degree of risk is involved with any investment. With the right set of regulations and requirements, however, investors can be equipped with the right information to understand their risks and to make informed choices. The Government’s scheme appropriately balances the interests of both bondholders and the taxpayer, and it will ensure that all LCF bondholders receive a fair level of compensation for the financial loss they have suffered.
I turn now to compensation. I must reiterate that LCF’s failure was unique and exceptional. It is the only failed mini-bond issuer that was FCA-authorised and was selling bonds in order to on-lend to other companies. In conjunction with the FCA, the Treasury has looked at eight mini-bond firms that have failed in recent years, and LCF is unique in that respect. It is important to emphasise that the Government cannot and should not stand behind every investment loss. As I have probably said previously, LCF’s business model was highly unusual in both its scale and structure, and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding its collapse are unique.
Peter Grant
Has the Economic Secretary or any of his advisers actually read the promotional material that companies such as Blackmore Bond were giving out, to assess the number of times that words such as “guarantee” and “secure” were included in those documents? Does he not accept that something needs to be looked at there—maybe not for compensation this time, but certainly for tighter regulation in the future?
John Glen
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it takes me to the question of what the Government are doing to improve the efficacy of the financial promotions regime that he mentioned in respect of a different failure. We continue to keep the legislative framework underpinning the regulation of financial promotions under review, including whether it is suitable for the digital age. Many of the promotions are obviously online. We will publish a response in the early summer to the consultation on a regulatory gateway for authorised firms approving the promotion of unauthorised firms. It is not an issue that we take lightly. Change, once in place, is designed to strengthen the regime by ensuring that firms able to approve financial promotions are limited to those with the relevant expertise to do so. The FCA will be better able to identify when a financial promotion has breached the restrictions and take action accordingly, but that does not mean that the LCF failure is not unique and of a different scale and quality from some of the other failures.
Mr McFadden
I want to ask the Minister about the point he made about on-lending. What is the relationship between on-lending and the degree of regulatory failure? He is probably right that this was the only firm doing on-lending, but Dame Elizabeth’s report focuses on an egregious regulatory failure and she sets out all the different things that we will discuss. I suspect that the Government have found something about this case that is unique in order to insulate themselves from claims from other investment failures. I do not see the relationship between that uniqueness and the regulatory failures outlined in Dame Elizabeth’s report.
John Glen
As the right hon. Gentleman set out, Dame Elizabeth’s report showed enormous failure in the way that the FCA discharged its responsibility for a regulated firm carrying out unauthorised activities. The point that he is making specifically is about the distinctiveness of the on-lending. There is a distinction between a firm, such as BrewDog or Hotel Chocolat, that raises funds for its own business activities and a firm that, although authorised, has not carried out regulated activities. Through the failure of the FCA’s oversight to look at the broader activities of the firm, it is impossible to verify whether those activities on lending bore any relationship to the raising of funds for that business. That is the distinctive difference. It is that failure of the FCA to execute its broader responsibility for an authorised firm carrying out an unauthorised activity in this distinct area that gives us licence to intervene.
On the specific issue of non-transferable debt securities, which are commonly known as mini-bonds, the Government are consulting on proposals to bring their issuance into FCA regulation. After listening to the evidence this morning, I would just make the point that Dame Elizabeth Gloster made 13 recommendations in her report. In the written ministerial statement of 17 December 2020 that was issued in my name all those recommendations were accepted—nine pertaining to the FCA and four to the Treasury. There has also been a subsequent undertaking by the FCA to report on progress against those actions and recommendations. The FCA is conducting a detailed piece of work to look at the issue of high-risk investments holistically, and that includes a discussion paper to get views on changes that can strengthen the FCA’s financial promotion rules for high-risk investments. This work follows the FCA’s ban on the mass marketing of speculative illiquid securities.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, only three Government compensation schemes have been established in the past three decades: Barlow Clowes, Equitable Life and LCF. I acknowledge that, for some, they have not been complete and satisfactory. Despite many investment firms failing over that period, the fact that there have only been those three interventions on the scale that we are seeking to secure today demonstrates that this type of intervention is the exception and not the rule. Moreover, the particular circumstances of these three cases are quite different. For example, compensation was provided to Equitable Life investors, in most cases not because they had lost their original capital but because the firm had not met the expected returns on which many investors had based their future retirement plans. That contrasts starkly with LCF, where investors stood to lose their principal sum.
The common feature in each case is a degree of maladministration or misregulation—a major factor that the Government considered in deciding to launch the LCF compensation scheme—but the circumstances are idiosyncratic. It therefore would not be possible in any meaningful sense to set out the precise framework for Government to consider when establishing such schemes in future or to stipulate the threshold of misregulation ex ante.
That does not mean to say that as a Minister, and in my frequent engagement with the FCA, I do not look closely at all these matters. Indeed, I have done so throughout the process in getting to this point today. I believe that such a framework could create an unrealistic expectation among investors about the possibility of future Government compensation schemes and the misconception that Government will stand behind bad investments. That would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments, thinking that the Government will provide compensation if things go wrong.
I want to address some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. He mentioned ISAs. As we announced in response to Dame Elizabeth’s report, HMRC and the FCA have now established an ISA intelligence working group to strengthen communication and information sharing between the two organisations. The group has met and agreed the structure and objectives, which is already resulting in information sharing between the two organisations.
In parallel, from this autumn, once recruitment of personnel is complete, HMRC will reinforce its ISA compliance regime with a programme of ISA manager audits. This will not focus on consumer protection, which does not fall within HMRC’s remit, but could detect technical breaches of the ISA regulations.
We are exploring steps to increase consumer understanding of the ISA wrapper. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, this has a large degree of consumer confidence vested in it. We need to tackle the misplaced perception that ISAs benefit from greater Government or regulatory assistance.
I have deep engagement with the FCA. I will speak later this week to the chief executive as part of my routine, regular engagement and I will relay the detailed comments of, in particular, the hon. Member for Harrow West on the degree of engagement of consumer groups versus the regulated firm’s representatives, and especially the case he is on at the moment.
We heard evidence this morning about the retention of one named individual. The chief executive has brought in five new people from outside the organisation in taking a balanced view on how to deliver a successful transformation programme. I urge him to continue successfully to implement the programme.
There are considerable principled and practical drawbacks to the amendment, which is why I ask that it be withdrawn.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful for the Minister’s response.
I am not entirely convinced about the relationship between on-lending and the decision to compensate. I am sure that the Minister is correct in the literal sense that this was the only regulated firm that was selling unregulated mini-bonds. I am not saying that the Minister is wrong, but from reading the report I believe that Dame Elizabeth would have made the same findings. The mini-bonds were not doing what it said on the tin: they were not on-lending but pyramid selling.
The degree of failure, the degree of investment loss and the degree of regulatory failure are not directly related to the point about on-lending: it is more substantial than that. I am not convinced that all the elements of the Government’s case add up. It looks to me as though they have had to find a unique element to insulate themselves from court action or other claims.
Peter Grant
As an indication of the Government having come to a decision and then looking for an explanation for it, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman picked up in the Minister’s comments how for the first time, in my knowledge, the concept of the scale of the failure—if I wrote down what the Minister said exactly right at the time—was that London Capital & Finance was unique and of a scale and nature that made it different from the rest. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the fact that the scale of the failure has now been quoted as a factor, when it was not before, is an indication that the Government have come to a decision and are now looking for reasons to justify it?
Mr McFadden
We are trying to put ourselves into discussions that we have not been party to so, to some extent, I am speculating on the way that the Government have built their argument.
I have made the point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr McFadden
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report setting out progress on the implementation of the recommendations in pages 47 to 49 of the Gloster Report.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out progress on the implementations of the thirteen recommendations in the Gloster Report.
Amendment 2 concerns the recommendations made in Dame Elizabeth’s report. It is a long report, but I am specifically referring to the series of conclusions and recommendations made on pages 47 to 49. As the Minister said a few moments ago, some of those recommendations are for the FCA and others are for the Government. We heard Dame Elizabeth say this morning that if she reached one overall conclusion that she wanted us to understand, it would be about the degree of culture change necessary for the FCA to fulfil its statutory duties. The fact that she judged that the culture that existed was so inappropriate that it stopped the FCA from doing its statutory job effectively is a serious charge. It is, after all, the body that we depend on to uphold the consumer interest and charged with ensuring proper conduct in the sale and provision of financial services. I do not need to tell anybody on the Committee how important those are, either to everyday life or to the UK economy.
One of the most telling parts of Dame Elizabeth’s report is when she discusses the loss of a letter sent to the FCA by a financial adviser called Neil Liversidge in November 2015, fully three years before the collapse of LCF. The letter warned in fairly graphic language, some of which I read out on Second Reading, what was going on at LCF and the financial adviser’s concern. Dame Elizabeth’s damning conclusion is that even if the letter had not been lost in the FCA, which appears to be what happened, so dysfunctional was the FCA that it would not have done anything about it anyway. She says on page 78 of the report:
“it is unlikely that it would have resulted in any”
action by the FCA. She found that degree of dysfunctionality to be deep and in need of urgent attention, as set out in the recommendations.
Every time there is a public failing, we hear some familiar things being said. In fact, we could almost play word bingo with them. People talk about lessons learned and new systems being put in place, and sometimes there is change of leadership or a change of the management team—all those things. In the report, there was a very well publicised disagreement about the nature of accountability and responsibility involving Dame Elizabeth and the now Governor of the Bank of England, who led the FCA at the time. That was all played out in front of the Treasury Committee over several hearings early this year. I want to focus on the 13 specific recommendations on pages 47 to 49. I am not going to go through them in huge detail, but I will mention a few.
The first recommendation is the desire to treat the regulation of companies holistically; that is, to deal with the halo effect of regulated companies selling unregulated products. That was at the very heart of the regulatory failures over LCF. It was a big part of why the many phone calls to the FCA alerting staff to investor fears about what was going on went unheeded. Indeed, Dame Elizabeth’s report records many instances where calls were not acted on because the mini-bonds concerned were not regulated. There is a whole annex containing the transcripts and I will not delay the Committee with them at the moment, but they are all set out in the report.
The failure to act exposed a major weakness in the FCA’s approach. Even if staff could tick a box that said that a phone call was about something that it did not regulate, the FCA was still on the hook at the end of the day if the firm failed, as the Bill now shows. The recommendation therefore requires a major change in how the FCA thinks about unregulated products.
The next two recommendations are about how the FCA deals with information passed on to it and how it is shared. Again, they highlight a failing in how the LCF information was handled. As we have said, the financial promotions team intervened several times to warn the company about the misleading nature of its promotions as it kept saying that it was regulated by the FCA. However, the financial promotions team did not escalate this information to other parts of the organisation that could have taken action.
The fifth recommendation deals with the financial promotion rules and what to do about breaches when red flags should be raised. Page 49 highlights recommendations more for the Treasury than the FCA. As we discussed a moment ago, the first of those deals with what Dame Elizabeth calls a lacuna in the allocation of the ISA-related responsibilities between the FCA and HMRC. The Minister referred to a working group—I think that is the phrase that he used—and I hope it reaches a conclusion quickly. Such a response is common in the catastrophe word bingo that we often hear. A working group is okay, but it has to deal with the lacuna that has been identified.
Just saying that something is regulated by the FCA gives it an aura of safety and respectability and so does saying that about investments in an ISA wrapper. As the report says, once ISA status was granted to these mini-bonds, investment in them grew markedly. Putting money into an ISA is thought to be a responsible thing to do. People believe that those operating ISAs are respectable companies and not those engaged in what are, in effect, pyramid selling schemes like the one that LCF was operating. That is why this issue is particularly important.
Recommendation 12 is about the optimal remit of the FCA. That matters because the failure of LCF sits so squarely on the boundary of regulated companies selling unregulated products. The FCA’s remit is known in the parlance as the perimeter. The Minister gave evidence to the Treasury Committee a few months ago and he said it was not an issue about the perimeter, but about the failure to use the enforcement and supervision powers that the FCA already had. I understand what he means by that. He is saying that if the FCA had acted on the reports that it had received, a great deal less damage would have been done and the taxpayer would not be faced with the compensation bill set out in the Bill. Even though I understand the point he made, the perimeter is still relevant because it informed attitudes inside the FCA on how alarmed it should be about calls reporting concerns about LCF and whether it should act. That behaviour was influenced by the fact that the calls were about products that were not regulated.
How should the Government and the FCA respond to the issue of regulated companies and unregulated products? In theory, one response could be to say that regulated companies can only sell regulated products, but that would involve a major extension of regulation. That is not to say that that is necessarily wrong, but it would be a big step. For example, foreign exchange trading is not regulated but it is carried out by every high street bank in the country and they are, of course, regulated entities.
If the answer is not a major extension of regulatory responsibilities, what is it? Is it the Government’s position that there is no need to look at this because this was such a one-off event that cannot be repeated? How can we be sure of that? We asked the FCA this morning whether this could happen again and, understandably, the witness from the FCA said that he could not tell us for sure that it could not.
Gareth Thomas
My right hon. Friend is rightly dwelling on the issue of the perimeter. May I give him another scenario that suggests that there might still be reasons to be concerned about whether the FCA has got the perimeter point in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report? Let us imagine that the FCA had investigated a financial services business that was recommending one thing to its customers but only 12 months later was doing the complete reverse. The FCA, having looked at it initially, says, “We’ve looked at it already. We’re putting a perimeter around that. We’re not going to consider what happened 12 months before in the context of this decision.” Were that to be a live situation, would it not suggest that the FCA had not grasped the perimeter point that Dame Elizabeth Gloster was making?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. The question of the perimeter is inescapable. One of Dame Elizabeth’s recommendations is that the Government consider the FCA’s remit, and the Government have said that they accept all her recommendations. The Minister said in his evidence to the Select Committee that this cannot be pinned on the perimeter, as it were, but as a conclusion of what has happened the perimeter must be considered. The Government have accepted that.
One way to deal with this is to say that regulated firms and regulated products must be brought together—I shall be grateful for the Minister’s response on that—but if that is not deemed to be the right response how will the question of the remit and the perimeter be responded to? At the heart of this failure is the halo effect of a regulated firm selling unregulated products.
Recommendation 13 is about ensuring that the legislative framework keeps pace with the sale of products through technology platforms. This field of activity is growing daily. It is driven by technological innovation—the movement of more and more activity online—and perhaps by the increased time people have had during the lockdowns to invest online. I do not want to try your patience, Ms Ghani, by delving too deeply into that today, but I think that this issue will occupy the House and this Minister in particular over the next couple of years. We will have to return to it again and again in the House, but recommendation 13 is precisely about legislation on selling things through technological platforms, and the Government and the FCA will have to adapt to it or they will fall behind the reality of the market and of financial crime.
Most of these issues have been put in the hands of the new chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, and the trans-formation programme to which the Minister referred on Second Reading. How are we to know that the 13 recommendations have been implemented? It is easy when a report is published to say, “We accept the findings.” The key is: are they followed through and properly implemented?
Dame Elizabeth’s report should be more than a series of individual recommendations. As she said this morning, it should result in a culture change. Much more communication needs to take place between different parts of the FCA while, crucially, not dropping the ball on regulated firms and unregulated products.
It is unfair of any of us, in government or in opposition, to load more responsibilities on to the FCA if it does not have the resources to fulfil them. We are clear in our amendment that the resources of the FCA have to be covered. Does the FCA have the resources to meet the ever-expanding list of responsibilities, including those on-shored as a result of our departure from the EU? It is funded through a levy on the sectors for which it is responsible. Is the levy giving it enough resources?
The failure of LCF exposed such a degree of dysfunctionality that it prompted the question: can the FCA really do its job? If not, the Government have to act because the public need the protection of a powerful regulator. The imbalance of information between the sellers of financial services products and the buyers absolutely demands that. This amendment is aimed at our receiving a report on the 13 recommendations and on their implementation by both the FCA and the Treasury. Its acceptance would provide Parliament and the public with a mechanism to ensure that statements saying that the recommendations had been accepted had actually been followed through and action taken.
Peter Grant
I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment. There are two questions if the Government wish to reject it. Assuming that no one has any objection to the idea that somebody should keep an eye on what the Government are doing in response to the Gloster report—that would be a good idea—the questions are who should they report back to and when should they report back. Their response to those questions might provide the only grounds on which they could object to the amendment.
There can be no doubt that the Government must report back to the House of Commons and to Parliament. I know I might not look it—perhaps I do—but I am old enough to remember cases like Polly Peck, one of the great corporate scandals of earlier generations. In response to that, we had the Cadbury report that, in effect, invented the concept of corporate governance. It seems obvious now, but one of the key principles that came out of the report is that once the directors who are supposed to be in charge of a company have taken a decision for something to happen, they cannot just walk away. They have to put a process in place by which they, as the directors, individually and personally, can be satisfied that what they say should happen does happen.
The House of Commons in the UK Parliament is not a board of directors as such, but we still have to take responsibility—all 650 of us, individually and collectively—for making sure that, having had assurances from the Government that they will act either directly or indirectly through agencies such as the FCA, they will do things to sort out a £1 billion scandal. We are the ones who ultimately have to hold them to account for that.
I am not saying that a report or a statement to Parliament is the best possible way of holding the Government to account. Frankly, it is a joke of a holding to account, but it is the best that we are allowed in this place. That is why it is included in many of our amendments. Any argument from the Government that any way of reporting back on such vital recommendations that is anything less than regular statements to the full House of Commons and making themselves available to take questions from, if we are lucky, just 5% of all elected MPs, is just not acceptable.
Secondly, when should the Government report back? That is why I made a point of asking Dame Elizabeth whether six months from now—12 months from the original recommendations—is a reasonable time in which to expect significant progress. Dame Elizabeth made it clear that she cannot tell us about parliamentary procedure and all the rest of it, and I accept that. However, her view was clear that, in six months from now, it would be reasonable to expect there to be significant progress on a significant number of the recommendations. At that point, the House of Commons should get a report back from the Minister to explain what has happened and if it has not happened yet, when it will happen. Most importantly, he will explain why what has not happened has not happened. We have had far too many examples of Ministers giving assurances in good faith but of things not happening or, if they did happen, of their taking far longer than they should have done.
Time matters. None of us knows whether there is another London Capital & Finance already happening, and we heard from witnesses who are convinced that it is. There could be another Blackmore Bond, Basset & Gold or you name the corporate investment mis-selling scandal. It could be happening again right now. We do not know how many of them are on the go just now already swallowing up people’s pensions and savings. If the Minister is not prepared to commit to giving an update within six months, will he tell us what timescale he thinks is reasonable for us to expect real change? “In due course” is just not good enough for people who might be losing their investments now even while we dither and dally about what to do next.
Gareth Thomas
I rise to support amendment 2, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East. I share some of the frustration that the hon. Member for Glenrothes aired: this is the only route available to the Opposition to signal to the Government and the FCA the need to provide a continuing update on their progress in implementing the lessons that have been learned from the LCF scandal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East went through some of the many issues and recommendations that Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report highlighted, but let me pick out five in particular.
First, the FCA failed to consider LCF holistically. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, we got Dame Elizabeth to emphasise again in the evidence session today that the most significant issue was a very restricted approach to the regulatory perimeter. I will come back to that point.
Secondly, the FCA’s policy documents were unclear on the handling of key questions. Thirdly, its staff had not been trained sufficiently in various key and crucial matters. Fourthly, there was a series of gaps in the law that needed fixing in order to enable proper regulation. Fifthly, the issue that my right hon. Friend touched on last was the FCA’s scope and capacity to intervene effectively on consumers’ behalf—did it have sufficient powers?
Let me turn to the first of those concerns—the restricted approach to the regulatory perimeter and whether the FCA has learned to consider issues to do with consumers holistically. The example that I gave when I intervened on my right hon. Friend was that of a financial service business that has recommended to its customers something that the FCA has approved, only for it to come down the line, 12 months later, and suggest the reverse approach. That is effectively what is happening in the case of Liverpool Victoria. I do not want to test your patience too much, Ms Ghani, but let me clarify that example very briefly.
Liverpool Victoria converted to a company limited by guarantee from a friendly society two years ago. The FCA looked at it—
The Chair
I am curious as to how the hon. Gentleman will keep this in scope, but I am listening attentively.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful for your patience, Ms Ghani, and I will not test it much more.
The FCA looked at that two years ago and approved it. Crucially, at the time, the chair and the leadership of LV said, “This has got nothing to do with demutualisation.” Where the regulatory perimeter issue comes in is that the FCA will not look at what happened two years ago in the context of what Liverpool Victoria is now trying to do. It is surely legitimate to be concerned about Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s crucial finding that the FCA had not worked out a way to handle decisions being taken by businesses holistically. That has not been properly grasped, and I gently suggest that Liverpool Victoria is the key evidence in that respect.
On the question of the FCA’s policy documents, the way they were used by staff, and whether they were appropriate to LCF’s challenges, they clearly were not up to the job, but at least there was a policy document. In the case of Liverpool Victoria, there does not appear to be any policy document on the FCA’s handling of the demutualisation. That raises a bunch of serious questions, albeit not within the scope of our conversations today.
Clearly, there is a question as to whether staff have been trained appropriately to handle the 600-plus phone calls that customers of LCF made to the FCA, raising their concerns about the products that were on offer, and that they had invested in and were buying. Again, one would have thought that the FCA would have grasped that concern and made sure that staff were trained properly on the big issues of the day affecting the FCA.
Again, I am surprised. I use the example of Liverpool Victoria again. There has been no looking back at previous demutualisations and at how the consumers’ interest was protected in that respect. So even if the FCA has highly capable staff, as I am sure it has, given that they have not looked back, one wonders how they can possibly be trained to think through properly all the key questions.
One of the issues that I raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Glenrothes was about the extent to which the FCA has learned from the LCF scandal that perhaps it needs not to be quite so close to the boards and management of financial services businesses. Perhaps it needs to move just a little bit more towards having a little more scepticism on behalf of the consumer.
So imagine my concern when I discovered that one of the regulators involved in handling the consumer interest in the Liverpool Victoria case has met the management of LV 35 times and not once with any consumers of the company. That would seem to suggest that they have not learned the lessons.
Lastly, I just want to suggest that there is a series of gaps in the law that need fixing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East rightly drew attention to the concern in the LCF case about who regulates mini-bonds. It is gratifying to hear that there is a working group looking at the relationship between HMRC and the FCA in this regard. However, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I think there is a series of legislative gaps regarding how consumers are handled during the demutualisation of a major financial services business, but I would tempt your patience, Ms Ghani, were I to go down that route. Fortunately, as the all-party parliamentary group for mutuals is meeting the Minister, it will have an opportunity to go through those issues and I very much look forward to that occasion.
John Glen
I will obviously now move to consideration of amendment 2. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, who is an experienced and distinguished former Minister himself. He referred to the catastrophe word bingo. I do not want to address that particularly, but I will address the amendment, which seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out progress on the implementation of the 13 recommendations in the report by Dame Elizabeth Gloster.
I will also tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely what we have done, what I think the FCA has done, and where I think that takes us, and I will address his concerns, raised throughout this debate, on the perimeter, on the halo effect and some of the points that Dame Elizabeth Gloster made.
The Treasury accepted Dame Elizabeth’s four recommendations regarding the Treasury and we welcome the FCA’s commitment to implement all nine of her recommendations that apply to it. We are committed as a Government to act on Dame Elizabeth’s recommendations, to ensure that the regulatory system maintains the trust of consumers. I submit that progress has already been made in implementing the recommendations and I set that out during my evidence session for the Treasury Committee’s inquiry into the FCA’s regulation of London Capital & Finance on 21 April.
Regarding Dame Elizabeth’s recommendations for the FCA, I obviously welcome the FCA’s acceptance of them, and I am sure that the Committee will have noted its commitment to report publicly on its progress in implementing these recommendations and indeed on its wider transformation programme. I am sensitive to the criticism that this is an empty exercise where there is nothing specific that Parliament and Members can address. I would therefore draw attention to the fact that Charles Randell, the current chair of the FCA, provided a detailed update in his letter to me on 16 April.
The letter has been published on the FCA’s website and sets out the comprehensive improvements that have already been delivered. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East rightly referred to a number of those, and the hon. Member for Harrow West mentioned training and the empowerment of staff to make decisions and respond to those calls and representations from consumers. A further update will be provided in the FCA’s annual report, which will be published in July, and the FCA is committed to providing updates every six months until the programme is delivered. I would also note that the Treasury Committee intends to publish its report on the FCA’s regulation of LCF before the end of June, which the Government and the FAC will no doubt respond to as appropriate.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East raised Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s recommendations concerning the perimeter and remit. In essence, what she said was that the FCA had a responsibility to deal with a firm that it regulated, but was conducting unauthorised activities. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I believe that in financial services legislation that we took through Parliament together, we gave the FCA responsibility to remove the names of firms that do not conduct any activities but are regulated under the FCA, and so remove the halo effect. I watch and monitor the transformation programme very closely, but I think that the amendment would create an additional and unnecessary administrative burden given the commitments that I have set out, and would distract from the work to deliver the recommendations themselves.
I wanted to correct one thing I said in my earlier speech. I referred to eight firms rather than eight years; we looked across mini-bonds over eight years, and there are probably more than eight failed firms. I wanted to put that on record.
There is no complacency on my part regarding how important it is that these 13 recommendations are implemented fully. We will then see how things look thereafter. On the perimeter specifically, I met the chief executive of the FCA on 20 January and the minutes of that discussion were published on 25 February, and I remain open to those conversations going forward.
Given those reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will not seek to press the amendment.
Mr McFadden
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
John Glen
London Capital & Finance was an FCA-authorised firm that primarily offered an unregulated investment product, commonly known as mini-bonds, to retail consumers. It entered administration in January 2019, impacting 11,625 people who invested around £237 million. The Serious Fraud Office and FCA enforcement have launched an investigation into individuals associated with LCF. The Financial Reporting Council has also launched investigations into the audits of LCF. As the Committee will know, Dame Elizabeth Gloster led that independent investigation, which also revealed shortcomings in the FCA’s supervision of LCF. A complex range of interconnected factors contributed to the scale of losses for LCF bondholders, creating a situation that is unique and exceptional. While other mini-bond firms have failed, LCF is the only one that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to “on-lend” to other companies. As I have said before, LCF’s business model was highly unusual both in its scale and structure. In particular, it was authorised by the FCA despite generating no income from regulated activities. Bondholders were badly let down by LCF and the regulatory system designed to protect them, and I announced that the Treasury had set up a compensation scheme for bondholders who suffered losses after investing in LCF. The scheme will be available to all LCF bondholders who have not already received compensation from the FSCS and will provide 80% of the compensation that they would have received had they been eligible for FSCS protection up to the maximum cap of £68,000. The LCF scheme is expected to pay out £120 million in compensation to around 8,800 bondholders in total. Where bondholders have received interest payments from LCF or distributions from the administrators, Smith & Williamson, these will be deducted from the amount of compensation paid.
There are two main aspects of clause 1, which I shall explain in turn. First, legislation is required to establish the financial authority to enable the Treasury to incur expenditure in relation to the scheme. That will ensure that the Treasury complies with the 1932 Baldwin concordat and the principles of managing public money. Clause 1 provides the Treasury with the spending authority that will enable payments to be made to eligible bondholders. We are working on the details of that scheme but I hope that it will be possible to reimburse them within six months of Royal Assent.
Secondly, the Treasury intends to use the process set out in part 15A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to administer the scheme on behalf of the Treasury. Clause 1 disapplies the FCA’s rule-making requirement so that existing rules relating to the FSCS can be applied to the scheme without the need to undertake a lengthy consultation. That reflects the fact that existing rules have already been consulted on and avoids any further unnecessary delays to compensation payments. In addition, as the Treasury will pay for the scheme, there is not the same obligation to consult FSCS levy payers as there would be for rules that sought to make use of FSCS funds raised by the levy.
I submit that clause 1 is an essential step in the introduction of the LCF compensation scheme without which compensation payments cannot be made. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I understand that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East wishes to make a short contribution.
Mr McFadden
It is really just a question. The Committee has received a number of representations from LCF investors about this 80% level. What is the Minister’s response to those representations? If LCF investors were here and were allowed to speak, they would say, “Why is it that those who invested after getting financial advice get 100% of the FSCS level because financial advice is a regulated product and therefore covered by the FSCS in full but we are getting 80% of that level?” What is his response on this differential treatment of the two types of investors?
The Chair
Before you respond Minister, I call the hon. Member for Glenrothes to make a short contribution.
Peter Grant
The Minister referred to the fact that there are ongoing investigations in relation to LCF. Does he recognise that some of the individuals and intermediary businesses that are now under criminal investigation for their part in LCF also played a major part in other mini-bond scandals that I have written to him about separately? Although he made the point about the uniqueness of LCF, the aftershock of LCF is very definitely being felt in other mini-bond scandals that have happened since then.
John Glen
Out of courtesy, I am very happy to respond to my colleagues. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East asked why the 80% figure was not 100%. As I have tried to explain through the submissions that I have made, the Government have been trying throughout to balance the interests of bondholders and the taxpayer to ensure that we have a fair level of compensation in respect of the financial losses incurred. The scheme is based on the FSCS level of compensation but, as he knows, it is 80% up to that cap of £68,000 to reflect the unregulated nature of the LCF product.
I emphasise that it is imperative to avoid creating the misconception that Government will stand behind bad investments in future, even where the FSCS does not apply. That would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments thinking that the Government will provide compensation when things go wrong. To avoid creating that misconception, and to take into account the wide range of factors that contributed to the losses that the Government would not ordinarily compensate for, the Government will establish the scheme at the level of 80% of LCF bondholders’ initial investment up to the maximum of £68,000. With any investment, there is clearly a risk that sometimes investors will lose money, and the Government and taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to step in and compensate for every failure and every loss. It would not be right or fair for investors in non-regulated products to receive fuller compensation than those who have invested in regulated products, for which the maximum amount is capped at £85,000 under the FSCS.
On the remarks of the hon. Member for Glenrothes about the individuals involved in an ongoing serious fraud inquiry, I am not familiar with the detail, but obviously I am happy to receive any representations. I hope that brings satisfaction to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Loans to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) No loan shall be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an impact assessment of the means of repaying the loan, including specifically the impact on pension schemes from the Fraud Compensation Fund levy.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a loan to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund for the purpose of compensating eligible pension schemes until he or she has laid before Parliament an impact assessment of the Fraud Compensation Fund levy on different pension sectors.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) Before making a loan under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the levels of fraud in the pensions system.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the levels of fraud in the pensions system before making any loan under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(5) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made under section 115A.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within twelve months of this Act being passed, on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made to the Board of the PPF under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.
Matt Rodda
We have tabled a number of amendments seeking to improve the Bill. Amendment 3 seeks to ensure that we have clarity and certainty before taking the step of asking key pension schemes to fund the majority of the bill for the Fraud Compensation Fund. It is perhaps worth reflecting on the evidence we heard this morning, which was so illustrative on this issue. One socially important pension scheme—the People’s Pension fund, which we heard about today—was asked to put forward a large amount of money to help support the compensation fund. The fund is known to take a large number of people—many of them women, on low incomes or self-employed—who have started to save for a pension through auto-enrolment. I am sure the whole Committee will agree that it is a worthwhile objective of Government policy to encourage pension savings by a wide range of people, not just the wealthier sector of the community.
Specifically, amendment 3 would prevent the Secretary of State from making a loan to the board of the Pension Protection Fund for the purpose of compensating eligible pension schemes until he or she has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Fraud Compensation Fund levy on different pension sectors, thereby allowing Parliament to consider the issues affecting them. That is essential because, as we have heard, the burden of compensating victims of fraud is falling disproportionately on certain groups. As we heard this morning, just two schemes—the People’s Pension and the National Employment Savings Trust, which are both not-for-profit operators—have historically ended up paying the lion’s share of the fraud compensation levy, despite their size and the fact that there is no tangible connection between those funds and the fraud that we are trying to address.
It is perhaps helpful to mention the figures again, for the sake of clarification. To recap, the PPF’s 2019 annual report and accounts reported that the FCF levy raised £6.9 million. What is truly surprising to casual onlookers, however, is that 37% of that was paid by the two pension schemes that I mentioned—NEST and the People’s Pension—even though they managed only £20 billion of the roughly £2 trillion of assets held in UK workplace pensions. They were managing just 1% of the total, which is a tiny amount, as I am sure everyone will agree. There is clearly a mismatch, and I am sure that the Minister, who has obviously followed this in great detail, will want to respond because something strange seems to be going on. With the figure now enlarged significantly to hundreds of millions of pounds, and with the potential repayment of the loan via an increased levy, it is understandable that the schemes are anxious about where the burden of repayment will fall. That is a fair point, and one that I am sure we would all want to consider thoroughly.
We have been promised a review of the levy later this year, and I appreciate that the Government are willing do that. However, it does not seem right that, given the significant sums involved for the loan, the legislation should proceed without pausing—all we are asking for is a pause—to consider its impact. Both of the pension schemes I have mentioned play a hugely important part in expanding pensions coverage, and I am sure that members of the Committee are aware of the national policy challenge of encouraging more people to save for their pensions. We all want a much larger proportion of the community—ideally, everybody—to have access to a pension scheme that they can save into as well as the state pension. The two organisations I have mentioned have many low-income savers who I am sure we want to support. It is crucial that we consider the long-term viability of those schemes as we consider the structure of the levy, and that the long-term viability of the two pension schemes is not jeopardised.
A fundamental change is under way and it needs to be addressed. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. First, the scope of who is compensated for fraud has been drastically expanded by the High Court judgment. Secondly, the industry structure has radically altered since the levy was first designed. Both of those points are important, and combined they will, potentially, have a huge impact on the rest of the sector. Careful consideration neds to be given to that. An impact assessment is necessary to give parliamentarians, sector experts and decision makers in the round a broader understanding of this complicated situation.
The Government have a duty to make sure that not-for-profit operators and other legitimate, law-abiding companies and mutuals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has said, are not unfairly affected or carrying the burden of responding to the need to pay out compensation for scams. The savers and pensioners who have invested in that way should not be forced to pay higher charges as a result. I appreciate the pressure on time and hope that the Government will consider the amendment in great detail.
Peter Grant
The official Opposition’s spokesperson gave very clear reasons why there is benefit in our agreeing to the amendment. I would like to anticipate the reasons that the Government will give for rejecting it and explain briefly why those reasons are not valid—I nearly said mince, but I do not know if that would be understood.
I hope that the amendment will be regarded, not only today but in the future, in the same spirit as that with which it has been tabled. I can almost see someone at the Dispatch Box, thumping the table in response to a question, saying, “Of course, Mr Speaker, we all know that the official Opposition attempted to delay implementation of the scheme.” Amendment 3 could be misrepresented in that way, but that is clearly not what it seeks to do. It asks the Government to publish the results of something that any responsible Government would do before they created the terms of a loan. All it asks is that, having done an assessment—which surely they will—they tell us the results.
The impact on particular kinds of pension schemes is important, because it could be argued that the reason the clause is needed is that a previous Government did not properly assess the impact of the changes they made in 2015 on certain types of pension holders. That is where pension liberation and pension liberation scams came from. I hope that the Government have learned their lesson. If they do not assess in more detail the impact of major changes on particular types of investors and pension holders, they may be saving up problems for the future.
I will briefly mention the other two amendments. The Government should do what is proposed by amendment 5. Do they have any idea of the level of pension fraud in the United Kingdom right now? They should.
The Minister indicated this morning that the measure proposed by amendment 6 might already have been done by someone else. If that is the case, there is nothing to stop him taking that document and putting a written statement before the House, saying, “I have received the report of xyz this morning and I endorse its contents.” A report is given significantly more weight if it is put on the record in that way. Presenting an annual report also gives Ministers an opportunity to say, “I am unable to endorse its contents, for the following reasons,” but endorsing it gives it a gravity that it might not otherwise have had. The Minister may have noticed that I am no great fan of this Government or this place, but if a Minister of the Crown lays before Parliament a statement taking responsibility for and endorsing the report of a body that reports to their Department, that carries more weight than the report simply appearing somewhere in the pages of the media a day or two later.
The Chair
In case any Member did not quite understand what I said at the top, all of the proposed amendments to the clause are being debated now, including amendments 5 and 6. Mr Rodda, to confirm, are you aware of that, and do you wish to speak to amendments 5 and 6 now?
Matt Rodda
I am very grateful, Ms Ghani. I would like to speak to amendments 5 and 6. Amendment 5 obviously covers a very different area. I sponsored it because I think that the central principle of this country’s pensions system—I am sure the Committee agrees—is that people who work hard all their lives and who contribute and save diligently are able to receive a decent pension in their retirement. I hope there is cross-party agreement on that. I am sure there is; historically, that has been the case.
In recent years, however, it has become clear that an increasing number of pensioners—and, indeed, people approaching retirement, who are also an important group and are in some ways quite vulnerable—have been set back significantly as a result of what are commonly called pension scams. As the Bill Committee, we have a duty to protect people and to help them prepare for their retirement. Amendment 5 therefore seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the levels of fraud in the pensions system before making any loan under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004. We believe that that is a crucial first step in tackling pension scams. Obviously, there are a whole series of ways to tackle them, and we appreciate that the Government are taking other steps. This is important because the consequences of the scams can be utterly devastating for those directly affected. They are also potentially expensive and damage trust in the pensions system as a whole and the operation of many businesses in the sector. It is critical that we have a system that is robust and protected against scams. The Bill highlights the consequences for everyone, including other scheme members, when fraud is allowed to spiral unchecked.
The pandemic has, sadly, given rise to an increase in fraud, as many criminals have taken advantage of the confusion and, in some cases, the isolation of vulnerable people to prey on those who, sadly, can fall victim to these dreadful crimes. However, pension scams were already on the rise. It is worth noting that, since George Osborne’s pension freedoms were introduced in 2015, fraudsters have taken advantage of confusion around what the rules precisely allow. We warned at the time that those reforms would significantly increase that risk. The Government must acknowledge, as I am sure they will, the failings of pension freedoms and their associated tax problems, as in the case of the NHS.
One of the most egregious abuses of pension freedoms has been a scam by sophisticated criminals who trick people into accessing their pensions before the legal age of 55, relying on confusion about the rules, and then abscond with the funds, leaving people in a desperate situation. In some cases, the victims suffer a double injustice: not only do they lose their entire pension pot in some cases; they are also aggressively pursued by HMRC for tax penalties, having broken the rules on money they no longer have. There are some truly heartbreaking cases of innocent people being misled and sadly losing their life savings, as well as being left with tax debts of tens of thousands of pounds.
We would like reassurance that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury will look into tackling this problem in the wake of the Dalriada judgment last year. The Government could provide that reassurance by supporting amendment 5 as a crucial first step. They should also find a way for HMRC to work with the authorities to make sure that these crimes are properly investigated, targeting the promoters, not the victims, and recognising the dreadful circumstances in which those victims find themselves through little fault of their own.
The High Court judgment that is at the centre of the loan we are discussing today is linked to exactly that type of fraud. In its recent report on pension freedoms fraud, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions recommended that particular aspects of pension freedoms and the Pension Protection Fund be reviewed in further detail in that light.
We agree with the Select Committee. Our amendment, which calls for an assessment, could form an important part of tackling the issue. It is important that the Government publish the report the amendment seeks, in order to show the public that they are not simply looking at the symptoms of fraud, but tackling the causes. I am sure the Minister will want to consider that point. The Government should set out an action plan to protect pension savers and an assessment of the level of fraud in the system as part of that work.
I know the Minister campaigned to tackle cold-calling last year in the Pension Schemes Act 2021. The Bill quite rightly tackled telephone cold-calling, but people can be approached in a cold manner online. I ask the Government to consider that avenue for scams. There has been some mixed messaging, but I hope the Minister, who I know is in touch with the sector, will take the point on board. I have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ask that the Government act on this point and include it in the online harms Bill, which is an appropriate place to tackle these serious scams, alongside many others.
Pension savers are particularly vulnerable in the few years just before retirement, when savings have accumulated but before they have actually retired. Pension transfers, especially for those in defined-benefit pension schemes, can be targeted by criminals, alongside pensions liberation fraud, which we are talking about today. This is where the Money and Pensions Service should play a bigger part. As Members will know, the service is a Government-funded body that offers free pensions advice to people aged over 50, through its Pensions Wise service.
Is it possible for Pensions Wise to play a bigger role? I hope the Minister will consider that point. It could be helpful and supportive to individuals, as well as helping the operation of the sector—the businesses that are operating legitimately, as the vast majority are.
It was disappointing that the Government rejected a proposal in proceedings on the Pension Schemes Act that would have booked a default Pensions Wise appointment for everyone in the five years prior to their retirement. The amendment was put forward by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and was supported by the Opposition. It would have meant that everybody would automatically get some basic knowledge about where they stood, better protecting them against scams.
Finally, I would like to share some research from the People’s Pension and the Police Foundation that demonstrates the scale of the problem and why we need to act urgently. The true level of pensions fraud in the UK, though large, is unknown, but could it be as high as £14.6 billion, based on the average pot size of £63,700.
I hope the points I have set out are helpful and that the Minister will consider them. We would like to see this area addressed by the Government. I urge the Minister to respond to my points.
Ms Ghani, should I speak to the other amendment now?
The Chair
The amendments are grouped, so they are all to be debated together. Do you have a contribution on amendment 6?
Matt Rodda
Yes. I will move straight on. I appreciate your tolerance.
Amendment 6 seeks to perform another important role—ensuring that the PPF and the Fraud Compensation Fund work effectively and efficiently for all parties, which I am sure everyone here would support. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within 12 months of the Act being passed, on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made to the board of the PPF under proposed new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.
In the debate on amendment 3, I set out why we needed a fuller understanding of the way the levy works and its impact—I mentioned the two not-for-profit organisations that are doing such valuable work—in order to improve the situation for savers and pensioners. I will not go into the detail of those arguments again, but they are applicable and equally important for this amendment.
It is crucial to highlight the context in which we put forward the amendment. A very limited number of schemes are currently propping up the fraud compensation levy by paying disproportionate contributions, even though they do not have a meaningful connection to fraud at this time.
These are crucial funds that support large numbers of savers—indeed, increasingly so in this country, as we enjoy the success of auto-enrolment, which is a great step forward for pension savers, and indeed future pensions across the country, providing greater access to pensions. Millions of workers across the country, at different stages of their lives, pay into these schemes and rightly expect their pension pots to be given the best possible chance to grow. Yet because the levy is passed on to savers through charges, it is current Government policy to ask savers to do the right thing in order to pay for the damage caused by criminals. As we heard earlier, this is not happening on a small scale but on quite a large scale.
Again, the PPF reported in its 2019 annual report and accounts that the FCF levy raised £6.9 million, 37% of which is paid by NEST and People’s Pension, as I said earlier, despite their having a very small share of the overall assets—around 1%. This issue disproportionately affects these very worthy organisations, which are helping so many people.
Another factor that makes a review after 12 months so important is that the High Court only recently ruled to drastically expand the scope of those who may qualify for compensation for pensions fraud. As a result, the full scale of the situation might not be immediately obvious, which is yet another reason why the Government might want to consider amendment 6, as I hope they will.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure constant monitoring and assessment. Our amendment would help her and her team of Ministers to perform their roles in that way. Without a proper assessment, the Government could be taking us down a path towards an unsustainable pensions sector, in terms of fraud compensation, and severe problems that will have to be rectified at greater cost in the future, which obviously none of us wants.
Finally, another court judgment could change things again, if it were to rule differently and the lawyers then pointed to a number of additional issues related to the ruling that had not yet been clarified. As a result, the pensions sector is still having to work under a degree of uncertainty, and obviously it is a central principle of any wise policy to try to reduce uncertainty. I hope that a report could to some extent alleviate that uncertainty. I appreciate that it would not completely resolve it, but it might be of assistance to businesses in the sector that are providing the services that we value so much, so I hope that the Minister will consider our amendment.
Gareth Thomas
On a point of order, Ms Ghani. You were very good at the end of the evidence session with the FCA to point out that the director, who was present, agreed to provide two pieces of written correspondence to me and to the whole Committee. As I understand it, that has not yet arrived. I have some sympathy for the FCA, given the timetable on which we were asking it to provide that information, but I wonder whether the Clerk might gently press the FCA for that information at some point this week.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Thomas; your point of order is duly noted. I believe that the Clerk will indeed be pressing for that data as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I gather that we have a possible vote in the House, so I will attempt my entire response in 10 minutes. Before I do so, it is right that, on behalf of the entire Committee, I thank you for chairing the Committee, Ms Ghani. As the former ports and shipping Minister, and in a month when we celebrate the first female Royal Navy captain, some might argue that you are a well-qualified captain to keep what is—let us be honest—a motley crew in order. If you run for Speaker, Ms Ghani, I will definitely be supporting you.
Let me discuss what clause 2 does and does not do. It creates a power to make a loan to the board of the Pension Protection Fund, following the decision of 6 November 2020 in the case of the PPF v. Dalriada. It achieves that by inserting a new section into the Pensions Act 2004 to provide the Secretary of State with a power to loan money to the board of the PPF.
I think it is fair to point out to the Committee that the clause deals with matters that are predominantly––almost entirely––to do with 2010 to 2014. Many would wish to make this a case about pension freedoms, when in fact pension freedoms post-dated these matters. It is clearly a serious and important matter, and, following a court decision, the Government have accepted the entirety of that decision.
The practical reality is that the Fraud Compensation Fund has assets of £26.2 million, and the potential liability arising from the court judgment is £350 million. I accept that points have been made in respect of how the loan is to be repaid in the longer term and I will address that, but I shall now turn briefly to the amendments.
Amendment 3 seeks an impact assessment. With great respect to the Members who tabled that request, it is utterly unnecessary. It is, in fact, precluded by the decision of the House on section 22 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, of which I am sure Members are acutely aware. It states that impact assessments are not required in respect of levies or other such charges in these particular circumstances.
Secondly, the clause is implementing a court judgment.
Peter Grant
Will the Minister clarify his last comment? Did he say that impact assessments are not required or that they are not permitted? Surely, if they are not required, we can still ask for one if we think it would be useful.
Guy Opperman
That is a very fair question that I shall attempt to answer while I am on my feet, but I believe that it is not required. Section 22 of the 2015 Act excludes impact from the definition of regulatory provision, so I believe that it is an exclusion rather than a requirement. If I am wrong in any way, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and correct myself. I may be corrected while I am on my feet, although in the brave new world of covid, that is quite difficult, as I am sure that he understands.
Clearly, if we were to do an impact assessment at this time, it would fundamentally delay the implementation of payment to members, and the blunt truth is that the PPF will run out of money by October if we do not progress this legislation. The levy increase will be consulted on post the passing of this Bill. It will need consultation, regulations and debate in the usual way.
Amendment 5 would also delay the progress of this matter. The Government will respond to the Work and Pensions Committee, to which I gave detailed evidence, before the end of the summer term. The full response of the Government in respect of all matters relating to such scams will be made before the end of term. We are already progressing Project Bloom and there is the work of the Money and Pensions Service that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Act that we worked on. We have produced section 125 of the Pension Schemes Act 2021, which Her Majesty signed on the dotted line in early February, and the consequential transfer regulations that we have consulted on over the past month to ensure that pension scams are prevented on an ongoing basis.
I have been asked to address other matters. It is clear that Ministers are engaging with various organisations, including Google and Facebook. The two of us have made our views very clear to those organisations about how they should regulate themselves. I agree that Pension Wise should be used more but, with great respect, I disagree with the Chair of the Select Committee’s proposal for the many good reasons that I outlined in the debates on Report and Third Reading of the 2021 Act. Clearly the work that we are doing jointly with the Treasury and other organisations, including the FCA, on stronger nudges towards using Pension Wise and other things will make a massive difference.
On amendment 6, there is already an annual report. In true Chamberlain style, I have it here in my hand: the annual report of the Pension Protection Fund, which is published every July. I know, Ms Ghani, that you will have read the most recent version, and will be looking forward with bated breath to the July 2021 report, which will specifically address the issues whose importance today’s witness made very clear.
In those circumstances, I invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.
The Chair
Let us try to ensure that we get through this portion of business before the Division. The Opposition spokesperson may of course respond, but let us keep it brief.
Matt Rodda
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I feel that he is being somewhat generous in his description of the Government’s assessment of this problem and the level of response. I urge him to redouble his efforts and to focus on some of these points in further detail.
I think that the hon. Member for Glenrothes is right to draw attention to the subtle legal difference on the issue of the impact assessment. Surely, given the scale of what is going on, it would be wise to carry out an impact assessment. I appreciate the pressure of time, but perhaps with the considerable resources of DWP, which has the largest staff quota of any Department and a very able group of civil servants, it would be possible to carry out an impact assessment on a rapid turnaround, given the scale of what we are talking about and, indeed, the problems of the sector as a whole.
On the ongoing consultation and the possibility of reviews in this area, will the Minister agree to meet me and the not-for-profit providers to explore the particular issues affecting them?
Guy Opperman
I will, of course, agree to meet them. I already meet NEST and the People’s Pension regularly, and they have made a very good pitch for a reduced levy. It is already a reduced levy, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, and there is already a 0.75% cap, but of course I am looking forward to meeting them as part of the ongoing consultation.
Matt Rodda
I am very grateful to the Minister and put on the record my thanks to him for offering that meeting. I look forward to seeing him and discussing the matter.
On amendment 5, the Minister mentioned the regulations in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, but will he write to me to discuss some of the ways in which the specific parts of the regulations relate to this issue? He has been reported in the media as suggesting that it might be wise to consider pension scams in the online harms Bill. Perhaps he will comment on that now or write to me separately, because we would like to work constructively with the Government on this matter. I appreciate that online harms are a huge and wide-ranging issue, and I have a constituency interest in violent crime in respect of a tragic incident in Reading.
Guy Opperman
I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. He can read in detail what I said in The Times on both occasions, and that is pretty much all I can say on that matter.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for his candour and for offering me a cutting from The Times, which is a fine newspaper.
Finally, on the PPF annual report, the issue is that while these documents are very worthy, and we should all read them, there is a delay. I urge the Minister to consider the need to reassure organisations in the sector, pension savers and pensioners themselves in the near term, rather than our having to wait well into 2022 before the 2021 annual report is available.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Committee rose.
Written evidence reported to the House
COMPB 01 Nigel Simmonds
COMPB 02 Paul and Susan Warren
COMPB 03 Mary Young
COMPB 04 Transparency Task Force (supplementary)
COMPB 05 Financial Services Compensation Scheme (supplementary)
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 15th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021 View all Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 June 2021 - (15 Jun 2021)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements to make. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance and, in line with the Commission’s decision, face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or are medically exempt. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Following a request from a Member, gentlemen will be permitted to remove their jackets. Date Time Witness Tuesday 15 June Until no later than 10.15 am Financial Services Compensation Scheme; Financial Conduct Authority Tuesday 15 June Until no later than 10.45 am Pension Protection Fund Tuesday 15 June Until no later than 11.25 am The Rt. Hon. Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE, PC; Dechert LLP; Transparency Taskforce; B&CE
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the timetable available, I hope we can take these matters formally without debate. I now call the Minister to move the programme motion in his name and that was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 15 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 June;
(b) at 11.30 am on Thursday 17 June.
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 1.00 pm on Thursday 17 June. —(John Glen.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(John Glen.)
Resolved,
That at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(John Glen.)
The Chair
Before we hear from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? I take that as a no.
I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timing in the programme motion. The Committee has agreed that we have only until 10.15 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Sheree Howard: Good morning. My name is Sheree Howard and I am the executive director of risk and compliance oversight at the Financial Conduct Authority.
Robin Jones: Good morning. I am Robin Jones and I am a director within the risk and compliance oversight function of the FCA.
Simon Wilson: Good morning. I am Simon Wilson, the interim head of resolution at the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
Casey McGrath: Good morning. I am Casey McGrath, head of legal at the FSCS.
James Darbyshire: Good morning. I am James Darbyshire, chief counsel and a member of the executive team at the FSCS.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Q
Simon Wilson: Thank you for the question. If it is okay, I will pass it over to my colleague, James Darbyshire.
James Darbyshire: It is difficult to put a figure on the extent of pension mis-selling going on at the moment. We are certainly seeing an increase, and certainly an increase through the covid crisis. It is important to make it clear that there is a clear distinction between the two compensation schemes. Here at the FSCS it is triggered in relation to authorised firms that go bust and regulated activities, whereas the fraud compensation scheme is triggered by dishonesty in occupational pension schemes. There will be differences, but the mis-selling we see is through authorised financial advisers as well as unregulated firms.
Mr McFadden
Q
James Darbyshire: The typical cases of mis-selling that we see at the FSCS involve scenarios in which somebody has been misadvised to transfer from a vanilla pension into a self-invested personal pension and, within that, invest in illiquid, esoteric and high-risk investments. Sometimes there is a fraud element as well, but they are certainly very high risk and often lead to that person losing all their pension savings. That is our most typical scenario.
Mr McFadden
Q
James Darbyshire: We are triggered because a regulated firm is involved, so there is an adviser who has mis-sold. But we have also seen an increase in pure scams, if we can call them that, that relate to investments that have been advertised through search engines. They are scams and not genuine investments. As part of the FSCS’s strategic role for prevention and our strategies for the 2020s, we are identifying those kinds of scams and ensuring that we pass the information, data and insights that we see on to the relevant enforcement agencies so that they can take action. We work very closely with the FCA and last year, for example, we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Serious Fraud Office to ensure that we share information in the right way.
Mr McFadden
Q
Sheree Howard: Thank you for the question. Obviously you are correct that Dame Elizabeth Gloster undertook a very thorough and detailed investigation and produced a detailed report. It has identified a range of issues and mistakes that the FCA made, for which we are profoundly sorry. We know that it has had a devastating impact on many people.
We embarked on a range of initiatives and interventions as a result. We have done a significant amount of work on mini-bonds, in particular, and on other high-risk investments in the investment space and financial promotions arena. Actions are under way in all of them: some are closed, some are ongoing and some will take some time to be sustainable and to embed.
Financial firms do fail due to a variety of circumstances. We are investing heavily in an ongoing transformations programme, but can I give you an absolute assurance that something will not happen again? Sitting here today, I cannot give that absolute assurance, no.
Mr McFadden
Q
Sheree Howard: A significant range of action has already been undertaken and is still under way to ensure that we make the embedded change that makes the FCA fit for the digitised future. A huge amount has been done. If you are asking whether we have changed, for example, our approach to financial promotions, we now escalate much earlier—we have a much clearer escalation process with a clear route through it. We have changed policies—for example, our contact centre policy—around areas highlighted in Dame Elizabeth’s report.
Mr McFadden
Q
Sheree Howard: Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report outlined the circumstances and nature of the changes that occurred at the time that consumer credit was transferred from the OFT to the FCA in 2014. The report is clear about the state of supervision within the FCA at that point and the changes that were implemented by the then executive members of supervision and others in the light of issues that they identified when they came into the organisation. It was a very substantial change of responsibilities, and it came from a regime where there was not a supervisory regime.
Mr McFadden
Q
Sheree Howard: I was not in the FCA at the time, but it was a very large assumption of remit. We have changed systems. We have implemented various programmes highlighted in Dame Elizabeth’s report on delivering effective supervision and effective authorisation programmes.
As I have already outlined, the financial services market is not sitting still; the FCA cannot sit still—hence the changes that are under way and will be a fact of life going forward. We are undertaking a significant programme to ensure that we invest in digital and data and have much greater access to the information, given the quantum of firms that we oversee.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Q
James Darbyshire: I don’t think it would cause administrative difficulties; it would just mean an additional area of coverage for the FSCS. The cost to levy payers—to the financial services industry—would potentially go up, depending on whether there were any failures involving mini-bonds.
Peter Grant
Q
Simon Wilson: Unfortunately, I cannot give an accurate figure, but I would be happy to look it up and come back to the Committee.
Peter Grant
Q
Simon Wilson: We certainly get calls and contact from our customers regarding investments that they made that we are unable to protect—that is correct.
Peter Grant
Q
Sheree Howard: I will look to my colleague Robin in a moment, but Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report highlighted the halo effect that occurred in LCF. It was unique as it was an authorised firm issuing mini-bonds, which are not regulated although the firm was authorised for other activity but was not undertaking regulated activity.
On whether unsophisticated customers understand that, we are seeking ways of working with our partners to enhance that understanding. There is certain information on that in the financial services register, but people who invest little may not understand that, so it is an area of focus for us, including thinking about how we might most effectively act against that halo effect. That includes strengthening our gateway—our authorisations process—implementing a nursery, where we look at firms shortly after to ensure that they operate in line with our norms and standards. We are looking to do that as part of our transformation programme, as well as considering legislative routes that might help—for example, not having the logo and the FCA name.
The Chair
May I ask witnesses to keep their responses as short as possible so that we can get in more questions from Members? Mr Grant, will you make this your final question, please?
Peter Grant
Q
Ms Howard, another major problem has been not the unregulated activities carried out by regulated organisations, but unregulated companies that hide behind the fact that some company associated with it is regulated—for example, if a regulated company gives section 21 authorisation for its marketing materials. I will ask the same question again: do the people being encouraged to make these investments understand that the fact that marketing material is issued by a company registered with the FCA does not mean that its activity is regulated?
Sheree Howard: In evidence as part of LCF there was substantial discussion of the financial promotions regime—of the section 21 approval regime in particular. The Government are currently considering changes to that regime to help to improve understanding by making it a specific gateway so that we can test firms that wish to give such approvals to ensure that they do so appropriately. That should help to ensure that consumers understand better.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
May we ensure that questions are in scope of what is before us? You have only three to four minutes.
Matt Rodda
I will move through them rapidly.
To what extent do the witnesses believe that pensions scams are a tangible risk to the future of people’s retirement in the UK?
James Darbyshire: The FSCS is seeing an increase in pensions scams in our work. The area certainly needs further attention, given the distress and the potential for losing life savings. Where we see evidence of scams, particularly use of the FSCS logo, we are working closely to reassure pensioners in relation to scam investments and are sharing data with regulatory colleagues to ensure that they can take action as appropriate.
Matt Rodda
Q
James Darbyshire: Focusing specifically on scams, we think that online scams and the ability to scam investors and pensioners should be considered for inclusion as part of the online safety Bill. That is certainly our position, and I believe it is also the FCA’s.
Matt Rodda
Q
Sheree Howard: Picking up on James’s final comment on the online harms Bill, we definitely would support that. Good changes have been made recently, but further changes would be helpful in mitigating the risk of scams and fraud in pensions and investments. We have our ScamSmart campaign and have done targeted campaigns around it. We work with partners, as James said. Could more be done? Yes, more could be done, such as the online harms Bill, education and so on. We are working with partners, but more could be done.
The Chair
Thank you. I call Richard Fuller, who has five minutes. I remind hon. Members please to keep their questions within the scope of the Bill.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Q
James Darbyshire: That really is a question of judgment for the Government and Parliament in relation to the impact on the Bill. The FSCS’s role is simply to administer the Government’s redress scheme as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are committed to paying compensation to eligible investors within six months of the scheme going live.
Richard Fuller
Q
James Darbyshire: The balance between consumer protection and consumer responsibility is a delicate one. Ultimately, that is a policy question that has to come from the Government and through the FCA. In our role, we are focused on ensuring that consumers can make decisions in a way that they are as informed as possible about whether there is FSCS protection for particular products. That is critical to the way they make decisions. For example, at the moment we have a comms campaign about pensions and investments, to make sure that consumers are checking whether they are covered when they make those decisions.
Richard Fuller
Q
Sheree Howard: I will pass that on to Robin, if I may.
Robin Jones: Of course. The first thing to say is no, the Government stepping in in this particular scenario most certainly does not affect the FCA’s commitment to effective regulation, and to making the changes that Sheree set out. As the Government have already noted and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has highlighted, this is only the third time that such a scheme has been set up in the recent past. It is exceptional and unique. We are not expecting it to be happening on a regular basis.
At the FCA we have accepted all the recommendations of Dame Elizabeth’s report, and Raj Parker’s report into Connaught. We are now taking a number of steps to respond to that. We have steps that we are taking this year. As we have highlighted, our new chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, has a significant transformation programme in place and has brought in a range of external executive directors to lead that change and to bring an operational excellence focus to the changes that are needed in the organisation. I do not see this scheme and the Government stepping in, in unique and exceptional circumstances, as creating any risk of diverting our focus.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Sheree Howard: Could I ask for clarification? Are you asking about during the time that LCF was in operation, or subsequently?
Gareth Thomas
First, during the time that LCF was in operation.
Sheree Howard: I am not aware of any, but I would need to go and check that.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: I think there has been, but I would need to go and check the details on that and get back to the Committee separately, if that is okay.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: As part of our transformation programme, we are considering our approach to consumer engagement and what that looks like, recognising some of what we have seen here and making sure that we are serving the UK public in the best way we can, both through information provision and by ensuring that their voices are heard.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: Our focus initially would be to gather that intelligence and use it as quickly and urgently as possible to act against whatever has been raised. That would be our primary focus—making sure that we gather as much evidence or intelligence from them as we can.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: I am sure we would consider it. From my perspective, of course we want to listen to them, and we would offer to meet them, if they wish to.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: For the businesses that we regulate, authorise and supervise, yes, we would. As I said, we would take it into consideration and—potentially do what we do with whistleblowers, for example,
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: I think I ought to clarify. Obviously, meeting with lots of individual consumers would take a very significant amount of resource. We do meet groups of consumers on occasion to hear concerns. We meet lobby groups, consumer networks and things like that, to hear those consumer voices. We obviously also have a consumer panel, so we meet ranges of consumer representatives in a number of circumstances. If you are asking me whether we would meet every consumer who phones up or who asks to phone up, that would be slightly more difficult. We do on occasion—for example, under the complaints scheme—meet a consumer who has a complaint, if that is the best way for them to get their concerns across. It is very individual and depends on the circumstances.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: In any initiative we are very focused on its operationalisation. When a paper comes through, we are very focused on what would happen once that policy goes live—our ability to supervise through it and how it would be implemented in the organisation to make sure it is as effective as it can be.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: I am aware that the FCA has met you about this area. I am very conscious that there will be future discussion between the EST and our CEO Nikhil Rathi on that matter. We have clear guidance about how we handle part VIIs and the role of the independent expert in those, which LV would go through if it went through a demutualisation process.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Sheree Howard: I will find what we have and send it to you.
The Chair
Ms Howard, you responded to Mr Thomas’s first question by saying that you would write to us. May I point out to you that you must write your response to both questions today? Minister Opperman, do you have any questions?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
You are very kind, Chair, but I do not.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
No, I do not, thank you.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of this session. I thank all the witnesses for giving evidence.
Examination of Witness
David Taylor gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now move on to oral evidence from David Taylor, general counsel at the Pension Protection Fund. We have until 10.45 am for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself for the record?
David Taylor: I am David Taylor, executive director and general counsel at the Pension Protection Fund, which also runs the Fraud Compensation Fund.
Mr McFadden
Q
David Taylor: Absolutely. We have the power to set the levy up to limits set out in legislation. Since we got clarity on the eligibility of scam schemes for compensation in the last year, we have raised the levy to the maximum we can at the moment. That is 75p per member for schemes in general, and 30p per member for master trusts. Any change to those maximum levels is a legislative matter that the Government plan to consult on in the autumn.
Mr McFadden
Q
David Taylor: Our role in relation to this is, as you say, as the backstop to pay compensation in the particular circumstances where there is a pension scheme that has been defrauded, or where money has been lost from the scheme due to dishonesty. The sorts of cases that we are talking about here, and for which the loan will be required, are actually predominantly historical in nature. As you will no doubt hear from other witnesses, there have been a number of measures since then that have tightened up in various respects and mean that cases like the ones we are talking about here are less likely to happen in the future.
Mr McFadden
Q
David Taylor: The Fraud Compensation Fund has been in existence since the main Pension Protection Fund was set up in 2004-05, but it has actually had relatively few claims on it prior to this raft of pensions liberation cases. I believe you will be hearing later from the transparency taskforce, which very helpfully flagged to us that information on the Fraud Compensation Fund was not perhaps as successful as it could be. We have taken various steps to increase visibility. We are in the process of creating a separate website for the Fraud Compensation Fund, where it is very straightforward for members to find information about how the fund works. For the sorts of members we are talking about, their first port of call is also the scheme trustees or professional trustees who have been put in place by the Pensions Regulator and who will be able to keep them posted as to where their applications have got to.
Peter Grant
Q
David Taylor: From the point at which an application is made to us, through to our making a payment into the scheme, we would estimate that it takes somewhere between six and 18 months to process that application and establish whether the various necessary tests have been satisfied, particularly a loss to the scheme due to dishonesty, and whether all other avenues for redress have been exhausted, because we are the fund of last resort. Once the application comes to us, it is relatively quick. However, in relation to the schemes that we are talking about here, people have been waiting for some time as a result of the uncertainty about the eligibility of those schemes for FCF compensation.
Peter Grant
Q
David Taylor: The way that these cases typically work is that when they become known, the Pensions Regulator appoints a professional trustee to manage the case and to seek to bring in any assets that they can, any claims against the wrongdoers and so forth. The information that we have on the amount of claims is based on information that we have gleaned to date from the professional trustees and/or the Pensions Regulator. We have been liaising with them for some years in relation to these cases.
Inevitably, it is not until they make their formal application to us and provide us with all the documentation that we can really get into the numbers, so we have greater certainty about the numbers that have already applied, perhaps slightly less certainty about the longer-term pipeline.
I think it is fair to say that, based on everything that we have done to date, we are reasonably confident about the order of magnitude of the claims that we know about. There is no legal reason why we could not get more claims in future, so I cannot say, no, that number is not going to go up. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, about these claims not being so relevant anymore, we would perhaps be slightly surprised if it went up a great deal.
Matt Rodda
Q
David Taylor: Our role relates to paying the compensation at the end of the process. The cases we are talking about here almost entirely predate pension freedoms. The reasons for the liberation cases have gone away to an extent, as a result of pension freedoms. There is not a great deal that would be appropriate for me in my role to talk about pension freedoms.
Matt Rodda
Q
David Taylor: We have almost no discretion in how the Fraud Compensation Fund levy is set. Members will probably be familiar with the Pension Protection Fund levy, the much larger levy on defined benefit schemes, where we have a lot of discretion and we do a lot of work on structuring that levy. As far as the Fraud Compensation Fund levy is concerned, it is simply a flat-rate levy. Our only choice is whether to charge the maximum amount or less. In the light of the size of the claims we are now dealing with, we will charge the maximum for the foreseeable future.
Matt Rodda
Q
David Taylor: Again, that is slightly outside our remit but we are, of course, well aware of the debate around the fact that it is a per-member levy, and the representations made by master trusts, in particular, on the impact that has where they manage numerous small pots.
Richard Fuller
Q
David Taylor: Like a number of other systems, the Fraud Compensation Fund was set up to be an industry-funded system. Our role in this is simply to administer that system and it has become apparent that, in order to deal with the cases that are eligible, more money will be needed. As I understand it, the plan is to maintain the system of industry funding and the Government will be consulting in the autumn on any changes to the levy rates.
Richard Fuller
Q
David Taylor: Yes, that is true.
Richard Fuller
Q
“The FCF is funded by a levy on eligible pension schemes and at the time of the judgment had assets of £26.2m. Even with future levy income, the expectation is that there will be unfunded liabilities in the region of £200m to £250m.”
Is it your expectation that the Government’s consultation later in the year will be about resolving that funding shortfall or that, with current resources, over an acceptable horizon, that funding shortfall can be reduced?
David Taylor: I will pick up on a couple of points there. To go back to the question of how big the shortfall is, as I said earlier, those numbers are based on our best current estimate of the claims that will come in. As for how that shortfall is then funded, the loan that we are talking about and that the legislation enables will effectively resolve the cash-flow issue while we make the payments. As I understand it, the plan is that it will be reimbursed through the fraud compensation levy. In terms of what the levy is, there is a balance to be struck between the level at which the levy is set and the period over which we are required to pay the money back to Government.
Gareth Thomas
I apologise, Ms Ghani. I mis-spoke earlier; it is probably a lack of practice. My questions actually relate to the third group rather than this one.
Guy Opperman
Q
David Taylor: That is right. The types of cases that we were dealing with in the early years of the Fraud Compensation Fund were different. They did not involve schemes that had been set up specifically for the purpose of pensions liberation. They were more to do with, for example, employers who had failed to pay over into a scheme the moneys that they had deducted from their employers or conceptually straightforward fraud by which money was taken out of existing defined contribution or DB pension schemes.
Guy Opperman
Q
David Taylor: That is correct.
Guy Opperman
Q
David Taylor: That is right. There have been a couple of changes over the years.
Guy Opperman
Q
David Taylor: That is right, yes.
Guy Opperman
Q
David Taylor: Yes, we do. We are just about to publish our report for the year finishing 31 March 2021. It is quite comprehensive and is audited by the National Audit Office.
Guy Opperman
Q
David Taylor: It does, and I anticipate that there will be far more activity on the Fraud Compensation Fund in the year to come than there has been in previous years.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I shall thank the witness for his evidence. We now move on to the next panel.
We seem to be struggling to get all the witnesses on Zoom, so I will suspend the sitting until 10.45 am.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the right hon. Dame Elizabeth Gloster, Dorothy Cory-Wright and John Bedford of Dechert LLP, Andy Agathangelou—forgive me if I have mispronounced your name—and Mark Bishop of Transparency Task Force, and Philip Brown of B&CE. For this panel we have until 11.25 am. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record? Let’s begin with Andy Agathangelou.
Andy Agathangelou: Thank you. I am the founder of the Transparency Task Force, which is a certified social enterprise. I should also mention that I am the chair to the secretariat to two all-party parliamentary groups: the all-party parliamentary group on pension scams and the all-party parliamentary group on personal banking and fairer financial services.
Mark Bishop: I am Mark Bishop, a strategy adviser working with Transparency Task Force, particularly in the areas of organisational strategy, public affairs and helping the victims of financial services misconduct and regulatory failure.
Philip Brown: Good morning, I am Philip Brown, director of policy and external affairs and B&CE, providers of the People’s Pension. We are one of the UK’s largest pension schemes, serving the automatic enrolment market. We have 5 million members, nearly £15 billion of assets and serve nearly 100,000 employers.
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Hello, I am Liz Gloster, I was appointed by the FCA at the direction of the Treasury to investigate the FCA’s regulation of London Capital & Finance. Assisted by my team at Dechert and barristers, we produced our report last November. I currently sit as an arbitrator in international commercial arbitration.
Dorothy Cory-Wright: I am head of disputes and contentious regulatory in the law firm of Dechert. As you just heard, we supported Dame Elizabeth in her investigation, and I led the team from Dechert.
John Bedford: I am John Bedford, I am a partner at Dechert LLP in London, and I was part of the team supporting Dame Elizabeth with her report.
The Chair
I thank all the witnesses for giving evidence today. I urge them to keep their answers short so we can get through all the Members who wish to contribute. I call the shadow Minister, Pat McFadden.
Mr McFadden
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: It is probably set out in the executive summary of my report, in chapter 2. I think the biggest lesson that should be taken away is that there has to be a cultural change at the Financial Conduct Authority in order to ensure that the FCA is able to regulate in accordance with its obligations in a digitalised world.
Mr McFadden
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Let me make it clear, as I think I did in my letter to the Committee, that I only looked—and was only instructed to look—at the regulation of LCF. I did not look at the regulation of other firms that may or may not have been similar. Having said that, some of the criticisms my report made could potentially apply to other firms. First, for example, the restricted approach to the regulatory perimeter when dealing with authorised firms; secondly, the failure to consider LCF’s business holistically in the application, variation and the regulation supervision processes; and thirdly, the absence of training that we pointed to of those employees at the FCA who had to review financial material. Those are all three failings that potentially could apply to other businesses.
Mr McFadden
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: The gap we identified—I would be grateful if John or Dorothy could direct me to the particular chapter in my report—was that neither the FCA, nor HMRC, at any time checked on or seemed to conduct any analysis of, either as part of a regulatory or a taxation process, whether or not the product being flogged to the investors was ISA compliant. John, do you have the chapter?
John Bedford: Yes, Dame Elizabeth. It is chapter 14, page 303 of your report.
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Thank you. The fact that LCF bonds could be acquired in an ISA wrapper was absolutely critical to attracting investment because bondholders believed that the ISA status indicated that LCF’s products were subject to an additional level of regulatory security and assurance. Once LCF got its approval, and marketed its bonds as ISA-eligible, the sales significantly increased. That was our concern—this gap with neither the FCA nor HMRC actually looking at the question—and was something that should be addressed.
Mr McFadden
Q
“LCF is the only mini-bond firm that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to on-lend to other companies.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 905.]
My question is whether the case of LCF is unique and, if not, why not?
Mark Bishop: Shall I take this one? If you look at what the Minister said, then no doubt it is unique. I am not aware of any other situation where there is a regulated product being sold by an authorised firm who is conducting literally no regulated business, and is also allowed into an ISA. Those are exceptional circumstances.
However, if you look at the many other financial services scandals that have occurred where regulatory failure is either proven, as in the Connaught case, or is alleged with very good reason, they all have exclusive and specific circumstances. I think the question for this Committee is whether you want to use the opportunity of this Bill to create a right for consumers—with a high bar—to have their claims for compensation considered, where they are able to demonstrate significant regulatory failure and that that failure has led to loss.
Peter Grant
Q
Dame Elizabeth, may I come to you first? You will be aware that there are amendments that the Committee will consider later that ask for the Secretary of State to be required to report various things to Parliament. In particular, one amendment asks for a report within six months on progress towards the implementation of the recommendations in your report. Clearly, not all of the recommendations will be implemented within six months, but in your view what would be a reasonable time scale for Parliament to ask the Secretary of State to come back and give us an update as to what had been achieved by that point?
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Thank you for the question; I don’t think I am really qualified, in terms of parliamentary process, to answer it. What I can say is that it was a matter for the FCA to determine how it responds to my recommendation, and my report specifically said that any such response should involve an assurance exercise to confirm that any of the steps, whether recommended by me or otherwise, to cure the defects in the regulation process have indeed achieved the desired objective.
I believe that implementation of my recommendations should be closely monitored, but I don’t really have a view as to whether that means the Secretary of State should be required to lay a report before Parliament, or, if they are, within what timescale. There may be other ways of monitoring progress in relation to the implementation of my recommendations, such as via the Treasury Committee or otherwise.
I think that is the best answer that I can give you.
Peter Grant
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: I would hope so, but I am not saying that in an informed way. Nevertheless, since the FCA has had my recommendations, as indeed has the Treasury, for some months how, I would hope that they are cracking ahead with implementing the recommendations right now. I suspect that the answer to your question is probably “Yes, it would be reasonable”.
Peter Grant
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Well, I am a lawyer, so I can define anything, I suspect—[Laughter.] At the time, mini-bonds were not defined and nobody really knew what was being referred to. But, yes, of course you can define a bond that has particular attributes and define it as a mini-bond. It is a slightly open-ended question, but I would have thought that the answer is yes, you can define a bond with particular attributes that might or might not attract protection.
I do not know whether either of my colleagues want to come in on that answer.
Peter Grant
I can see on the screens that they are shaking their heads, so we will take that as a “no”. For the record, I do not know whether the camera showed this, but one of the lawyers on the Committee was jumping for joy and waving his arms about when you announced, Dame Elizabeth, that a lawyer can define anything when asked to do so. You have one friend on the Committee.
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: I am not expecting people to agree with that comment; it was only a frivolous comment.
Peter Grant
Q
Andy Agathangelou: I certainly do agree. The reason I agree is because there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that there are many similar cases to LCF—Connaught, Lendy, FundingSecure, Blackmore Bond, Exmount, Bentley Global, Store First, Park First, Premier FX, Woodford.
We have to ask ourselves one fundamental question: do we want the public to have good reason to have trust and confidence in our financial ecosystem? If the answer is yes, it follows that we must also want the public to have confidence and trust in the financial regulatory framework that oversees it. Unless we get to that point, we cannot have what we want, which is a system that we can all rely on.
I would argue very strongly indeed that we must look at, for example, Blackmore Bond. The evidence is crystal clear that there has been catastrophic regulatory failure. We need to do what is uncomfortable and open up the can of worms that is there, and the can of worms that is within Premier FX. We need to have the courage to recognise that things have gone wrong. We do not need to make it in any way personal—this is a systemic issue. We will only start addressing these problems if we move away from short-term, tactical, reactive responses to long-term, strategic, proactive responses. I and the many members of our organisation would be very pleased if Parliament were to decide to properly investigate the many other catastrophic regulatory failures that have taken place.
The Chair
I ask witnesses to make sure that you are on mute if you are not speaking, and to keep answers short. Mr Grant, is this your final question?
Peter Grant
Q
Mark Bishop: Yes. I strongly endorse what my colleague Andy Agathangelou said and I would like to add a little more information.
As far as I am concerned, the debate is about what happens when the regulator fails in its statutory duty to protect consumers. There are a number of options. The consumers can bear the costs, and that is tough; the consumers can be compensated by the Treasury; or they can be compensated by the FCA.
At the moment, there is no effective route to be compensated by the FCA, because in the Financial Services Act 2012, Parliament—rightly or wrongly—gave the FCA broad exemption from civil liability. It is almost impossible to sue. There is a very narrow carve-out on breach of human rights and acting in bad faith. At some point, someone is going to try the human rights angle, but I do not think anyone has successfully done so yet, because the costs are high and the FCA effectively has unlimited resources.
Knowing that it gave that exemption, Parliament also created a complaints scheme. Unfortunately, it then allowed the FCA to specify the complaints scheme. As a result, the FCA has determined that it cannot give out material levels of redress and it cannot give out any redress where there is an allegation that the regulator has failed in its statutory duty—it has been negligent or it has just not done the job properly. In effect, there is no route for consumers to receive redress. There is a need to create one.
There are big ways of doing that, such as having a royal commission, as happened in Australia. There are also simple, pragmatic, quick ways of doing it. Modifying the Bill so that it could deal with other legacy cases of regulatory failure would be a very sensible way to do it.
Matt Rodda
Q
Philip Brown: Yes, of course. Fraud is a serious issue and people should have a route to redress, as has been said by other witnesses. The challenge is how you pay for that redress.
The current levy system was created a long time ago, before master trusts existed. The People’s Pension is a master trust and a not-for-profit organisation. If a levy is put upon us, it comes from our members’ savings—from the savers we are trying to help create pensions.
The challenge we have with the current system is that it works on a member basis. Between ourselves and NEST, as the two very large master trust schemes, we paid approximately 37% of the Fraud Compensation Fund levy the last time it was taken, in 2019. That is a significant amount of money. At the time, the levy raised £6.9 million.
If we are going to raise a levy using the same mechanism, the current estimate is £350 million. The proportion of that that falls on the two schemes that I referred to is very significant, and it needs to be put in the context that, between those two schemes, we have roughly 1% of the assets in the sector, so there is a very disproportionate effect of how the current levy system works. A fundamental review is necessary for how levies are calculated.
Matt Rodda
Q
Philip Brown: Yes, absolutely. Between ourselves, the People’s Pension and NEST, we are serving the small and medium-enterprise end of the market. Those savers are all relatively new to pensions, so they have modest funds, and it is a very disproportionate effect if you are taking roughly 37% of the fees from those organisations.
Matt Rodda
Q
I wonder whether I might ask Dame Elizabeth a short question as well. In your view, Dame Elizabeth, should there be a wider explanation of the rights of consumers in relation to the regulatory failure that we have heard about today?
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: I am not sure I understand the question. What do you mean by “a wider explanation”?
Matt Rodda
Exploration, sorry. Should there be a wider exploration of this issue?
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: I am not sure what you are suggesting. Do you mean the regulatory failures in connection with LCF or more widely?
Matt Rodda
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: I do not think that is something that I am qualified to comment on. I did my report. The problem about wider reviews is that they need to focus, as my report did, on a specific case and specific facts. The idea of a judicial commission looking at all the financially regulated firms that have gone bust in the last two years—I am not sure what it would achieve beyond the failings that I have identified in my report. It might identify other failings, or it might not, but I do not know that my answer is a very informed answer to that.
Matt Rodda
Q
Finally, I want to turn to Mr Agathangelou—I apologise if I have mispronounced your name. You talked about catastrophic failure across the system. I am particularly interested in the issue of pensions, and obviously we are talking about the wider financial services system. I wonder whether you might comment on the scale of the problems in the pensions sector on its own.
Andy Agathangelou: As it happens, most of my career has been connected to the pensions sector. To know that the issue is very widespread, you only have to look at the report produced by the Work and Pensions Committee as a consequence of the excellent investigation that it had into the pension schemes problem. There is a long list of recommendations in that report. Most, if not all of them, are very warmly supported by the Transparency Task Force.
Unfortunately, the trajectory is worsening. The problem we have is widespread regulatory failure leading to catastrophic losses for people—sometimes literally life-changing losses—and sometimes extreme emotional harm as well as financial considerations. The problem is getting worse. I genuinely believe that the only way we are going to have a chance to deal with these issues systemically is if there is a high-level, widespread investigation into what is going wrong. I believe that could be carried out it a very constructive way. It is not about apportioning blame; it is about having very honest conversations about what is actually broken here and the most pragmatic ways to solve it.
The Chair
I now call Mr Gareth Thomas. You will be pleased to know the witnesses are with us until 11.25 am, Mr Thomas.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: I do not think I am in a position to do that for this reason: I produced my report and recommendations. I presented to the new chief executive officer at the FCA, to some of his senior staff and to the non-executive directors. As you know, the FCA at all levels has accepted the recommendations in my report. It has said that it is addressing the problems but my team and I have not been tasked—I say that thankfully, I think—to go in and conduct a subsequent audit of whether our recommendations have, indeed, been implemented, so that what we identified as systemic failures have been addressed. As I already said in a previous answer and I said in my report, I believe that the implementation of the recommendations should be closely monitored and should be audited to ensure that things have changed. However, I am not in a position to know that.
Dorothy Cory-Wright: May I add one point on that? I want to point out that Dame Elizabeth’s work concluded in the time period January 2019 and we were also told subsequently by the FCA, which we have not verified independently, that work had been going on during the period prior to our recommendations being made. It may be that that has been the subject of internal audit, but we just do not know about that.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: We certainly had a meeting, as I said a moment ago, with the new CEO. As I said in my report, the FCA’s response should involve an assurance exercise to confirm that any steps taken have achieved the desired objective. Indeed, it is important and was a significant feature of my report that there should be some sort of audit process that would be made publicly available.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Andy Agathangelou: I do not think we need to talk hypothetically about whether there is a chance that a case like LCF could happen again. We believe cases—plural—like LCF are happening right now and we have evidence to support that claim. I will pass over to Mark for any further comments that he would like to make, but I will commit to providing all the Committee members with evidence relating to a range of issues that I believe will lead to the conclusion that this is a very serious problem that has not yet gone away. It is happening now.
Mark Bishop: I agree with that. I would just like to give you a few examples of what I mean. I would like to pick up on something that Dame Elizabeth said, because I strongly agree with it, which is that the single biggest problem that the FCA has is cultural. The problem with cultural change is, first, it takes a while to fix, even if you are trying to fix it. Secondly, the closer you are to it, the harder it is to spot the problems, let alone know how to fix them.
One of the first things that Nikhil Rathi did in response to the two independent reviews published in December was to announce the appointment of an executive director for transformation. This is a new role that has never existed before. He did not advertise the job externally. He gave it to Megan Butler, and Megan Butler is a name that is mentioned in Dame Elizabeth’s report as one of the people who held a position of responsibility in relation to LCF. She does not apportion blame specifically, but she does apportion responsibility. I believe that had Raj Parker not succumbed to FCA lobbying to also redact the names of executives, her name would have appeared in that document as well. She may be a highly intelligent individual and acting in good faith, but she was literally a founder employee of the Financial Services Authority in 2000, and I would question whether a fresh pair of eyes and a fresh mind might be better suited to the job of transforming the organisation.
To use the hypothetical example of whether something similar might happen again, Dame Elizabeth helpfully pointed out in her report that, prior to the summer of 2016, LCF did not have authorised status from the FCA, and therefore it had to get its promotions approved by a third party that was on the register. This was a firm called Sentient Capital London Ltd. The first complaint or notification into the FCA that there were concerns about whether those promotions were accurate happened in January 2016, five and a half years ago. I looked on the FCA register just last Friday when I knew I was coming to this session to see whether there was any investigation under way against that firm or its directors, or whether it had a limitation attached to its registration that meant that it could not approve promotions for third parties, and I found that none of those things has happened.
So not only could another LCF happen, but it could happen using one of the same firms today, five and a half years on, and that seems to me an example of the complacency of the FCA that is, in the view of most campaigners, culturally where the problem is. Also, Gareth Thomas talked very early on in this evidence session about the voice of the consumer and to what degree are consumers’ voices being heard in the FCA. I think a genuine transformation of the FCA would have consumer voices, including campaigners, very much at the heart of it, and I do not think that that is happening.
Gareth Thomas
Q
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Between the FCA and bondholders and LCF? You mean after the company became insolvent or—
Gareth Thomas
And before, because there was a pattern of customers trying to get in touch with the FCA to complain about LCF’s products. I am interested to know whether there was ever any attempt to meet that group of customers by relatively senior people within the FCA.
Dame Elizabeth Gloster: Let me answer that in this way. First, it is clear, as my report sets out, that a lot of complaints were made or questions raised by consumers and bondholders, or prospective bondholders, and they were not dealt with adequately. There is a full chapter dealing with that. One of the criticisms that I made was that the communication or the recording of complaints was not adequate. I will ask John Bedford to come in here, but I do not think that there was, before the company went into administration—or was shut down, effectively, by the FCA—any meeting with groups of bondholders. John, can you help me on that?
John Bedford: Of course, Dame Elizabeth. As far as we are aware in relation to the intervention in 2019, there were no meetings between bondholders, or groups of bondholders, and the FCA.
Gareth Thomas
Sure. The biggest issue for the FCA in terms of particular cases at the moment and consumers is, as I understand it, the potential demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria. I wonder whether any of the witnesses find it extraordinary that no policy paper has been published by the FCA on the handling of demutualisations.
The Chair
Mr Thomas, I am afraid your current question is not within the scope of the Bill, so unless you have another question to ask, I will move to another Member.
The Chair
Okay, that brings us to the end of this session. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. Because we have closed a little sooner than expected, I will invite the Government Whip to propose the Adjournment. Please will Committee members leave the room promptly by the door marked “Exit”, while observing social distancing? The Committee will meet again today at 2 pm in Committee Room 10 to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Alan Mak.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Sir Charles Walker
† Anderson, Lee (Ashfield) (Con)
† Atkins, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
† Baillie, Siobhan (Stroud) (Con)
† Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)
† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
† Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
† Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab)
Dorans, Allan (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Eagle, Maria (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)
† Jones, Sarah (Croydon Central) (Lab)
† Levy, Ian (Blyth Valley) (Con)
† Philp, Chris (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
† Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)
Wheeler, Mrs Heather (South Derbyshire) (Con)
† Williams, Hywel (Arfon) (PC)
Huw Yardley, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 15 June 2021
(Afternoon)
[Sir Charles Walker in the Chair]
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Clause 124
Supervision by responsible officer
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 125 to 127 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 128 stand part.
That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 129 stand part.
That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Before we adjourned, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North, gave a lengthy speech, which we were all grateful to hear. We paused to allow the Minister to prepare himself. I believe he is now prepared, so I call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Thank you, Sir Charles. I trust everyone has had a refreshing and congenial break for lunch. Prior to the break, the shadow Minister raised a number of questions relating to clauses 124 to 128 and to schedules 12 to 14. I will endeavour to answer as many of those questions as I can. He asked what procedure offenders could use to challenge orders made under clauses 124 and 125, particularly to ensure that they were not unduly penalised if they then breached the conditions that had been imposed. If a breach does occur and some serious consequence follows, it is always open to the offender to make a representation when attending their hearing at court to either make the case that the breach was technical or minor in nature, or that the condition itself was not varied in a reasonable way. A significant penalty can never be imposed without the intervention of the court.
Questions were asked about circumstances beyond the control of the offender. We heard about the possibility of a device malfunctioning and about particular circumstances relating to disability that might disadvantage certain people. We envisage the power laid out in section 124 being used only in rare circumstances, certainly not routinely.
I confirm that it is the intention to provide clear advice to probation staff, setting out the rare circumstances in which additional supervision may be warranted, to ensure, for example, that disabled offenders are not unfairly or unduly disadvantaged, and to avoid the purpose of these supervision appointments going beyond the very specific purposes that the order has been imposed by the sentencing court.
The same applies to people with learning difficulties. Courts sentence on a case-by-case basis and, where electronic monitoring has been imposed as one element of that sentence, the officer supervising the offender is already able to review notifications of apparent violations and take a reasonable view, on a case-by-case basis. If someone has been genuinely unable to understand how to operate the equipment or had a genuine technical problem, we would expect probation officers to exercise reasonable discretion.
As I said at the very beginning, if a breach did follow and the court was invited to impose some penalty, it would be open to the offender to make a representation at that point to explain the mitigating circumstances. My expectation is that it would never get that far, because I would expect the supervising officer to be reasonable in the meantime.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I recognise what the Minister is saying. I raised the point that people should be able to make representations after their hearings, but some of the people we are talking about have particular challenges in life and special needs. How will the Minister ensure that their problem—their malfunctioning equipment or otherwise—is properly communicated to a court to ensure that they are not penalised?
Chris Philp
Clearly, in the first instance we would expect the responsible officer to exercise these powers in a reasonable way and to exercise discretion. Hopefully, as I said a few minutes ago, these cases would not get as far as court because the probation officer would act in a reasonable and proportionate way in the first place. The guidance will reflect that. If someone does get to court, there is the possibility of their being represented in proceedings. However, I also would expect the judge to ask a reasonable question of the person appearing before the court, such as whether there were any mitigating circumstances or technical problems or whether they had failed to understand how to operate the equipment. If there is a vulnerability, the pre-sentence report written prior to the original sentencing would be expected to pick up those issues.
The shadow Minister asked whether the powers in clause 126 were too wide and gave the responsible officer excessive latitude and leeway to vary curfew requirements that a court had previously imposed—to dispense summary justice without proper reference to the courts. To be clear, clause 126 is very limited in the powers that it provides probation officers, and they will be able to amend the requirement in only two limited ways, and only if those changes do not undermine the weight or purpose of the requirement imposed by the court. The power in clause 126 is restricted to two areas: a shift in the start and/or end times of the curfew periods—but no change to the total number of hours imposed—and a change to the offender’s curfew address, where the address was not part of the order in the first place. So they are very limited powers to vary, which I hope provides the reassurance asked for.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who unfortunately is not in her place, referred to the problem-solving courts in Liverpool. I understand that the results from that have been a little mixed, but we are committed on both sides of the House to the principle of problem-solving courts, and I noted the shadow Minister’s recitation of the history of these going back as far as 1999. Both sides recognise the important role that problem-solving courts can play. Other jurisdictions have used them, with the United States being an obvious example. We are starting on a pilot basis rather than a big-bang roll-out because the details of how the model operates is important. The details make a big difference, and the design of the way it works—when the reviews takes place, what they are reviewing and what actions are taken—make a difference to whether the thing is successful or not.
While across the House we are committed to the principle of problem-solving courts to tackle the underlying causes of offending, we have to make sure that they work in practice and the details are right before rolling them out. To answer another of the shadow Minister’s questions, I am sure we will be coming back to Parliament and reporting on the progress of these problem-solving courts. My hope is that we find a way quickly to make these work in practice and can then roll them out. I am committed to community sentence treatment requirements, which are a form of disposal that provides for mental health, alcohol and drug addiction treatment. Quite a lot of money has gone into that recently—£80 million for drug addiction earlier this year. Problem-solving courts are a critical way of supporting the delivery of treatment under community sentence treatment requirements. It is something I want to push, and I am glad that there is agreement across the House on that.
The final question that the shadow Minister asked was whether a guilty plea was needed to qualify for an appearance before a problem-solving court. Problem-solving courts do not require a guilty plea, and this Bill does not stipulate that as a prerequisite, but a willingness to engage with the court and comply with the community interventions will be an important factor. The problem-solving courts working group in 2016 considered making a guilty plea a key factor in creating the engagement necessary, but it recognised the number of complexities across the cohorts targeted, and did not think it was necessarily required. People who plead not guilty, and are then convicted, would be eligible for the problem-solving court, and I hope they can be helped as much as anyone else. On that basis, I commend these provisions to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 125 to 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 130
Duty to consult on unpaid work requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
I will follow your direction, Sir Charles, by saying just a few words on this clause, which is relatively straightforward and, I think, pretty inoffensive.
Clause 130 simply creates a requirement for probation officials to consult key local and regional stakeholders on the delivery of unpaid work. Unpaid work—or community payback, as it is sometimes known—combines the sentencing purposes of punishment with reparation to communities. We believe that, where possible, unpaid work requirements should benefit the local communities in which they are carried out. Nominated local projects are already popular with sentencers and the public, but there is currently no requirement for probation officials to consult stakeholders on the design or delivery of unpaid work, so members of communities and organisations within particular local areas that are best placed to understand the impact of crime and what might be useful in the local area do not necessarily have their say.
Clause 130 simply seeks to address the gap by ensuring that key local stakeholders are consulted, so that they can suggest to the probation service what kind of unpaid work might be useful in their local area. We hope that local community groups and stakeholders come up with some good ideas that the probation service can then respond to. That seems to be a pretty sensible idea. The probation service in some areas may do it already. This clause simply creates a proper duty, or a requirement, for the probation service to do it. Of course, if we understand the needs of local communities and their thoughts, we can improve the way unpaid work placements operate to support rehabilitation and also help the local community. If the local community can visibly see offenders doing unpaid work in their local area, whether it is cleaning off graffiti, cleaning the place up or whatever else it may be, that will, we hope, demonstrate that the programme is giving back to and improving the local community, but delivering a punitive element as well.
Chris Philp
I was about to conclude, but of course I will take the intervention.
Sarah Champion
When I used to run a children’s hospice, we had offenders under probation supervision come in. They were meant to be doing gardening at the children’s hospice, but instead they sat around smoking cigarettes. We kept on raising that with the probation worker, because we had invited the offenders there to give them a second chance, to help with their rehabilitation, to enable them to contribute to the community and so on. But the probation officer said, “What do you want me to do? I can’t beat them; I can’t make them work, but they have to come on these schemes.” Could the Minister give some examples of how the probation service will have the resources and the influence to ensure that people who are out in their local community are actually—
The Chair
Order. This is meant to be an intervention, not a speech. The hon. Lady is entitled to make a speech and could have made a speech, but can we treat this as an intervention?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. First, I am extremely disappointed and somewhat shocked to hear that people who were supposed to be doing work at a hospice in Rotherham in fact sat around smoking cigarettes. That is obviously shocking and not what the orders are supposed to be about. The hon. Lady says that the probation officer shrugged their shoulders and said, “Well, what can I do about it?” Of course, if the person, the offender, was not doing the work that they were supposed to be doing, that would amount to a breach of the unpaid work requirement, and they could be taken back to court to account for their breach, so I am extremely disappointed by the attitude of the probation officer that the hon. Lady just described.
The hon. Lady asked about resources. Extra resources are going into the probation service for it to supervise exactly these kinds of activities, and I would expect them to be supervised and policed properly. I will certainly pass on her concern to the relevant Minister. I have already made contact about fixing a meeting for the hon. Lady and the Prisons Minister that we talked about in this morning’s session, in relation to victims being consulted about probable decisions. The same Minister, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, is responsible for the probation service as well—I am just adding to his workload. I will raise it with him, but I would certainly urge the hon. Member for Rotherham to raise this issue in the same meeting, because I know that the account she just gave will concern my hon. Friend as much as it concerns me.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham in that there is a variation in the enthusiasm that some of those who conduct this work display, on both sides. I was told, for example, that a lad who came from a farming family had thrown his back into it very strongly and was encouraging others to join him. I would add that we do consult with the local community, and many of the jobs that are done in my constituency are at the behest of either a local authority or other local groups.
Chris Philp
Wonderful. We would like to see the kind of consultation that already takes place in Scarborough and Whitby take place across the country as a whole, and that is precisely the intention behind clause 130. Where Scarborough has led, the rest of the nation, thanks to this clause, will follow.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131
Youth Remand
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 128, in clause 131, page 122, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after subsection (5) insert—
(5A) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) “recent” is defined as having occurred in the previous six weeks.””
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 129, in clause 131, page 122, line 16, at end insert—
“(ca) in subsection (7)(b) insert “serious” before “imprisonable offences”;”
Amendment 130, in clause 131, page 123, line 3, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (4)(b) insert—
“(c) state in open court the age, gender and ethnicity of the child.””
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased to speak to amendments 128, 129 and 130 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and myself. However, before I do that, if the Minister could give me a list of where he has influence, perhaps he could fix a few meetings with Ministers for me as well.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the Minister very much for that—it will, of course, be on the record, which I am very pleased to note. Before I get into my speech, I would like to thank Transform Justice and the Alliance for Youth Justice for the extremely helpful work they have done on this part of the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the former shadow Justice Minister, who worked extremely hard on these particular issues. I am grateful to him.
Clause 131 amends the legislative threshold for remanding a child to custody. It will mean that remand to youth detention accommodation can be imposed only in the most serious cases, where a custodial sentence is the only option and the risk posed by the child cannot be safely managed within the community. It will introduce a statutory duty which states that courts must consider the interests and welfare of the child before deciding whether to remand them to youth detention. It also imposes a statutory requirement for the courts to record the reasons for the decision.
First, let me say that we are pleased with the direction of travel that this clause indicates, and we are keen for the Government’s work in this area to succeed. We are in complete agreement with the Government that custodial remand should be used only as a last resort for children. However, we do think that there is scope for these proposals to go further in tightening the threshold for remanding a child into custody. I will speak more on that when we discuss our amendments.
The current youth remand provisions were introduced in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and I well remember the Public Bill Committee, where I had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sadiq Khan, now our excellent Mayor of London, and also my good friend. By 2019, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse noted a significant increase in the use of custodial remand for children. The Opposition warmly welcomes measures which aim to reduce the number of children remanded into custody, especially in light of the fact that in 2018/19 only a third of children remanded to custody or local authority accommodation later received a custodial sentence.
Our concerns about the use of custodial remands for children are compounded by the extreme racial disproportionality on remand, and the record proportion of children in custody who have not yet been tried in court.
Against the backdrop of the record court backlog and the waiting times for trial, there could not be a more opportune moment to address these issues. We particularly welcome the introduction of the statutory duty to consider the welfare and best interests of the child. We believe that, while these proposals can go further—I know that the Minister will listen carefully to our proposals shortly—these changes will help to reduce the number of children who are unnecessarily remanded to custody, so we are pleased to support them.
However, there are a couple of points on which I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts. Has he any further information to share with the Committee on his Department’s considerations of the impact that police remand has on custodial remand? Are there any plans to address that? Research by Transform Justice shows that police remand, where the child is detained by the police until court either in a police cell or in a local authority PACE bed—under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—is a driver of custodial remand. Transform Justice explains that point:
“This is because any child remanded by the police has to be presented in court within 24 hours, meaning Youth Offending Team staff often don’t have enough time to develop a bail package that will satisfy the court. Children who appear from police custody also usually appear in the secure dock, which can bias courts to view the child as more ‘dangerous’ and therefore more suitable for custodial remand.”
The criteria for police remand are spelled out in section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and are very different from those used by the court for remand. In fact, the criteria for police remand of children are almost identical to those for adults, unlike the child-first approach taken in so many other areas of the justice system.
We know that the police remand more children than the courts. Of the 4,500 children who appeared in court from police custody in 2019, only 12% went on to be remanded by the court. Some 31% of those remanded by the police went on to be discharged, dismissed or have their case withdrawn, while 37% went on to get a fine or community sentence. The figures illustrate that police use of remand is seriously out of synch with the courts already. This clause may further widen that gap.
Is the Minister not concerned that the police may continue to overuse post-charge detention, undermining the positive efforts of the clause to reduce unnecessary custodial remand for children? Will the Government consider updating the police remand criteria, so they are in line with the new court remand criteria, to ensure consistent decision making across the whole criminal justice system?
I am greatly supportive of the provision in the clause that requires courts to record their reasons for remanding a child, not least because it will provide valuable data on the use of remand, which will enable us to continue to make improvements in this area. For that to be most effective in informing future policy decisions, we would need to have some sort of centralised monitoring system. Will we have such a system? It would mean that the need to record reasons would not only focus the mind of the court in a specific case; it would also benefit the system as a whole, as each case can inform our ongoing learning process about the use of remand and its effectiveness. Has the Minister considered the possibility of such a centralised monitoring system?
It has been suggested that the obligation on the court to record reasons would be most effective if courts had to specify why non-custodial alternatives were deemed unsuitable and how each of the custodial remand conditions has been met. Is that the kind of detail that the Minister envisages the obligation should entail? I am sure we all agree that it would be helpful for that level of information to be provided, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.
Turning to the amendments, as I said earlier, the reforms to the threshold for remanding a child in custody are welcome, but there are a couple of areas where we believe they should go further. The Opposition amendments, if adopted, would get us closer to the goal of custodial remand being used only as a truly last resort.
Amendment 128 seeks to tighten the history test by defining a recent history of breaching bail or offending while on bail as having been committed within the last six weeks. The clause currently makes provision to amend the history condition so that the previous instances of breach or offending while on bail must be “significant”, “relevant” and “recent”. In order to reduce the number of children held unnecessarily on remand, it would be helpful to amend the clause so that there is a clear definition of “recent”.
In defining recent, we have to be mindful of what that means to a child. As the Alliance for Youth Justice notes:
“If we are to take a child-centred approach, we must consider how children experience time, and recognise the well-established principle that children change and develop in a shorter time than adults.”
The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales has recommended that “recent” be no longer than within a six-week period. I hope that the Minister will agree that clarity on that point would be of great assistance to the courts. I would be interested to hear from him what discussions his Ministry of Justice colleagues have had regarding defining a time limit for this condition.
Amendment 129 is a straightforward amendment to the necessity condition that would again help achieve the aim of using custodial remand for children only as a last resort. Although we welcome the strengthened wording of the necessity condition included in the Bill, which would require remand to be used only when the risk posed by a child cannot be safely managed in the community, we share the concerns of the sector that the benefits arising from this change may be undermined by its drafting. The amendment would therefore tighten and strengthen the wording. Transform Justice says that these benefits of the current proposed change to the necessity condition
“will be undermined by the loose wording of one of the other necessity conditions: that remand to YDA is necessary to prevent further imprisonable offences. This condition is highly subjective and casts a wide net, which may be widened further by youth sentencing provisions elsewhere in the bill.”
We share the concern expressed by the Alliance for Youth Justice that
“the latter part of the condition (to prevent the commission of an imprisonable offence) sets such a low threshold for meeting the Condition as to render the first threshold (to protect the public from death or serious personal injury) somewhat redundant.”
The amendment would tighten the latter part of the condition by ensuring that it applies only to serious imprisonable offences, which we think better reflects the intention of the clause.
Finally, amendment 130 would compel the court to record the age, gender and ethnicity of a child remanded in custody in order to provide better data on remand, particularly on disproportionality. We believe that this could be a helpful tool in addressing the deeply concerning and increasing levels of disproportionality at this point in our justice system. The numbers beggar belief. Nine out of 10 London children who are remanded are from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. A deeply comprehensive report that was published by the Youth Justice Board in January shows that race alone is a factor in remand outcomes for children. The researchers gathered data on thousands of English and Welsh cases, and information provided in practitioner assessments. Even when other related factors were controlled for mixed ethnicity black children, they were, as the Youth Justice Board notes,
“still more likely to be remanded in custody and, if not remanded, more likely to be subject to restrictions on bail.”
This is a serious injustice in our system that needs to be urgently addressed. More needs to be done than this amendment makes provision for, but it would be a helpful tool in breaking down the disproportionate outcomes that we are seeing. The amendment would at the very least provide accurate data to help understand this disparity, in line with the “explain or reform” principle outlined in the Lammy review, which I think is an eminently sensible step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister agrees and look forward to hearing his thoughts. I would also be grateful if he could share with the Committee any other initiatives his Department is working on to address this flagrant disproportionality in youth remand.
Sarah Champion
I fully support the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North on the amendments. I have a fundamental concern about remanding children. It impacts on them disproportionately in terms of their future outlook, opportunities and potential. We see within the remand youth justice system some of the highest levels of disproportionality in the criminal justice system. Although Labour Members welcome the measures in the Bill to tighten the tests that the courts must satisfy to decide whether to remand a child in custody, we still have concerns about this section of the Bill.
We agree with the policy to encourage the courts to impose a custodial remand only when absolutely necessary while ensuring the public remain safe, but as my hon. Friend stated, there are real concerns about the overrepresentation of black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who make up only 12% of the UK population but half the youth prison population. I would be much more comfortable if we were using the Bill to look at the reasons for that disproportionate make-up, rather than at further punitive measures. We have to take steps to ensure that all people, particularly all children, can reach their potential. I am very mindful of the fact that the literacy rate of the prison population is so much lower than that of the rest of the population. Why are we not investing more to address those underlying issues?
I am frustrated that the Government agreed to my amendment to a previous Bill to introduce relationship and sex education that should have become mandatory in September 2020 but it has not yet been enacted, while we see ever younger children engaged in completely inappropriate actions of a sexual nature. There are preventive measures that we could put in place but we must also consider, and address accordingly, what it is that some children that I am thinking about, such as children in gangs, are being subjected to that makes them feel that they need to go along with the norm of the gang rather than the norm of society. I am not talking about giving any group special treatment; I am talking about taking steps to fix the justice system so that it operates in a fair and proportionate way for everybody.
We have to be aware that, under successive Tory Governments, youth services budgets have been cut by 73%, which is nearly a £1 billion since 2010, and we have to consider the impact that is having, particularly in my area of Rotherham, where the early interventions that could put children on the right path to a successful future are just not there any more. Now, rather than preventing the crime, we are looking at heavy-handed ways to punish it. I urge the Minister to speak to us and consider what his Government are doing to address those early intervention gaps to make sure that the measures in this legislation apply only in exceptional circumstances.
Chris Philp
As the shadow Minister said, clause 131 aims to ensure that children are remanded into youth detention accommodation only where absolutely necessary and as a last resort. As the hon. Member for Rotherham and the shadow Minister said, that is something that we can all agree on. We do not want to remand children into custody prior to conviction unless it is absolutely necessary.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said that prevention was important, and of course we agree, although it is outside the scope of these clauses. Money is being invested, significantly, in serious violence reduction units that aim to prevent, but also to divert young people who might otherwise get into serious crime on to a better path.
We are mindful that over a third of children in custody are on remand and that, of those, only around a third go on to receive a custodial sentence. While custodial remand is perfectly justified in some cases, the threshold for confining an unconvicted child to a secure environment must, rightly, be set very high indeed. It sounds like we broadly agree on these principles, and that is why we are amending the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which sets out the test that the courts must satisfy when deciding whether to remand a child into custody. I think everyone agrees with the aim of the clause, which is to make sure that remand custody for a child is an absolute last resort. The shadow Minister welcomed this direction of travel and the steps that are being taken.
The clause introduces a statutory duty for the court to consider the welfare and best interests of the child when making remand decisions and a statutory requirement for the court to record its reasons for imposing custodial remand to ensure that the welfare of the child is at the forefront of the court’s mind and promote a child-first approach to decision making. We are also strengthening the sentencing condition to ensure that the mere possibility of a custodial sentence would not on its own necessarily warrant custodial remand. Similarly, a relatively minor or fairly recent breach should not, on its own, justify remand. We are reinforcing the history condition so that only a recent, significant and relevant history of breaching while on bail should be taken into account to justify custodial remand. The current tests already require the court to satisfy itself that a child can be remanded to custody only where it is necessary to protect the public from death or serious harm. We are reinforcing that necessity condition by making it clear that it means when the risk posed by the child cannot be managed safely in the community. These measures, taken together, significantly elevate and strengthen the test for child remand to custody.
Alex Cunningham
Will the Minister confirm whether there is likely to be some form of time limit relating to the recent history of the child?
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister leads me to his amendment 128, to which I was going to speak in a moment, but I shall address it now as he has raised it. There will not be a hard or specific time limit in the way that his amendment specifies six weeks. We think that a hard-edged limit of six weeks specified so precisely would unduly fetter judicial discretion. The judge should be able to make a judgment in the round, taking into account all the considerations. A hard cut-off of six weeks is too binary. It is made clear that the judge needs only to look at circumstances where there is a history of breach or offending while on bail that is recent, significant and relevant. That is quite a high test, but we do not propose to go as far as amendment 128 does in specifying six weeks. We do not support the amendment for that reason, although, in spirit, our clause as drafted is pushing in a very similar direction. We just think that six weeks is too precise and that the judge should have some residual discretion.
Before moving to amendments 129 and 130, I would like to touch on a question that the shadow Minister raised about whether police remand almost inevitably and inappropriately leads to custodial remand. He said that could be because there is not enough time to consider bail arrangements and that it could create a sense of bias because, if the judge sees the person in the dock, it may lead them to believe that they are a more serious offender. I do not accept either argument. The statistics that he himself gave a minute or two later support that. He said that only 12% of children going into police remand end up in custodial remand. That demonstrates that 88% of children on police remand do not go into custodial remand, which suggests that there is not a strong linkage in the way that he feared there might be.
Alex Cunningham
We need some clarity around the 12% and the 88%. My point is that the police are remanding into custody a very high proportion of children who do not then go on to receive a custodial sentence. That is the problem, not the other way round.
Chris Philp
I think that the shadow Minister also pointed out to the Committee that there is a 24-hour time limit on police remand for children, so it is an extremely short period of time. For that very short window before the court appearance, it ensures that the police do not lose control of the person in their care. Clearly, if that was going on for days or weeks, it would be a matter of concern, but it is a very short time window, as he said.
The shadow Minister’s amendment 129, on the necessity condition, proposes the insertion of the single word “serious”. I contend that any imprisonable offence is in itself serious but, more broadly, we are again relying on judicial discretion. We do not want to unduly fetter the judge’s discretion. The provisions in clause 131 as drafted will send a fairly clear signal to the judiciary that this is something that should be taken very seriously in making these decisions and that Parliament does not want children remanded to custody lightly or inappropriately. The clause as drafted makes that pretty clear. It also makes it clear that not only do the conditions that we have talked about have to be met but, in the opinion of the court, the risk posed cannot be managed safely in the community. Clause 131 as drafted sends a very clear message that custodial remand should indeed be a last resort.
Amendment 130, proposed by the shadow Minister, would require the court to state in open court the age, sex and ethnicity of a child remanded to custody. In all honesty, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the data is already collected and published, so the information is there already. The important point about the new record being created is that the reasons for custodial remand have to be spelt out expressly to ensure that the court is properly considering those things. We can then be absolutely assured that the court has to consider those matters and record them so that they are there to look at subsequently and be reviewed, not forgotten in the rush of a court appearance. The substance is captured already by the requirements in clause 131. It seems that both sides of the Committee broadly agree on this, so I do not think that amendments 128 to 130 are particularly necessary, although I do understand the spirit in which they are moved.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am prepared to withdraw amendment 128, given his explanation, but I ask that he look seriously at time limits, whether in some form of guidance from the Department or otherwise.
On police remand, I am still very concerned that the police are far, far more likely to remand a child in custody than a court is. I ask that the Minister think again and review the advice given to police officers to try to reduce the number of children who are automatically remanded to custody. I am content with the Minister’s explanation on amendment 129 and I will not press it.
When it comes to data, as the Minister will know because I assume that he signs them all off, I get lots of answers to written parliamentary questions saying that the information cannot be provided because it is not available or it can be provided only at disproportionate cost. If we do not gather the data, I will get more of those answers from the Minister, so I intend to press amendment 130. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 130, in clause 131, page 123, line 3, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (4)(b) insert—
“(c) state in open court the age, gender and ethnicity of the child.””––[Alex Cunningham.]
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I have a suspicion, but I could be wrong, that we had quite a broad canter round the principles of clause 131. Does anybody want to debate it again, or are we happy to dispose of it? Excellent.
Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132
Discretion as to Length of Term
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 133 stand part.
Clause 134 stand part.
That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.
Chris Philp
We want a youth justice system that recognises the unique needs of children, tackles the underlying reasons why children offend and intervenes early to provide support and divert them where possible. There is a distinct and separate sentencing framework for children aged 10 to 17, which recognises that children have their own specific needs that require a different and tailored approach.
The clauses and schedule amend existing legislation to enable us to make the necessary changes to the most common youth custodial sentence, the detention and training order, or DTO. The changes are to make the DTO more flexible, fairer and more in line with other youth custodial sentences.
In that spirit, clause 132 amends the sentencing code to remove the fixed lengths of the DTO, meaning that any length of DTO between four months and 12 months can be given. The court can pass the right sentence instead of being constrained to give only sentences of DTOs of four, six, eight, 10, 12, 18 or 24 months. Removing those very fixed lengths does not change the maximum or minimum sentence but just means that any length of sentence can be given between the limits of four and 24 months. Removing the fixed lengths also means that the reductions made for time spent on remand that we have just been talking about, or bail, which is subject to a qualifying curfew condition and an electronic monitoring condition, and for a guilty plea, will be more accurate. At the moment, there is not always a DTO length that directly fits once remand, bail or guilty pleas have been considered, and the court must instead refer the sentence to one of the fixed lengths of four, six, eight, 10, 12, 18 or 24 months. With the proposed changes, the court may go between those sentence lengths, if it needs to, to fit in with the reductions for time spent on remand and so on. It is a fairly straightforward change, which makes a great deal of sense.
Clause 133 amends the sentencing code and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to fix a current inconsistency in relation to early release. That inconsistency means that different lengths of early release are available for offenders sentenced consecutively to a DTO and another sentence, depending on the order in which they receive those sentences. The change means that where an offender is serving a DTO and another sentence consecutively, the offender may benefit from the same amount of early release, regardless of the order in which sentences are given. I think that is a fairly innocuous and sensible technical change to the 2003 Act.
Clause 134 introduces schedule 15, and that schedule amends the 2003 Act and the sentencing code, so that time spent on remand and bail, where that bail is subject to a qualifying curfew condition and an electronic monitoring condition—a tag—is counted as time served and credited accurately against the custodial part of the DTO. That is a change to the current approach, where time on remand or bail is taken into account when determining the length of the DTO, rather than being credited as time served. The schedule also makes further amendments where an offender is given two or more sentences, of which one is a DTO. Those sentences are treated as being a single term for the purposes of crediting the days spent on remand or bail. The schedule also makes changes to the Armed Forces Act 2006 to make sure that there is consistency.
Those are relatively technical and, I hope, relatively straightforward changes.
Alex Cunningham
We all recognise that DTOs are the most common custodial sentence for children. Between 2010 and 2019, 20,000 offenders under the age of 18 were sentenced to a DTO. It is important that we get this right. We are tentatively supportive of the proposals in the clauses, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, which will I hope will be able to allay some of our concerns.
As the Minister has outlined, DTOs currently have to be of a fixed length. I have some sympathy with the Government’s view that having such fixed periods restricts the courts in deciding the most appropriate length of sentences. Clause 132 will address that by removing the fixed length and providing that a DTO must be for at least four months and no longer than 24 months. We agree with the Government that is important that the minimum period for a DTO is retained to ensure that extremely short, unhelpful and, indeed, counterproductive custodial terms are not given out.
I do wonder, however, whether four months is still too short, and I question the real benefits of such a short sentence. Clause 133 provides that where an offender is given two or more sentences, one of which is a DTO, those sentences are to be treated as a single term for the purposes of crediting days spent in custody, or in qualifying for bail. The explanatory notes state that this clause is intended to
“fix an existing discrepancy in relation to early release which meant that different lengths of early release were available for offenders sentenced to a DTO and another sentence consecutively, depending on the order in which they received those sentences.”
The clause aims to ensure that
“where an offender is serving a DTO and another sentence consecutively, the offender is able to benefit from the same amount of early release regardless of the order in which the sentences are given.”
Clause 134 and schedule 15 provide that time spent on remand or bail subject to a qualifying curfew condition and an electronic monitoring condition is counted as time served and credited against the custodial part of the DTO.
Taken together, the clauses increase the flexibility in the system for sentencers and should mean that the sentence length can accurately account for remand episodes already served, electronically monitored bail or a guilty plea, rather than nearest permissible length based on the fixed tariffs that currently exist.
I note that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales broadly welcomes these proposals as well. It notes that the changes may help to solve the issue whereby the fixed lengths of the DTO sentences held the potential to create a barrier to resettlement—for example, where a fixed sentence length would mean that a child would be released just after September and therefore miss out on the intake of a new school or college year. In this instance, the fixed terms would push children out of education for longer than necessary. The more flexible approach proposed here by the Government can help to address such issues.
On the face of it, these reforms seem sensible, and like something we would support. However, the impact assessment contains some concerning projections, on which I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts. The impact assessment notes an unfortunate adverse impact of removing the fixed-term nature of DTOs, in that individuals who receive early guilty plea discounts under the current system may receive longer sentences than they currently do. While there will be no additional children sentenced to DTOs under this option, the Youth Justice Board has said that it anticipates that the increase in average sentence length may lead to a steady-state increase in the youth custody population of around 30 to 50 places, costing around £5.3 million to £8.5 million per year. It has said that there would also be an equivalent uplift in the number of children supervised in the community at any one time at a cost of around £0.4 million to £0.6 million a year.
The Government’s impact assessment predicts that the proposals will increase the steady-state number of children in custody by up to 50 children by 2023-24, costing the youth custody service between £38.6 million and £61.4 million. That is of very serious concern to the Opposition. We share the Government’s stated vision of reducing the number of children in custody, and there has been great progress in that area over the past decade. The number of children in custody has decreased by about 75%, for which the Government ought to be applauded. It would be a terrible shame if we were to roll back any of the progress that has been made in this area, especially as I know how proud the Justice Secretary is of the work that has been done.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how these proposals can be introduced without increasing the number of children in custody. Let us remember that it is the Youth Justice Board that is saying this will happen. Does the Department intend to introduce any safeguards in this area? The Opposition would like safeguards to be put in place to help to avoid the possibility of children spending longer than necessary in custody, which could also mean an increase in the number of children in a secure establishment at any one time.
I would also welcome a reassurance from the Minister on a further point raised by the Youth Justice Board in its briefing. It notes that the impact assessment states:
“Time spent on remand will be taken away from time to serve in custody as opposed to from the overall sentence length. There will be some individuals that spend longer on supervision in the community under this option, which would incur additional YOT costs. It has not proved possible to quantify these additional costs.”
We recognise that it might be beneficial for children to spend longer with the support of the youth offending team as opposed to being in custody, but there is of course an attendant impact on youth offending team budgets, which are already stretched. The Youth Justice Board says:
“Some children may spend longer on the community part of the order which gives youth offending teams more time to work with them but there is no evidence to support this as a benefit.”
The Youth Justice Board also notes that a cost-benefit analysis of these proposals, in terms of the additional spend for youth offending teams, would be helpful. Will the Minister provide such a cost-benefit analysis? Will he also confirm whether youth offending teams will be provided with appropriate further resource to handle any increased workload as a result of these proposals?
Chris Philp
I am glad that the shadow Minister welcomes the broad thrust of these changes. That is very welcome indeed. In response to his questions about the impact assessment, it is important to say that it makes it clear on the second page that
“there will be no additional children sentenced to DTOs”.
The question therefore arises: why, then, will there be this very slight increase in the population, of between 30 and 50 places? The reason, as far as I can see, is that where the DTO sentence length falls between the two fixed points, at the moment it gets rounded down to the lower of the two, whereas under these proposals it can be calculated precisely. No additional people will be subject to a DTO; however, we will no longer have this rounding-down effect. In a sense, when we account for the time served and so on, and particularly the early plea discount, at the moment there is an inappropriate rounding down, because of the fixed points, which will now be eliminated. The time served will therefore better reflect the law and the court’s intention, and that will lead to a very slight increase in the number of people subject to these orders at any given point. However, the total number receiving the order will not change.
Alex Cunningham
I accept that the total number receiving the orders will not change, but does the Minister not accept, and regret, that these proposals will lead to some children—it might only be a handful—being subjected to more time in custody than they would be under the current system? If he does accept that, what will he do to try to change it?
Chris Philp
It is more that, owing to an anomaly in the current system that is a consequence of the fixed points, people are being let out slightly early. This change really means, among other things, that the law as written can be fully implemented, rather than this little rounding anomaly occurring. However, I stress that the effect is very slight.
Chris Philp
By the way, I should take this opportunity to thank the shadow Minister for his earlier commendation of the Government’s record on reducing unnecessary child imprisonment.
In answer to the shadow Minister’s last question, which was about youth offending teams and longer time potentially being spent under their care, clearly it is our hope and expectation that youth offending teams will be effective—indeed, they are effective—in helping to divert young people on to a better path in life. We are generally increasing resources in this area, and I hope that that will have precisely that effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 132 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 133 and 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 135
Youth rehabilitation orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 122, in schedule 16, page 255, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A)After sub-paragraph 4(1) (Duty to give warning or lay information relating to breach of order), insert—
“4 (1A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a reasonable excuse for breach of an electronic compliance monitoring requirement shall include design faults in any necessary electronic apparatus, including (but not limited to) poor battery life; but shall not include intentional failure by the offender to charge necessary electronic apparatus.””
This amendment would introduce a safeguard to prevent children from being criminalised due to design faults, including poor battery life, on electronic monitoring devices.
Amendment 120, in schedule 16, page 258, line 34, at end insert—
“24(1) Paragraph 35 of Schedule 1 (Further provisions about youth rehabilitation orders) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for “The Secretary of State may by order” substitute “The Secretary of State must by order”.
(3) In sub-sub-paragraph (1)(a), omit “enable or”.”
This amendment would make panel reviews of youth rehabilitation orders routine by amending Paragraph 35, Schedule 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Amendment 121, in schedule 16, page 258, line 34, at end insert—
“24(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 (Further provisions about youth rehabilitation orders) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) At end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State shall take steps to ensure that there are sufficient resources in place to allow for a court to make a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance in all appropriate cases.””
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that intensive supervision and surveillance is available in all youth offending areas.
That schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.
I call the Minister.
The Chair
There are amendments, so if you wish to start, Mr Cunningham, by all means fire away.
Alex Cunningham
I am sure you will be sending out for ice creams within the next half hour.
Alex Cunningham
I rise to speak to amendments 120, 121 and 122, standing in my name. Youth rehabilitation orders currently permit courts to impose a choice of 18 requirements from which a sentence can be designed. This also provides for two high-intensity requirements, intensive supervision and surveillance, or ISS, or intensive fostering, as alternatives to custody. The proposals in the Bill would make several changes to youth rehabilitation orders which I will consider in turn.
Currently, a curfew of up to 16 hours each day can be included as a requirement in any YRO and can last for up to 12 months. The Bill proposes increasing the maximum daily curfew to 20 hours while retaining a weekly maximum of 112 hours. As with the changes to detention and training orders, we are supportive of the principle behind the change, which is increased flexibility of approach. While we support more flexibility in the use of curfews, I worry that imposing curfews of 20 hours a day is overly punitive.
The Government’s rationale is that increasing the maximum number of hours per day that a curfew can impose with a youth rehabilitation order will increase the flexibility of the curfew system because it will allow for longer curfews on certain days, such as weekends, when individuals may be more prone to breaches. I understand that the Youth Justice Board has made its concerns about the proposal known to the Government, citing the risk that this will pose regarding potential increased exposure to interfamilial––a difficult word to say––violence. It says:
“We can draw parallels between this proposal to the increased instances of domestic interfamilial violence seen during the COVID-19 lockdown, during which time children were required to spend more time within the family home. This concern has been echoed by other across the sector. We believe that the 16 hours maximum curfew is more than enough, especially if used creatively. We would propose that the maximum daily curfew time should remain at 16 hours per day.”
Can the Minister confirm that increased exposure to interfamilial violence has been considered in forming this proposal? There are risks both inside and outside the home, and getting the curfew time correct is a delicate balancing act. It would help alleviate our concerns if we knew that the Government had planned for such situations.
The Bill would introduce location monitoring as a stand-alone requirement that can be imposed in YROs. That is to be piloted. Currently, GPS tagging is used to monitor compliance with other YRO conditions. Stand-alone location monitoring is already available for adults and children as part of the supervision period of a detention and training order. According to the sentencing White Paper, the rationale for the proposal is that it would reduce the likelihood of breach, provide information to support services and provide an additional protective factor.
I note that the Youth Justice Board’s briefing indicates that there is evidence to support this rationale and that demonstrates that electronic monitoring can often have a positive impact on the safety of the child. However, it goes on to point out that electronic monitoring is quite an intrusive measure and can be seen to be at odds with the child-first approach if applied punitively. Have the Government assessed the number of cases in which they anticipate that the measure would be used, both within the pilot and beyond? I ask because the benefit of a stand-alone monitoring requirement is that the sector tells us that, generally, in cases where children’s behaviour may be seen to warrant such restriction, the child is also likely to need support through supervision. Without adequate support, there may be an increased risk of electronic monitoring violations through children failing to charge their tag. We have talked about some of these issues before. We would not want children to be further punished for something as simple as failing to charge their tag on time or correctly. I would be grateful if the Minister said more about the safeguards that his Department has considered.
We are supportive of the change that makes youth offending teams or probation staff the responsible officers in cases where electronic monitoring requirements are imposed. Currently, the electronic monitoring provider are the responsible officers in cases where electronic monitoring is imposed. We are therefore pleased to see the Government make this sensible change, which will provide wider discretion to youth offending teams, which have a fuller understanding of the child and so are better placed to encourage the child to engage with the curfew.
The next proposal is to increase to 12 months the maximum length of the extended activity requirement of a YRO with intensive supervision and surveillance, and to add a location monitoring requirement as a mandatory element of the ISS. I understand that these measures will also be piloted. The proposal will enable children to benefit from increased contact time and support from the youth offending team. We think the change has the potential to be a positive one, especially as we know that short interventions tend to be much less effective. Although this is, in a sense, a toughening up of a community sentence, we would be supportive of it if it encouraged courts to use ISS in place of longer custodial sentences and thus divert more children from custody.
However, the sector has raised the concern that children are less likely to be able to engage with such stringent requirements if they are subject to them for longer periods of time, and there may be a consequential increased likelihood of non-compliance and resulting breach action. That would mean that lengthier sentences of this kind simply delayed a child’s entry into custody, rather than diverting them from it. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, and whether the proposal will be assessed in the pilot with a view to amending it if it inadvertently means that more children end up in custody.
I am also aware of concerns from the sector about the resource implications of the proposal, because delivery of high-quality ISS provision is expensive. I have already mentioned how overstretched youth offending teams are, and I would be grateful for reassurances from the Minister that appropriate funding will be made available so that the introduction of costly measures such as this one does not come at the expense of other important interventions by youth offending teams.
Finally on this clause, I want to discuss the proposal to raise the age limit of the education requirement to match the age of compulsory participation in education and training, rather than compulsory school age. We agree with the Youth Justice Board that it makes sense to bring the YRO education requirements into line with those in the Education and Skills Act 2008.
It is important to note, however, that education requirements are rarely used as part of a YRO. In the most recent year for which information is available, only 1% of YROs included an education requirement. We therefore wonder whether there is a risk that this proposal, which will increase the number of children to whom an education requirement can be applied, will also increase the number of children we end up criminalising for breaching their education requirement, when there are other routes available for ensuring education attendance. Again, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Department intends to monitor that to ensure that these positive proposals do not inadvertently end up criminalising the children we are trying to help.
We are concerned that the reforms to community sentences—expanding electronic monitoring, and extending intensive supervision and surveillance provisions—focus on increasing surveillance and restrictions, rather than on better responding to children’s needs and addressing the root causes of offending behaviour. However, as I said earlier, if we can keep more children out of custody by toughening up community sentences, we are very supportive of that.
I would like to make one final point about the expansion of electronic monitoring before I move on to discussing our amendments. The Alliance for Youth Justice says that its members have reported a number of concerns about electronic monitoring, including: children’s difficulties with managing their tag; the fact that for children involved in organised crime, the fear of their exploiter exceeds their fear of breaching tag requirements; and the danger that tags may effectively trap children in unsafe areas—for example, where their exploiter is. As set out by AYJ member the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, the assertion in the White Paper
“that electronic monitoring of any sort may reduce the impact of child exploitation on a child is misguided and is not reflected in our experiences of child exploitation.”
The AYJ states:
“The presence of a tag does not deter an exploiter as only the child is impacted by a breach.”
It goes on to say:
“Discretion in responding to breaches is key to ensuring the increased use of Electronic Monitoring does not increasingly criminalise children who may struggle for multiple reasons to keep their tag in working order and fulfil requirements, and awareness of the full circumstances of a child is crucial before imposing unrealistic and potentially dangerous requirements on them.”
That was a very long quote, but one that was necessary. The AYJ believes that statutory guidance should be introduced to that effect, and I think that that could be helpful in addressing some of the issues with electronic monitoring and child exploitation. Does the Minister agree?
I now turn specifically to our amendments. Amendment 120 would make panel reviews of youth rehabilitation orders routine by amending paragraph 35 to schedule 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Currently the law allows for the Secretary of State to establish panels to review youth rehabilitation orders, but this is the exception rather than the rule. The amendment would allow magistrates to establish their own review panels, unless there is good reason not to, thus reversing the current system and hopefully making it the rule rather than the exception. That was recommended by the 2014 Carlile report and has the backing of the Magistrates Association after successful trials in Northampton.
In 2015, a preliminary evaluation of Northamptonshire’s model for reviews by Dr Jenni Ward of Middlesex University concluded that the youth order review panels are
“a positive intervention that could be more widely implemented across youth justice services”.
Northamptonshire Youth Offending Service said:
“Our experience in Northamptonshire suggests significant benefits in terms of securing children’s continued engagement with interventions well beyond the initial period of dynamic work that we know follows sentencing. We have also seen children’s attitudes towards criminal justice institutions changed by their encounters with magistrates who, often to the children’s surprise, demonstrate empathy, interest and concern in their lives and progress. Magistrates also benefit from gaining a deeper understanding of the developmental, social and practical issues faced by the children they sentence.”
We believe that this could be a very positive addition to the youth offending system that ensures that the child-first approach is maintained throughout the time for which the youth rehabilitation order is in effect. Can the Minister share whether his Department has considered the benefits of these reviews and whether it has any plans in motion to expand them? I am sure that he will recognise the benefit in them, and I hope he can support our amendment.
Amendment 121 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that intensive supervision and surveillance is available in all youth offending areas. A lack of funding from central Government means that, in some areas, youth offending teams request courts not to award YROs with ISSs due to lack of availability. That reduces the amount of non-custodial options open to the court, meaning that some children get custodial sentences when they should not. I understand that this is a particular issue in places where there are fewer children to whom the order would apply, such as Sunderland. As I have said many times in our discussions on this part of the Bill, we are singing from the same hymn sheet as the Government with regard to reducing the number of children in custody. So I am sure that the Government agree with us that whether a child gets a custodial sentence should not be a matter for a postcode lottery. This simple change would place a duty on the Ministry of Justice to ensure ISS schemes are available across all youth offending areas, and so bring in a consistency of provision across the country.
Amendment 122 relates to electronic monitoring tags and would provide a safeguard to prevent children from being criminalised due to design faults, including poor battery life on electronic monitoring devices. This will simply protect children against being wrongly criminalised due to faults in the technology. We know that happened in 2017 when the then Justice Minister admitted that people may have been wrongly sent to prison due to faulty electronic tags being used to monitor offenders. I am sure everyone in this room will want to ensure that that does not happen—I was going to say particularly in cases involving child offenders, but it should apply to all offenders. We know that even a short time in custody can have extremely adverse consequences for a child and the likelihood of reoffending. I hope that the Government can commit to providing this simple safeguard.
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Chris Philp
As we have said previously, and as I think the Opposition would agree, we believe that, wherever possible, children who offend should be managed in the community, as it is better for their rehabilitation and therefore wider society, as it is less likely that they will reoffend. In that spirit, clause 135 introduces and refers to schedule 16, which makes amendments to YRO provisions set out in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and in the sentencing code, which we believe will give the courts and the public confidence in YROs as an alternative to custody. The amendments are listed in schedule 16 and include the introduction of a new electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement and changes to the YRO with intensive supervision and surveillance, ISS, a high-intensity alternative to custody, with mandatory extended activities, supervision and curfew requirements.
The clause sets out the functionality for piloting the new electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement and the changes to YROs with ISS to ensure that they are robust and effective before being rolled out nationally. The clause also enables us to restrict the use of the requirements, for example, by age or offender profile, in the light of evidence uncovered in the trial and in practice.
Schedule 16 sets out the amendments that have been made to YROs by clause 35, which will provide the courts with the tools that they need to deliver stronger community sentences, for example, by increasing the flexibility of the curfew requirement by raising the daily maximum hours from 16 to 20, if in some cases it may be appropriate, but retaining the weekly maximum of 112 hours.
As the shadow Minister said already, a stand-alone location monitoring requirement will be added to the list of available requirements to help provide an additional protective factor for the child and improve confidence in robust community sentences. Youth offending teams will be made the responsible officers for YROs with electronic monitoring requirements, as they are aware of the child’s individual circumstances and can make informed decisions in the case of a breach. I think that is a welcome improvement.
The upper age limit of the education requirement will be raised, as the shadow Minister said, so that children who are past the compulsory school age but still in compulsory education or training will still be eligible for education requirements. Schedule 16 also makes changes to the YRO with ISS, doubling the maximum length of the extended daily requirement from six to 12 months, and adding a mandatory location monitoring requirement, which we believe will give courts extra confidence that children can be supervised in the community and use ISS in place of short custodial sentences. I know that we all agree with that objective.
The changes will be piloted to make sure that they are robust and effective before being rolled out nationally. I hope that that explains the intent behind clause 135 and its associated schedule, schedule 16.
As the shadow Minister has said, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 confers a power on the Secretary of State for Justice by order to enable or require a court to review and amend an YRO. Amendment 120 would require that the Secretary of State must make such an order. It would also remove the Secretary of State’s discretion on whether to enable or require a court to make such a review, limiting them to use the order to require a review. Effectively, it would compel the Secretary of State, and through the Secretary of State compel courts always to undertake those reviews. We understand the rationale behind widening the use of reviews and YROs, essentially for reasons to do with promoting problem-solving court approaches that we discussed earlier. We generally support such approaches, which is why we are introducing the problem-solving court trials that we discussed earlier. Of course, we are also aware of innovative local approaches, where magistrates and others are voluntarily using progress reviews for some children in relation to their YROs. We are aware of the example of Northamptonshire, which the shadow Minister mentioned. Of course, those local examples do not necessarily provide evidence of wider impact, but there are indications that such arrangements can be effective. We are interested in further exploring how we can learn those lessons and expand them. We have already discussed how we intend to pilot problem-solving courts, and we think that a process of piloting and trialling as laid out is the right way to go, rather than a blanket compulsion, which the amendment proposes. We should also be mindful, I think, of the capacity of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which is obviously in the middle of recovering from covid. If we were to require and compel in every circumstance, as the amendment would do, it may have an impact on the capacity of HMCTS to discharge its duties more widely. We think that the right approach is for the Secretary of State to retain the power so to act, but without compelling the Secretary of State. I would like to assure the shadow Minister, however, that the direction of travel is in that of using those review processes more, and as he knows from the measures we have debated already, we intend to pilot problem-solving courts more widely, because we believe that the international evidence and other evidence suggests that they can be effective.
In relation to amendment 121, we acknowledge the value of work done by multi-agency services in supporting children who reoffend and by the youth offending teams that deliver YROs with ISSs. In terms of resourcing, we are already providing funding to YOTs to meet these obligations. In this financial year, an extra £7 million is being provided, so YOTs are now getting a total of £82 million this year, a 9% increase on last year, well above inflation.
Of course, YOTs operate at a local level. Having allocated the money, we do not tell them exactly how to spend it. We leave it to them to decide themselves. Hypothecating and compelling YOTs to spend money in a certain way would fetter their discretion, so we would like to leave it with the YOTs to decide how they spend that money. We have given them more resources and it is our expectation that ISSs will be made available in order to avoid short custodial sentences in general but for young people in particular.
On amendment 122, there is already a robust system in place to consider violations of the tagging regime to ensure that no child or adult is unnecessarily penalised for a fault in their equipment. Each case is dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as we have discussed in considering previous clauses, allowing the key professional to make an informed decision. If there is a breach and it ends up before a court, ultimately a judge will decide on any consequences that flow from it. The equipment is subject to all the proper testing and the children are informed about the charging requirements. Where the tags are low on battery, the children concerned will be contacted with a reminder to charge them up. But as I say, individual discretion is exercisable. Ultimately, the court can exercise discretion in terms of the consequences flowing from a breach. The current regime is not unduly punitive or inflexible and does not end up disadvantaging people through no fault of their own. I commend clause 135 and schedule 16 and suggest that while the amendments are reasonable in spirit, for the reasons laid out, they are not strictly necessary.
Alex Cunningham
I understand the Minister’s explanation on amendment 120 but feel that there should be an opportunity for far more reviews in this space. I hope that the system out there will look at that far more closely.
In relation to the intensive supervision and surveillance provisions, it is nonsense that a child in London may be subject to a completely different set of penalties from those facing a child in Sunderland. There should be consistency in the availability of orders. For me, that means that the Government should be directing the development of these orders across the country.
While the £7 million increase is very welcome, I am sure that it will have to do many, many things in the system. We keep getting referred to the same sums of money but more tasks have to be covered within that particular budget. I intend to test the Committee on amendments 121 and 122 because the Government have a long way to go to sort out faulty monitoring systems. We want to be on the side of the child. We do not want them criminalised through no fault of their own.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 135 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 122, page 255, line 26, in schedule 16, at end insert—
“(2A) After sub-paragraph 4(1) (Duty to give warning or lay information relating to breach of order), insert—
‘4 (1A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a reasonable excuse for breach of an electronic compliance monitoring requirement shall include design faults in any necessary electronic apparatus, including (but not limited to) poor battery life; but shall not include intentional failure by the offender to charge necessary electronic apparatus.’”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This amendment would introduce a safeguard to prevent children from being criminalised due to design faults, including poor battery life, on electronic monitoring devices.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Amendment proposed: 121, page 258, line 34, in schedule 16, at end insert—
“24 (1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 (Further provisions about youth rehabilitation orders) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) At end insert—
‘(6) The Secretary of State shall take steps to ensure that there are sufficient resources in place to allow for a court to make a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance in all appropriate cases.’” —(Alex Cunningham.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that intensive supervision and surveillance is available in all youth offending areas.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
The Chair
Before we move on, it has come to my attention, courtesy of the Whips, that there will be a vote in the House at 4.30 pm. I am sure that none of you want to come back afterwards. It is up to you if you do, but I thought I would bring the Whips’ discussion to a wider audience, so we know what their ambition is for the Committee.
Clause 136
Abolition of reparation orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
Given your suggestion, Sir Charles, I will place a premium on brevity. Clause 136 is straightforward. We believe that restorative justice is an important part of the justice system. However, the reparation order itself has been made redundant, having been overtaken by the evolution of the wider youth justice sentencing framework. Instead, referral orders and youth rehabilitation orders now provide a wider range of interventions, including elements of restorative justice, and are more flexible than a reparation order. They have essentially replaced reparation orders.
Also, reparation orders cannot be given in conjunction with a referral order or a youth rehabilitation order, which significantly reduces the circumstances in which they can be used. As a consequence, reparation orders have dropped out of usage—they dropped by 98% over the last decade because the other disposals have taken up the slack. Only 51 have been handed down in the year to March 2020. It is by far the least-used non-custodial disposal. Therefore, in the interests of clarity and simplicity, the clause abolishes the reparation order to enable those other forms of disposal to be used, as they are used anyway.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister explained, the clause would abolish reparation orders, which require the child to make practical amends to the victim or other affected party. The Government White Paper noted that the orders are little used, probably as they have been replaced by some of the more widely used sentencing options, and so have become redundant.
Reparation orders are the least used orders in the children’s sentencing regime, too. Between 2010 and 2019, around 5,000 offenders under the age of 18 were sentenced to reparation orders. The number of reparation orders handed down fell in each year during that period. In 2019, 66 of those sentences were passed, compared with 2,400 in 2010. In the year ending March 2020, there were just under 16,900 occasions where children were sentenced at court; only 51 of these were reparation orders.
While it is not clear why the use of the order has fallen so sharply, it has been suggested that it is as a result of changes in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which removed restrictions on the use of cautions and conditional cautions, which means that children who may have proceeded to court are possibly now receiving out-of-court disposals, which is a good thing. Do the Government plan to do any research to confirm this suggestion? I think it could be helpful if they did so, since this is quite a significant change in sentencing patterns, and it would be helpful to better understand how restorative justice processes are now manifesting themselves, given that usage is low and that reparation can also be included in other sentences, such as the referral order and youth rehabilitation order.
We support the removal of reparation orders and support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 137
Temporary release from secure children’s homes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Amendment 123, in clause 138, page 126, line 40, at end insert—
‘(8) A secure 16 to 19 Academy will be subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.”
This amendment would make secure 16 to 19 academies subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty‘s Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Amendment 133, in page 126, line 40, at end insert—
‘(8) A secure 16 to 19 Academy will be subject to annual inspection by Ofsted.”
This amendment would make secure 16 to 19 academies subject to annual inspection by Ofsted.
Amendment 146, in page 126, line 40, at end insert—
‘(8) A local authority may establish and maintain a secure 16 to 19 Academy.
(9) A body corporate (including any of its subsidiaries) that is carried on for profit may not be a party to an arrangement to establish and maintain a secure 16 to 19 Academy.”
This amendment would enable local authorities to run Secure 16 to 19 Academies, either alone or in consortia, and to prevent these establishments being run for profit.
Clause 138 stand part.
Alex Cunningham
Secure children’s homes accommodate boys and girls aged 10 to 17 assessed as particularly vulnerable. As well as children held on justice grounds, secure children’s homes accommodate children detained on welfare grounds for their protection or the protection of others. The explanatory notes state that they
“currently rely on inherent powers to make arrangements for the ‘mobility’ of children detained in such accommodation to help address their offending behaviour and to support the integration of children back into the community at the end of their sentence. Clause 137 would provide a statutory power for the temporary release of children detained in SCHs. The Secretary of State or the registered manager of the home would be able to temporarily release a child to whom the clause applies. Temporary release under this clause could be granted under conditions. The Secretary of State and registered managers would have concurrent powers to recall children temporarily released…If the period for which the child is temporarily released expires or if the child has been recalled, the child would be deemed to be unlawfully at large.”
Overall, we are supportive of the Government’s proposals in this area and recognise that a good balance has to be struck between allowing temporary release of children from secure children’s homes to support their reintegration into society, and close monitoring of children on temporary release for risk management purposes.
The Opposition understand that temporary release is an important part of the rehabilitation process for children sentenced to custody, and that some child sentence plan objectives will require them to attend meetings or participate in activities outside the secure establishment. As the Youth Justice Board notes in its briefing,
“Allowing children to be released temporarily supports their constructive resettlement into their community both in maintaining family ties and allowing children to start or maintain education placements.”
While the clause is effectively just putting into statute practice that is already in place, we are pleased to see the Government conferring authority for these decisions and processes to the secure school provider, as they will be best placed to support the child in question.
Research published by the Department for Education comparing children on justice placements and those on welfare placements in secure children’s homes concluded that children on justice and welfare placements are fundamentally the same children. The research found that the level of risk posed by individual children was not related to whether they were on a justice or welfare pathway. The report examined whether there was a need to separate children on justice and welfare placements, but concluded that, rather than separating them, if anything the children would benefit from greater integration. While secure children’s homes managers already have powers under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 to consider and approve temporary release for children on welfare placements, we are pleased that the new provisions will put those managers in the same position for sentenced children on justice placements.
We note the concerns of the Howard League, however, that the clause applies only to children who have been sentenced and therefore excludes children who are held in secure children’s homes on remand from being able to access temporary release. The Howard League points out that this change will therefore create a disparity between children who are in secure children’s homes and children who are in secure training centres. Rule 5 of the Secure Training Centre Rules allows children who are on remand to be temporarily released. It explains that unless temporary release also applies to children on remand in secure children’s homes and schools,
“there is a risk that this will undermine the ‘seamless service’ between custody and the community which the Government envisions for secure schools”
We agree with the Howard League that all children remanded to custody should have access to temporary release where appropriate, as they do in secure training centres.
The Bill’s fact sheet on this provision says temporary release is “not a relevant factor” for children on remand. I find this surprising given that we know that, as a result of court delays, children are sometimes subject to quite lengthy custodial remands. The Alliance for Youth Justice further points out:
“introducing new legislation which restricts temporary release in Secure Children’s Homes to sentenced children would be detrimental, particularly to the development of Secure Schools, which we know have ambitious plans for transitions into the community.”
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this and wonder why this distinction has been maintained. Will he consider including children on remand in these provisions? It would be helpful to be reassured on that point, but on the whole we are pleased with the proposal and will offer it our support.
As we have heard, clause 138 would amend the Academies Act 2010 so that 16-to-19 academies can provide secure accommodation for the purpose of restricting liberty but only if approved to do so by the Secretary of State. On the whole, the Opposition support the principle of secure academies and we do not strongly object to these academies being run by charitable entities. But, as ever, there are some areas in which I seek the Minister’s reassurances, especially with this clause, as comprehensive information is not available from the Government.
The Alliance for Youth Justice briefing on this clause says:
“We are aware of concerns that have been prompted by this section of the Bill around the lack of clarity on the status of Secure Schools, in particular what legislation, regulation and guidance will govern and oversee their activities. It has been confirmed to the AYJ by the Youth Custody Service and Oasis Charitable Trust, that Oasis Restore, the first Secure School pilot, will be registered as a Secure Children’s Home and regulated by Ofsted. It has also been confirmed that 12-to-18-year-olds may be placed in Oasis Restore.”
There is clear discomfort in the sector about the limited information available on the plans for Oasis Restore and how the model will operate in practice. Can the Minister confirm that his Department will publish more information on this? Can he provide a timeframe for publication?
Another issue raised by the sector is that it is unclear how the introduction of secure schools fits into the long-term strategy for the youth secure estate. I understand that it is the Government’s stated intention for secure schools to replace young offender institutions and secure training centres, but we have not yet seen any proposed timeline for such changes. Can the Minister provide more information on his Department’s intended timeline for the changeover to secure schools for the Committee today?
The first secure school is being established in Medway, but I understand that children from across the UK can be sent there. Hazel Williamson put it very well in our evidence session when she said:
“As an association of YOT managers, we believe that children in custody…should be placed in small, secure units close to their homes. We do not advocate large custodial establishments where children are placed far away from their home; we would advocate small custodial units.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 133, Q212.]
Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s timetable for delivering secure schools will not entail children being detained hundreds of miles from their homes while still only a small number of these establishments are available?
The Youth Justice Board has shared its concerns about the links to children entering the youth justice system from practices such as off-rolling children. Indeed, there is a high prevalence of expelled children in the children’s secure estate. For instance, in 2018 in HMYOI Feltham, 89% of children had been excluded from school.
Can the Minister confirm that any academy trusts selected through the tendering process to open or run a secure school have got, as the Youth Justice Board put it
“the necessary skills, expertise, structures and ethos to support children in a secure setting”?
I know that the Howard League wrote to the Secretary of State on this issue last year, and its briefing says:
“This clause provides a legal basis for the ‘secure school’ model of youth custody: it allows academies to provide secure accommodation for their pupils if they have been approved to do so and establishes that running a secure academy is to be treated as fulfilling the charitable purpose of ‘advancement of education’ under s3(1) of the Charities Act 2011. In April 2020, the Charity Commission noted that ‘the proposed purposes of secure schools, as we understand them, do not wholly fall within the descriptions of purpose in s3(1) of the Charities Act 2011’ and that ‘we do not think the operation of a secure school can be exclusively charitable’. In November 2020, the Howard League wrote to the Secretary of State outlining the concerns that locking children up does not fall within charitable objectives. The proposal compounds this issue.”
It would be helpful if the Minister could share with the Committee his discussions with the Charity Commission, so that we all better understand the position that has been reached on this knotty issue.
Amendments 123 and 133 both relate to the inspection regime for secure 16-to-19 academies. Amendment 123 would make secure 16-to-19 academies subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, and amendment 133 would make them subject to annual inspection by Ofsted. I understand that the current inspection framework will come from Ofsted. However, I am sure the Government would agree that a secure school is a very different entity from a standard school. We therefore believe that such schools would benefit from a different inspection regime, to ensure that no aspects of their running are overlooked. Although it is true that it is not a prison, a secure school is still part of the secure estate, so there is expertise that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons can provide. Indeed, when Ofsted does inspections on the secure estate, HMIP is part of the broader inspection team. We think the inclusion of HMIP is important and should be put on a statutory footing. I hope the Government agree that it would add value to the monitoring and running of the secure school system as it is rolled out, so I hope they will be able to support our amendment 123.
As I outlined in my earlier speech, there is still much that is unknown and has yet to be decided in relation to secure schools. For that reason, we think it would be important for there to be regular inspections, especially in the early years of operation. That is why our amendment 133 provides for annual inspection by Ofsted, to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks. Furthermore, we are entrusting such schools with the care of some of our most vulnerable children at a point in their lives when positive and engaged care can have the most impact, so it is only right that the schools are subject to the most rigorous monitoring while they do so. I hope that the Government agree and can support amendment 133.
Amendment 146, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, allows for local authorities to establish and maintain a secure 16-to-19 academy, and to exclude profit-making bodies from doing likewise. I am sure she will address her amendment in detail, but she has our support.
Sarah Champion
My amendment 146 is designed to ensure that local authorities are able to run secure 16-to-19 academies, either alone or in consortia, and to prevent such establishments from being run for profit. I will go into the detail of why, but, fundamentally, I do not think profit should be made from keeping our children safe. We are seeing some pretty gross examples of that at the moment.
In December 2016, the Government committed to phase out child prisons—by that, I mean juvenile young offenders institutions and secure training centres—and to replace them with a network of secure schools and children’s homes. I hope that this is not just the Government playing semantics and that they really are going to get rid of these institutions, because it is very clear, and the Youth Justice Board concedes, that secure training centres are not fit for purpose.
The Government must speed up the phasing out of secure training centres. When introducing secure schools and academies, they must ensure that they will meet high standards of care. We must ensure that secure children’s homes take an approach that fulfils all of a child’s needs and that they are not seen as cash cows for the private firms who run them to make huge profits.
The amendment seeks to achieve two changes to the Bill, both of which have the potential to improve significantly the capacity of our child welfare system to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children and to keep them safe. First, it seeks to reverse the exclusion of local authorities from running secure schools, which are defined in clause 138(4) of the Bill as secure children’s homes.
There is considerable experience in the local authority sector in caring for children with very high levels of need in a locked environment. It makes no sense to exclude this knowledge and learning from the provisions in the Bill. The failure of the last experiment in child detention—secure training centres—should be reason enough for the Government to avoid contracting with organisations that have little or no experience of managing children’s residential care needs.
The Government’s 2016 commitment to phase out secure training centres came in response to a review of the youth justice system undertaken by Charlie Taylor before he became chair of the Youth Justice Board. The February 2016 report proposed that a network of secure schools should replace child prisons. He described secure schools in the report as
“a larger number of small, education-led establishments”
that would be
“set up in a similar way to alternative provision free schools in England”.
Charlie Taylor commended the “dedication, determination and courage” of those working in children’s prisons, but concluded that many staff did not have the skills and experience to properly look after, protect and educate children in custody.
Charlie Taylor’s final report described in more detail the safeguarding challenges in children’s prisons and the imperative for change. He said:
“While I believe that many staff working in the current youth custodial estate are not equipped to carry out their difficult roles, I also believe that the staffing model adopted in these establishments exacerbates the problems of engaging and safeguarding children…I believe that having a distinct group of staff performing this role actually raises the risk of violence, and they can fall back on coercion or physical restraint when confronted by a resistant child…specialist residential schools do not have such a group of staff because everyone working there has…expertise in working with children, preventing and managing conflict, and ensuring compliance with the rules through support and persistence.”
The review was launched a few months ahead of the damning undercover “Panorama” exposé of serious child abuse in the Medway Secure Training Centre, which was then managed by G4S.
G4S and Serco were contracted to run the four centres, holding children between the ages of 12 and 17. Twenty years later, the very strong warnings from the children’s and penal reform sectors about STCs prove that these places were not the centres of excellence of care and education that we were promised. In the BBC “Panorama” documentary, staff were filmed verbally and physically assaulting children. One manager boasted of stabbing a child’s leg and arm with a fork. Another recounted deliberately winding up a child so that he could physically assault him. A third was caught on camera forcing a crying child to repeatedly denounce his favourite football team.
In January 2012, the High Court found systematic unlawful restraint had been used from when the centres opened. Two boys, Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood, died following restraint in a secure training centre in 2004. Only two secure training centres remain: Rainsbrook, run by MTCnovo and Oakhill, run by G4S. Both continue to attract strong criticism on child safeguarding. It is vital we introduce the amendment now, to prevent damaging effects that may occur months or years after this Bill has passed, if the private sector is allowed to run these homes.
Secondly, the amendment seeks to confirm in primary legislation that secure schools will not be run for profit. We must ensure that public funds directed at supporting our children and families stay where they can help people in need, and do not line the pockets of shareholders and private equity firms.
As a society, when we get to the stage of sending a child to custody it nearly always exposes a catalogue of chronic failures as the child was growing up. Those failures can include lack of physical or emotional support for families, the unavailability of mental health services for the child and/or the parents, marginalisation in and exclusion from the education system or a care system that has not adequately cared for or protected them. More than half of the children in custody today have been in care at some time.
Our aim must be to keep children out of custody. That obligation is enshrined in the Children Act 1989 and article 37(b) of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We have also seen the damaging effects of the private sector running accommodation in children’s social care. Reports from the former Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, show that children were treated horrendously in poor-quality accommodation while the providers of it made huge profits. Last year, the Children’s Commissioner reported that there had been a 69% increase in the use of unregulated accommodation for children in care since 2012-13. Anne Longfield’s team found that one in every eight children in care in England in 2018-19 had experienced living in unregulated accommodation. That is more than 12,000 children.
The report highlighted a 21% increase in teenagers entering care in the past five years, noting that that cohort of children was 12 times more likely than younger children to be involved in trafficking, six times more likely to have suffered child sexual exploitation, seven times more likely to go missing from home and five times more likely to be involved in gangs. The report stated that
“all of these children need specialist help and care which is therapeutic and rehabilitative”,
yet currently there is not sufficient provision for them.
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are significantly over-represented in unregulated accommodation. In recent years, family court judges have taken the unusual step of writing to Ministers to urge them to act after those judges have been forced to make orders placing children in inappropriate, sometimes wholly inappropriate settings.
An article in The Guardian just last week explained that in the children’s residential care home market in England, 75% of homes are run by private firms. And that is my concern; rather than just private care homes, the Bill facilitates that shift to private in our justice system as well. Prices in those homes have risen by 40% since 2013, with the average placement costing £4,000 a week, or about £200,000 a year. How much will a place be in one of the secure schools?
Meanwhile local authorities are facing huge cuts to their budgets. The Local Government Association has reported that councils have been forced to spend an extra £832 million on children’s services over what they were allocated in 2019-20. The devastating impact of austerity on early intervention and family support means that far too many children have gone without timely help in their earlier lives. That is not in the best interests of any child, either children in social care who have had their liberties removed or in custody. Those children are in our care, and we can and must do better. No one should be making profits from a vulnerable child’s living situation. It must be said that the involvement of the private sector in the children’s secure estate has done little to improve provision for vulnerable children. I ask the Minister to please adopt the amendment and put the safety of children before profits. The amendment is supported by Article 39 and the National Association for Youth Justice.
Charlie Taylor’s case for change is compelling and urgent, but that was made four years ago. In February 2012, the Justice Committee called on the Government to publish a timetable for meeting their 2016 commitment. While we wait for that, today we can ensure that our legislation allows people who have the experience of running this specialist type of provision to play an important and positive role in our children’s lives. We can also ensure that no profits are made from children’s lives being so out of control and so difficult that they have to spend time in a secure setting.
The Chair
The vote might come at quarter past 4, although the Whips will be better informed of that than me, and the Whip cannot move the adjournment while someone is speaking, I just remind him of that.
Chris Philp
With that thought in mind, I will try to deal with the important points raised as quickly as I can.
We recognise that young people in detained accommodation or in custodial settings need a lot of support. Secure schools are being developed to do precisely this.
To support this, we think it is important that secure schools are provided by people who have a certain level of autonomy. Many charities have the necessary skills to do this. That is why, starting with clause 138, we are ensuring that providing a secure 16-to-19 academy can be counted as a charitable activity, enabling charitable secure school providers to improve outcomes in youth custody.
We always take changes to charities law seriously. We have to ensure that charities are properly regulated. The Ministry of Justice has worked closely with the Charity Commission and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make sure that is done in a way that preserves the integrity of charity law.
Clause 137 ensures that there is a clear statutory power to enable providers to allow for temporary release where someone is sentenced to custody, which applies to secure schools as well. It is important that these children can be released into the community as part of the rehabilitation that we want to do with them. This clause puts that release provision on a statutory footing. We think that temporary release provisions are an essential tool in the rehabilitation journey, and this makes sure that can happen.
The Youth Custody Service and secure children’s homes that make temporary release decisions always do so subject to proper risk assessments. The YCS will develop formal guidance for SCH managers, outlining the necessary steps to be taken when making a balanced temporary release decision. Both these measures are helpful in ensuring that charities are able to come into this space to provide these services and that temporary release can be facilitated as part of the rehabilitation package, all of which is important.
Amendments 123 and 133 speak to the inspection regime. Like other academies and children’s homes, secure schools will be jointly inspected by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. They will also be inspected monthly, not annually, by independent visitors. As co-commissioners for secure schools, the Youth Custody Service and NHS England will be responsible for ensuring high standards of performance. The minimum frequency of inspection is also set out in the regulations.
As secure 16-to-19 academies will fall under the definition of a children’s home in the Care Standards Act 2000, they will be inspected on an annual basis in any case. The definition of children’s home in the Children’s Home (England) Regulations 2015 makes it clear that they will fall under the frequency of inspections regulations, so they will be annually inspected in any case, making amendment 123 unnecessary.
We have consulted HMCIP on the question of inviting it into the inspection regime, and it agrees with the Government’s position. Although secure schools are a secure environment, they are essentially schools and children’s homes, and so should be inspected by Ofsted and the CQC. Involving the prisons inspectorate in these institutions would run counter to the ethos we are trying to develop.
In speaking to amendment 146, the hon. Member for Rotherham made a compelling contribution on some of the failings that have occurred in the past, which we all agree we want to avoid. We are clearly talking about the new secure 16-to-19 academies. I want to speak to the concern about the profit motive, which amendment 146 addresses. As part of the existing academies legislation, an academy trust is, by definition, a not-for-profit charitable company, so I can confirm to the hon. Member and other members of the Committee that because academy trusts have to be not-for-profit by their nature, this new provision does not open up the possibility of introducing the profit motive into the provision of these secure schools.
I hope that my remarks achieve the twin objectives of giving commitment and assurance on these clauses, as well as avoiding a clashing with a vote that may be imminent.
The Chair
The hon. Member for Rotherham looks happy. I will ask her if she is happy in relation to her amendment, but I will first go to the shadow Minister.
Alex Cunningham
I think we have to be very clear that we are talking about the incarceration of some of the most vulnerable young people in our society. I believe that we owe them a duty of care. When I was a local councillor and a lead member for children, I was a corporate parent for looked-after children, and I was responsible for them. We as MPs should be responsible for children in our society, particularly when we are dealing with such issues. I cannot understand for one minute why the Government would not want the most rigorous inspection regime possible.
What the Government are proposing is actually a testbed on how we look after those vulnerable children in future. It is a testbed; it has not been sorted, nothing has happened, and there here have been no pilots—nothing. Yet the Government are quite content to rely on independent visitors and inspections by different organisations. The most robust possible inspection of those establishments would certainly by conducted by HMIs and Ofsted.
History shows us—my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave some examples—that if we do not get this right, in future, the responsibility for that child who dies, or that child who gets abused, will lie at our door and with nobody else, because we may not have made sure that they had the most rigorous inspection regime possible. For that reason, even though Her Majesty’s inspectors do not wish to get involved in this, I think their expertise should be put to good use, and I intend to press both amendments to a vote.
Sarah Champion
I do not wish to divide the Committee. I am content with what the Minister said about profit, but I would be grateful if he could write to me about why local authorities cannot apply.
The Chair
Excellent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 137 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 123, in clause 138, page 126, line 40, at end insert—
“(8) A secure 16 to 19 Academy will be subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This amendment would make secure 16 to 19 academies subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Amendment proposed: 133, in clause 138, page 126, line 40, at end insert—
“(8) A secure 16 to 19 Academy will be subject to annual inspection by Ofsted.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This amendment would make secure 16 to 19 academies subject to annual inspection by Ofsted.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Adjourned till Thursday 17 June at half-past Eleven o’clock.
Written evidence reported to the House
PCSCB37 Ellie Cumbo, Head of Public Law, The Law Society (supplementary submission)
PCSCB38 The Bar Council
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 15th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 June 2021 - (15 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. No food or drink except the water provided is permitted during sittings of the Committee. I remind hon. Members to observe physical distancing. They should sit only in places that are clearly marked. It is important that Members find their seats and leave the room promptly in order to avoid delays for other Members and staff—that is not actually an issue for us because we have the room for the day. Members should wear face coverings in Committee unless they are speaking or medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. I remind Members wishing to press to a Division grouped amendments or new clauses that they should indicate their intention when speaking to their amendment. I think that, before we start, there is a point of order from the shadow Minister.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Charles. Good morning to you. I made a small but significant and totally unintentional mistake in one of my speeches last week. In the debate relating to clause 100, I referenced the Sentencing Council and said that it had expressed concern about the reasoning behind the proposed provision. The council had not; the comments made should have been attributed to the Sentencing Academy. I apologise to both organisations for the error, and I am pleased to set the record straight.
The Chair
That was a very generous and lovely apology.
Clause 106
Increase in requisite custodial period for certain violent or sexual offenders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Good morning, Sir Charles. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Clause 106 is an extremely important clause of the Bill, because it forms a critical part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the most serious offenders spend more time in prison, properly reflecting the gravity of their offences, protecting the public and building confidence in our sentencing regime. It does that by abolishing the automatic halfway release point for certain serious violent or sexual offenders and instead requiring them to serve two thirds of their sentence in prison.
This builds on changes made throughout 2020. First, in February of last year, we changed the release provisions for terrorists and terrorist-connected offenders receiving a standard determinate sentence in order to ensure that they serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody and thereafter are released only when the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to release them. Colleagues will recall the Bill that became the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, which we passed in a day in February of last year to prevent repeats of the Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham attacks. In fact, the first terrorist who might otherwise have been released early was kept in prison just a few weeks after we passed that Bill. The measure was tested in the High Court last summer and found to be lawful when measured against the European convention on human rights. I thought that the Committee might appreciate an update on that.
Then, in April of last year, we laid before the House a statutory instrument—the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020. I will explain what that did. For the most serious sexual or violent offenders with a standard determinate sentence of more than seven years, the automatic release point was moved from half to two thirds, ensuring that those serious offenders spend longer in prison. This clause puts the provisions of that order—a statutory instrument—into primary legislation. Critically, however, it goes further and says that serious sexual offenders and certain violent offenders receiving a standard determinate sentence not just of more than seven years but of between four and seven years will also automatically spend two thirds of their sentence in custody, rather than being automatically released at the halfway point; the release at the two-thirds point will still be automatic. It applies to any sexual offence carrying a maximum life sentence, including rape. I know that rape and related sexual offences are rightly of concern to the Committee, so it is worth stressing that this clause will ensure that rapists spend longer in prison.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
What assessment has the Minister made of the effect on the prison population, particularly in Wales, which already has the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe with 154 prisoners per 100,000 of the population of Wales, compared with 141 per 100,000 in England? Given the possible effects of inflation on the length of sentences, what provision will he make specifically for Welsh prisons to cope with that?
Chris Philp
We have indeed made such an assessment. We have done it for the whole jurisdiction, and the steady-state impact on the prison population is 255 prisoners. I do not have a breakdown for Wales, but I estimate—this is simply my off-the-cuff estimate—that the portion of that 255 that applies to Wales might be in the range of 10 to 20 prisoners in Wales. That is just my off-the-cuff estimate, not an official figure, so it carries quite an important health warning.
On the prison population impact and prison capacity more generally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are committed to building an extra 10,000 prison places to make sure we can cater to increased demands in the Prison Service as we make sure dangerous criminals spend longer incarcerated.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Building an extra 10,000 prison cells is very costly. Does the Minister agree that investing more in rehabilitation and preventive programmes might be a better use of the money?
Chris Philp
Of course, we do believe in rehabilitation and prevention, and a lot of work is going on in that area, but we are talking about people who have been convicted of offences such as rape and murder. On Second Reading, Members made the point about making sure that particularly sexual offenders, including rapists, spend longer in prison. There were different views on how that could be achieved, but there seemed to be broad unanimity across the House that such offenders should spend longer in prison, and the clause does exactly that. However, it in no way detracts from the importance of prevention and rehabilitation that the hon. Lady mentioned a second ago.
I should say that caught in this clause are not just sexual offenders who commit offences, including rape, with a life sentence, but also the most serious violent offenders, which includes those who commit manslaughter, attempted murder, soliciting murder, and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, so I think our constituents up and down the country will welcome the fact that these serious offenders will spend two thirds of their sentence in prison and not just a half.
Provision is also made in this clause for the two-thirds release requirement to apply to those under the age of 18 who were given a youth standard determinate sentence of seven years or more for a sexual offence with a maximum penalty of life, and for the other very serious violent offences just referred to. The changes are made by inserting new section 244ZA into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to make the necessary provisions. The measures will ensure that the proportion of the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence committed, and are intended to address long-held concerns, both in Parliament and among the public, about the automatic halfway release for serious offenders.
The two-thirds point also aligns with the release point for offenders found to be dangerous and therefore serving an extended determinate sentence, whose eligibility for release by the Parole Board commences from the two-thirds point, so it introduces consistency and coherence into the sentencing regime as well. On that basis, I commend this very important clause to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
Clause 106, as we have heard, follows the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020, which altered the automatic release point for offenders who have committed a specific sexual or violent offence. As the Minister said, the effect of the release of prisoners order was to move the automatic release point from halfway to two thirds of an eligible prisoner’s sentence, and would apply to those found guilty of specific sexual or violent offences for which the penalty is life, and who were sentenced to seven years or more in prison.
Clause 106 implements the proposal in the “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing” White Paper to extend these changes to include sentences of between four and seven years for any of the sexual offences already specified, but only to some of the specified violent offences. That raises a point of concern for the Opposition. Why does the clause apply to all the sexual offences covered by the release of prisoners order, but only some of the violent offences?
Clause 106 will apply only to manslaughter, soliciting murder, attempted murder, and wounding causing grievous bodily harm with intent. This is precisely the point that the Opposition are trying to make. First, the release of prisoners order fundamentally changed the sentencing and release regime. Now the Government propose to extend the regime, but only to some of the original offences, with the other offences remaining the same. How on earth can that do anything but confuse an already notoriously confused system? I have asked before, what is the point of the remarkable work of the Law Commission on producing a much simplified sentencing code if the Government continue to tinker with sentencing and release provisions?
It is not only the Opposition who are concerned by the direction of travel the Government are taking on sentencing complexity. After considering clause 106, the Sentencing Academy agreed that its inclusion,
“unquestionably makes sentencing more complex and less intelligible to the public. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the judiciary are already struggling in discharging their statutory duty to explain the effect of the sentence as a result of the SI 2020/158 change. This proposal will make this task more difficult and result in a greater number of errors.”
The academy goes on to express its concerns in full:
“We expressed concerns about the reforms last year and this provision exacerbates our concern. Proportionate sentencing is not well-served by a system in which identical sentence lengths have a significantly diverging impact in practice: two nine year sentences should carry the same penal weight; it should not mean six years in custody for one offence and four-and-a-half years in custody for another. The decision to exclude some violent offences from this proposal makes the system yet more perplexing: how can a seven year sentence for kidnapping justify four years and eight months in prison when a six year sentence for the same offence merits three years?”
I wonder if the Minister could explain that point to the Committee.
Let me be clear: Labour supports moves to ensure that the most serious and violent criminals receive longer sentences when there is evidence that their sentences do not match the severity of their crimes. That is why the Opposition supported the Government’s moves to introduce clause 101 to extend whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child; clause 102 to extend whole-life orders to those who are 18 to 20 and have committed particularly heinous crimes; and clause 103 to increase the starting points for murder committed as a child. However, we cannot support a series of yet more changes to sentencing and release, which will only further confuse the system and make the task of members of the judiciary even more difficult, resulting in a greater number of sentencing errors.
The Prison Reform Trust makes a good point on the Government’s proposed changes to sentencing and release when it says,
“that only serves to demonstrate the complexity of sentencing law in this area, and the extent to which the government adds to that complexity every time it responds to an individual crime by promising a change in sentencing law.”
If the Government want to ensure that serious violent and sex offenders spend longer in prison, they can easily do so simply by increasing the maximum sentence length for the relevant offences. Taking that route rather than what the Sentencing Academy describes as,
“sentence inflation via the back door”
would not lead to judges being confused and making sentencing errors. Moreover, it would not lead to the public being confused and losing faith in our sentencing system. Taking that route would also mean that prisoners spend longer in jail without having to lose out on the rehabilitative properties of spending half their sentence in the community.
That brings me to another fundamental concern that the Opposition have with clause 106. By requiring an offender to spend additional time in prison, the amount of time that they would spend in the community under supervision would decrease significantly. As the Howard League notes, we know that reducing
“the amount of time which people who have committed serious offences spend under the supervision of probation services in the community…is likely to undermine public safety rather than helping to keep victims and the public safe. Though there is no single model of probation supervision, a rapid evidence review across jurisdictions and models suggests that community supervision in itself reduces reoffending—unlike time in prison, which increases reoffending rates.”
To sum up, the Opposition agree with the Government that where evidence exists that sentences do not properly reflect the severity of the crimes committed, sentencing reform should absolutely be an option. None the less, sentencing reform should be properly considered and guided by the principles set out by the Lord Chancellor in his foreword to the White Paper. Sentences should make sense to victims, members of the judiciary and legal practitioners. More importantly, sentences should make sense to the general public. Only when the general public and victims of crime understand our sentencing regime will they have full faith in it. We believe clause 106 goes against those principles, and for that reason we cannot support it.
The Chair
Are there any colleagues who would like to participate before I call the Minister? If not, I call the Minister.
Chris Philp
I feel bound to reply to some of the points that the shadow Minister has just made. First, he said that the provisions make sentencing more complicated and that it will be harder for the judiciary to understand. I will pass over the implied slight on the judiciary’s ability to absorb complicated sentencing, but the measures relate exclusively to release provisions; they make no changes to the way that sentencing works. As such, this does not change anything a judge will do in passing sentence. The release decisions, and the administration of that, are obviously done by the Prison Service and the National Probation Service down the track. The release provisions have nothing at all to do with sentencing, so let me assure the shadow Minister on that point.
Secondly, the shadow Minister said that if we want people to spend longer in prison, we should increase the maximum sentence. By definition, the way that the provisions are constructed mean that they relate only to offences where the maximum sentence is life. It is not possible to increase a sentence beyond life—life already is the maximum. The only way to increase the sentencing is for the Sentencing Council to change its guidelines, and as the shadow Minister knows, the Sentencing Council is independent of Government and is chaired by Lord Justice Holroyde. However, I note in passing that average sentence lengths passed down by judges for serious offences have been increasing. Since 2010—a date that I choose arbitrarily—the average sentence for rape has gone up by about two and a half years, so judges have chosen to increase sentence lengths in the past 10 years.
The shadow Minister asked why the selection of violent offences with sentences between four and seven years is narrower than those above seven years. To be completely clear, the list of sexual offences is the same: between four and seven years, and seven-plus. I think the shadow Minister did say that, but I repeat it for clarity. The reason is that we are trying to calibrate the provisions in order to target the most serious offences, which include all serious violent and sexual offences where the sentence is more than seven years, and all serious sexual offences where the sentence is between four and seven years, but just that smaller selection of violent offences, such as manslaughter and so on, which we talked about earlier. We are attempting to calibrate this to the most serious offences.
Finally, the shadow Minister asked about public perception. Over the past 10 or 20 years, the public have been both confused and angered that a court hands down a sentence to a very serious offender—we are talking about sentences that carry a maximum of life, such as manslaughter and rape—and the offender then walks out halfway through a sentence, or less than halfway when time on remand in taken into account. The public are angered by that. In fact, as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, I get quite a lot of correspondence from members of the public who are angry about serious offenders getting released inappropriately early, as they see it. I agree, which is why we will ensure that the most serious offenders spend longer in prison. If the Opposition vote against this measure, as it would appear they are about to do, they are voting to say that they do not think those serious offenders should spend longer in prison. They are voting for people who have committed manslaughter or rape to be released from prison earlier than would be the case if the clause were passed. I think the public expect us to do something different, and I ask the Opposition to think again—particularly given that, on Second Reading, both sides of the House seemed to be arguing that people who commit very serious offences, including rape, should spend longer in prison. The clause does exactly that. On that basis, I commend it to the Committee.
Chris Philp
Clause 107 makes some changes to SOPC—sentences for offenders of particular concern—essentially to tidy up an anomaly that arose from the changes made last year. As Members will recall, under the changes we made last year to terrorism sentencing, when a terrorist offender had a SOPC sentence the release point was moved to two thirds, at which point they became eligible for consideration for release by the Parole Board. However, two child sexual offences also carry a mandatory SOPC sentence where there are different release provisions.
In this clause, we are simply making a change to make the release provisions for those two child sex offences in relation to the SOPC sentence the same as those for the terrorist sentence—that is to say, they will serve two thirds, following which they will be eligible for consideration for release by the Parole Board. That makes the sentence the same as for the other terrorism SOPC offences and the same as the extended determinate sentences. In his last speech, the shadow Minister spoke in a spirit of simplification and consistency, and this change is consistent with that principle. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister likes to have his little digs; I think he quite enjoys them. I assure the Committee and everybody else that I have full confidence in the judiciary. If the Minister had as much confidence as I do, perhaps he would not be mucking about so much with the system and would leave the judiciary to sentence within the regime that exists.
As we have heard, as with clause 106 the purpose of clause 107 is to increase the proportion of the time certain offenders spend their sentence in jail. In this case, we are talking about offenders of particular concern, meaning those who have been convicted of one or two child sexual offences or certain terrorist offences. As set out by the Minister, as things currently stand different release arrangements apply to offenders of particular concern convicted of terror offences and those convicted of child sexual offences.
Clause 107 would change that by ensuring that all offenders of particular concern would serve two thirds rather than one half of their sentence in prison, before applying to the Parole Board to be released. Given that I have spoken extensively on the same matter, or very similar matters, in clauses 105 and 106, this speech will be very short. For the reasons I set out in relation to those clauses, we cannot support clause 107. Although the Opposition agree that those who have committed the most serious violent and sexual offences should spend longer in prison, we do not believe that the method set out in clauses 105 to 107 is the best vehicle to meet this policy objective.
The Opposition cannot support more changes to the sentencing and release regimes. Contrary to what the Minister says, that will further complicate our sentencing system and risk victims of crime and members of the public losing faith in it. If the Government want to ensure that offenders spend longer in prison, where the evidence base suggests they should, we believe there are better ways of achieving that goal.
Chris Philp
I have nothing to add, except one point that I should have made in my earlier speech. If someone with a SOPC serves their entire sentence in custody, they get a year on licence after release. That is an important point to add to my previous remarks, but I have nothing further to add to my speech on clause 106: the same points apply.
-Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
Sorry, Sir Charles; I was momentarily moved to speechlessness by the fact that the Opposition have just voted to let child rapists out of jail earlier than the clause proposes.
Chris Philp
Let us move on to clause 108, which relates to a new power for the Secretary of State to prevent the automatic release of offenders serving a standard determinate sentence, where release is ordinarily automatic, and instead refer them to the Parole Board in certain, very limited circumstances.
With a standard determinate sentence at the moment, there is automatic release at either the halfway point or, for more serious offences, at the two-thirds point, as per clauses 105 and 106. Clause 108 creates a new power to allow the Secretary of State to refer a prisoner who is in custody and assessed as dangerous to the Parole Board, to decide whether or not they are safe to release. Prisoners who are serving a standard determinate sentence, for any offence, who have become dangerous or who are identified as being dangerous while they are in prison get this referral.
To be clear, we are not creating a new kind of indeterminate sentence like the old imprisonment for public protection sentences, created in 2003, in which the sentence could carry on forever if someone were considered to be dangerous. The maximum sentence originally passed by the court on conviction and sentencing still applies.
We are not overriding the sentence of the court, but we are saying that if an offender is identified as dangerous they may continue to serve their determinate sentence until its end, unless and until the Parole Board, after the release point, decides that they are safe to release. It means that if someone becomes dangerous, they do not automatically get released early.
Sarah Champion
The Minister will see from an upcoming amendment that I am interested in this clause. Can he give some clarification? Will he define “dangerous”? I assume that is within the prison context, as opposed to the crime being served for.
Will the Minister give some details on when and why the Secretary of State might intervene? At the moment, depending on the Parole Board’s decision, the Secretary of State already has 21 days to intervene. Will he explain what the clause will bring to the table?
Chris Philp
I am happy to answer all those questions, which are good questions. The 21-days provision that allows the Parole Board to think again has nothing to do with this; it is completely separate. It is a live issue in the terrible Pitchfork case, which Members will be aware of.
The provision in which the Parole Board takes a decision to release and the Secretary of State may ask it to think again, within 21 days, applies to any Parole Board release and is a matter currently being considered. That is wholly separate from this provision. It relates to any Parole Board release decision and was prompted by the awful Worboys case two or three years ago.
Here we are talking about where a prisoner is serving a standard determinate sentence and would ordinarily be released automatically without any Parole Board involvement at all, and the Secretary of State says, “Well, I think actually they are now dangerous”—I will come on to what that means in a minute—“and instead of automatic release, can the Parole Board look at the case and decide whether they are suitable for release, once their release point is passed?” That is different from the 21-days reconsideration.
The hon. Member for Rotherham asked for the definition of becoming dangerous and whether it means dangerous in a prison context. The answer is no. It does not mean dangerous in a prison context; it means dangerous to the public. One might ask what “dangerous to the public” means. The definition of “dangerous” in this context has a high threshold—we anticipate this provision will be used extremely rarely; it is not going to be a commonly used provision. It is that an offender is at “significant risk” of causing “serious harm” to the public by committing murder or one of the serious offences listed in schedule 18 of the Sentencing Act 2020, such as manslaughter, rape or terrorist offences, and that the risk cannot be sufficiently managed through the use of licence conditions.
If a referral is made, the Parole Board will consider it. It may say, “We will release them anyway” or, “We think there is a danger; we are going to keep them inside.” It can only keep them inside prison until the end of the original sentence that the court handed down.
I will give an example not caught by our new provisions. To take the example the shadow Minister used, let us say there is a six-year sentence for kidnapping. Currently, there would ordinarily be automatic release after three years. If for some reason there is evidence that the person who has been committed for kidnap might commit a terrorist offence or might kill someone, the Secretary of State can refer and the Parole Board will then consider, “Are they dangerous? Can we release them?” If it decides to keep them in prison, they can be kept in prison up to the six years of the original sentence, but no later. During the final three-year period in my example, the Parole Board will look at the case periodically.
If, after reference to the Parole Board, the prisoner thinks there has been an unreasonable delay—“I should have been released after three years, but it is now three years and six months and no one has looked at it; this is unreasonable”—they can refer the matter to the High Court to get it sorted out. There is a safety mechanism so that there cannot be an unreasonable delay.
Alex Cunningham
Will the Minister confirm something? In the event of a dangerous person—a radicalised person—being required to serve their full sentence, will they be released into the community without any supervision or licence conditions when they get to the end of the sentence?
Chris Philp
That already happens, of course, with extended determinate sentences, where it is possible that the person will spend all their sentence in prison. If the Parole Board does that, there is no subsequent period on licence—unlike the SOPC that we just talked about, where there is a minimum of one year on licence afterwards.
Of course, when the Parole Board makes decisions about whether to release in the final half or third of a sentence, it will be aware of the point that the shadow Minister made. If it thinks that public safety is best served by releasing a little bit before the end of the sentence to allow that one year, or whatever it may be, on licence at the end, it is within its power to consider and do that—so instead of the individual serving all the sentence inside, there would be a bit of release on licence at the end. The Parole Board can think about that at the end if it chooses to.
Alex Cunningham
But surely the point remains that this person, who is said to be a danger to the public although there may not be sufficient evidence to convict him of another charge, will be released into the community at the end of their sentence—after six years, 10 years or whatever—and will still be the same dangerous person he was thought to be by the Lord Chancellor, through the Parole Board, when he was in prison.
Chris Philp
Under ECHR and common-law provisions, we cannot extend a sentence beyond what was handed down by the court. Of course, that was the big problem with the old IPP sentences, where people could stay in prison forever; indeed, there are still people in prison under IPP sentences.
We have to work within the envelope—within the maximum sentence handed down by the court originally for the offence originally committed. The judgment is essentially to be exercised by the Parole Board on how best to protect the public, by striking a balance. Do we leave people in prison for the whole time or do we release them a bit early with a period on licence? That is a judgment that the Parole Board has to make to best protect the public. In some cases, if it thinks that the risk is very high, it may consider that the whole term in prison is the best way.
Take the example of the six years. The Parole Board may say, “Well, six years in prison is better than five years in prison followed by one year on licence”. It is a judgment that the Parole Board must make. We cannot reasonably go beyond that six years, because that would be potentially unjust: we would be punishing someone and imposing a sentence that was longer than that originally handed down by the court for the offence of which they were convicted. That would be contrary to natural justice, common law and ECHR provisions.
That is why the measure is designed as it is, and I hope that makes sense.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The old IPP sentences had their problems; they were much too widely used and were not originally intended to be that widely used. There was an issue about them, certainly. However, would not that kind of sentence—one that was indeterminate but able to be cut short when the individual concerned could demonstrate that they were no longer dangerous—be the answer in some of the kinds of tangents that the Minister is talking about?
The Minister seems to be tying himself in knots, to say, “Well, it’s going to be either three years or six years, but we all know that the person is coming out at the end”. Originally, IPP sentences were legislated for to deal with this very issue, but of course they ended up being too widely used. Is there not a better way of reintroducing some kind of IPP sentences that would enable greater safety but be much more narrowly used?
Chris Philp
Can I clarify whether the hon. Member is talking about potentially indeterminate sentences?
Chris Philp
She is. Okay.
We debated this issue internally, when we were designing the clause. Clearly, one of the options considered was reintroducing some form of IPP sentence, which is, as the hon. Lady said, indeterminate, meaning that it could go on forever. That was not done because there is potentially an inherent injustice. We have been using the example of kidnap, so let us keep using it. If someone commits that offence and the judge decides that six years is the right sentence, to then say that that person, having been given a fixed sentence, could spend the rest of their life in prison because of a risk that they might offend later—they had not committed a more serious offence; it is just that they might—struck us as being inherently unjust.
Do hon. Members remember the film “Minority Report”, where people were incarcerated because it was judged that they might commit an offence in the future? If we get into the territory of imposing a penalty, which could be imprisonment forever, because someone might commit an offence rather than because they actually have committed an offence, we are straying into potentially slightly dangerous territory.
Maria Eagle
I was not suggesting that; I was not suggesting that people who have been given determinate sentences should then arbitrarily suddenly find themselves with an indeterminate sentence. What I was suggesting was that perhaps there are a small number of cases for which it would be appropriate to reintroduce the possibility for judges to give indeterminate sentences again. The problem with the IPP was that it was much too widely used; I think the wording was too broad and it was much too widely used by sentencers. But the purpose of it was to deal with just these cases that the Minister is talking about.
I am not suggesting that somebody who has been given a determinate sentence should then arbitrarily be given an indeterminate sentence. However, if an indeterminate sentence for public protection was available in very narrow circumstances to judges, would that not fill this gap in a more coherent way than the way in which the Minister is trying to do it?
Chris Philp
Clearly, if the original offence for which the offender is sentenced is one of the more serious ones that we have been talking about—for example, even offences that we consider to be moderately serious, such as committing grievous bodily harm with intent, have life sentences—the judge can, if he or she chooses, impose a life sentence and set a tariff for consideration for release, so there is flexibility. We are talking about cases where the original offence is not one of those very serious ones that has a life sentence, but one that has a fixed determinate sentence. I think the hon. Member is asking if we can give the judge the power to say that, even though the original offence has a fixed maximum sentence of, for example, only five years, they will override that and say, “Actually, for some reason that is not to do with the original offence, but is just to do with some other assessment of public risk, I will give you an indeterminate sentence.” I think that is the question.
Maria Eagle
Not quite. I was suggesting that perhaps the Minister should legislate for indeterminate sentences in particular circumstances and give the judge that discretion, but in a much narrower band of offences than those that ended up getting indeterminate sentences in the past. Indeterminate sentences have all been abolished now—they cannot be used. If I might say so, it seems that the Minister is trying to deal with the very issue that they were introduced to deal with in a very convoluted manner.
Chris Philp
No, we are trying to do deal with the issue of prisoners who become dangerous, or who clearly pose a danger to the public, while they are in prison, but without doing what IPPs did. IPPs were abolished for a reason in 2012: people who committed a particular offence with a fixed sentence of, say, five years could end up in prison forever. As I have said, for more serious offenders the judge has the option of a life sentence, but we do not think it is right that someone could commit an offence with a fixed sentence, such as five years, and end up in prison for life, not for an offence they have committed, but for one that they might commit in the future.
This is the best way of balancing that public protection consideration against natural justice—that the punishment should fit the crime—and avoid a “Minority report”-type situation where someone is incarcerated for a crime that they may commit in the future, but have not yet committed. This strikes the right balance. We stay within the envelope of the sentence handed down by the judge. The judge has the option in serious cases to hand down a life sentence already, but we have just changed the release provisions.
We have debated the clause relatively extensively, Sir Charles. It strikes the right balance between natural justice and protecting the public. On that basis, I commend it to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
As we have heard, clause 108 would create a new power to allow the Lord Chancellor to refer a prisoner to the Parole Board who would otherwise be eligible for automatic release, if he believes that they have become a significant danger to the public while in prison. Rather than being freed at the halfway or two-thirds point of a sentence, they would be released only if the Parole Board thought it was safe. If the Parole Board did not believe it was safe, they would continue to serve the rest of their sentence in prison, unless the Parole Board consequently changed its mind. As the Minister has confirmed, if they served the whole of their sentence in prison, they would then be released into the community without any licence conditions or supervision.
It is safe to say that the Opposition have several serious concerns with clause 108, and largely agree with the Prison Reform Trust in believing that
“this clause creates a constitutional and legal mess”.
Let us start with the basics. As is set out in the explanatory notes to the Bill, this is a brand new power, the beneficiary of whom is the Lord Chancellor.
Chris Philp
I say with great respect to the shadow Minister that the beneficiary of this clause is not the Lord Chancellor, but the general public, who might be protected from dangerous offenders who would otherwise be released.
Alex Cunningham
The Lord Chancellor is the beneficiary, because he is given a new power to change things and refer.
The effect of the clause is that, for the first time for these types of prisoners, the Lord Chancellor will have the power effectively to refer a prisoner to have their sentence conditions varied, should the Parole Board agree. We all understand that. For example, if a prisoner is sentenced to five years for shoplifting, under current legislation they would become eligible to be automatically released on licence at the halfway point of their sentence. Under the new provision, if the Lord Chancellor believes that the shoplifter had become radicalised in prison, he could refer the prisoner to the Parole Board, which could prevent his automatic release. That would, of course, be without the prisoner ever having been charged or found guilty of any further offence while in prison.
That raises two fundamental questions. First, is it right or proper for the Lord Chancellor to be involved in the management of individual prisoners? How will he make the decision to refer somebody to the Parole Board? What criteria will be used for the Lord Chancellor to make such a referral decision? Secondly, is this not a case of punishment without due process, and therefore unlawful?
On the first point, I note the remarks of the Sentencing Academy on clause 108:
“giving the Secretary of State for Justice the power to intervene in the management of an individual offender’s sentence gives rise to concern about undue political interference in the sentences of individual offenders.”
I accept that the final decision rests with the Parole Board. That raises the all-important question of whether the Secretary of State for Justice, who is after all a member of the Government, is really the right person to decide who should be referred to the Parole Board in a prison that could be hundreds of miles away.
That is by no means the only question provoked by clause 108, as currently drafted. The questions go on and on. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to provide clarity on at least the following points today. What evidential tests will have to be satisfied for the Secretary of State to make a referral to the Parole Board, and who will be responsible for collecting that evidence? What standard of proof will the Secretary of State use when deciding to make a referral or not? Will he have to be satisfied that someone has become a significant danger on the balance of probabilities, or beyond reasonable doubt? If the Secretary of State is so concerned that someone has become radicalised or poses a serious threat, why not simply take that person to court and allow a judge to consider the evidence? Are the Government simply trying to avoid the inconvenience of having to provide evidence and have it tested in open court? Is it not a dangerous precedent for the Secretary of State to become involved in determinations made about individual cases?
That brings me to my next concern. What happens to a prisoner who, after being referred by the Secretary of State to the Parole Board, is refused their automatic release? As I understand it, if the offender is denied automatic release, he or she could spend the rest of their custodial sentence in prison, rather than some of it on licence in the community. Those prisoners will be released before the end of their sentence only if and when the Parole Board authorises it.
That raises two further concerns. First, it would create what Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has described as a “cliff-edge effect”, which is where an offender who has specifically been identified as being a significant danger to the public while in prison spends their entire sentence in custody and is released into the community without any licence or monitoring conditions. Let us think about a possible scenario. A prisoner has been convicted for non-terrorist or non-violent crime and is sentenced in court to, say, five years. They are specifically told by the court that they can expect to be automatically released from prison at the halfway point of their sentence—in that case, two and a half years. Instead, they receive the news that the Secretary of State has reason to believe that they have become a danger to society while in prison. The Parole Board agrees, and their sentence is retrospectively changed so that they can spend the whole sentence in prison.
I am sure the Minister will agree that that offender would have some right to be angry with the criminal justice system and society at large. They would then be released, harbouring that anger, without any licence conditions or supervision. Does the Minister not see what the consequences of that could be? Would it not be better simply to collect any evidence and allow a court to come to a determination? Surely, if the evidence of what is effectively an offence exists, the person should be charged and sentenced for that offence.
During the evidence session on 18 May, the Minister tried to convince the Committee that clause 108 would not create that cliff-edge effect by indicating that if the authorities were particularly concerned about an individual offender, the Home Secretary could impose a terrorism prevention and investigation measure on them. However, that excuse simply does not stack up. As Jonathan Hall, QC, pointed out, TPIMs are extremely resource-intensive and very rarely used, especially in these circumstances. As the Minister will be aware, for each of the three-month periods between 1 December 2018 and 30 November 2019, only three to five TPIMs were in place nationally.
Sarah Champion
It was not my intention to make a speech on this clause, but more questions are being raised than answered, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer a few of them.
I share the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, and there are many questions, but I have always had a problem with the idea of someone being given a sentence and serving only a third or two thirds of it. I would much rather that it were clear that a sentence was for this amount of time in prison and that amount of time under licence in the community, because I think that would give clarity. My concern about the clause is that it almost creates a hierarchy of sentencing, which I find confusing.
I know well only the behaviour of sexual offenders, and I am yet to find any form of rehabilitation or punishment that effectively changes their behaviour, so I could argue persuasively here that they will always be a danger and that there is always a potential risk. I also believe, however, that we need a justice system that is fair and transparent so that we can follow it, and I am not sure that the clause would allow us to do that. I am concerned that if someone is released at the end of their sentence after serving a full term, the probation, rehabilitation and limits that a licence would put around them might not be there, meaning that their transition into the community is abrupt and does not have the level of support that is needed to curb some people’s behaviour.
I am concerned that the Minister did not once mention whether victims would be consulted. My amendment 145 deals with that. Who could be better than victims and survivors to say whether a person is a danger and to influence the decision of the Lord Chancellor? I am also concerned that there may be subjectivity in decisions made by this Lord Chancellor and future Lord Chancellors—that cannot be allowed to happen. I really hope that the Minister will give some reassurances on the points that I have raised, because at the moment the clause would not be a successful one.
Hywel Williams
I want to raise one particular point. Is the Minister aware of the Welsh Government’s recently published race equality action plan, which states its commitment to developing a race equality delivery plan that will address the over-representation of black, Asian and minority ethnic people in the criminal justice system? Indeed, in Wales, more black and minority ethnic people are in prison than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Does he share my concern that this and other clauses might militate against the policy of the Senedd in Cardiff, a legislative public body that has been democratically elected?
Chris Philp
I will try briefly to respond to some of the points raised by Opposition Members in relation to clause 108.
First, on whether the clause somehow infringes natural justice or the ECHR, or imposes a penalty without due process, as the shadow Minister put it, I can categorically say that it does not, because under no circumstances can anyone spend a longer period in prison than the original sentence handed down by the judge. The clause relates to the administration of the release provisions. It is a long-established legal principle that the administration of a sentence—whether it is spent inside or outside prison, for example—is a matter that can be varied in the course of the sentence being served.
This matter was tested in the courts relatively recently when we passed the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020. The very first person who was effectively kept in prison longer than they ordinarily would have been, because their release point was basically moved by that Act, went to the High Court and tried to make the case that that was an infringement of their rights because they thought they were going to get released automatically at two thirds, but were instead referred to the Parole Board, which did not let them out. Because of TORA, that has been tested in the High Court and found to be lawful—that is to say, the administration of the sentence can be varied.
The reason we have gone no further than that and have said that someone cannot be kept in prison for longer than the original sentence—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood was probing on this in her interventions—was that we think that would infringe the principle of natural justice. The shadow Minister questions whether we have gone too far and the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood thinks we have not gone far enough, which might suggest that we have landed in around the right place.
There was then the question from the shadow Minister on the cliff edge issue: if someone serves all of their sentence in prison, they then spend no time on licence, by definition. That does, of course, apply to any of the existing extended determinate sentences if the Parole Board decide to keep the prisoner inside prison for the whole of their sentence. The potential for the cliff edge does exist, but when deciding whether to release early the Parole Board can, of course, take into account whether the public are better served by the whole sentence being spent in prison, or most of it in prison and a bit of licence at the end. In no sense are the public any less safe if the prisoner spends all of the sentence in prison, given that the sentence is a maximum. The prisoner is in prison, clearly, and cannot commit an offence during that period.
On rehabilitation, it can of course take place, it does take place, and it should take place in prison as much as in the community. Significant resources are being invested in that rehabilitation process in prison, led by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk).
On the matter of the propriety of the Lord Chancellor making the referral, as raised by the shadow Minister and by the hon. Member for Rotherham, the power is the power of referral. The Secretary of State for Justice, the Lord Chancellor, is not making any final decision himself or herself about release, and is simply referring a prisoner to the Parole Board to make that determination and that decision. That does not constitute undue political interference in the process.
Chris Philp
I am anxious to make progress, but I will take an intervention.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. For me, the issue is the basis on which the Lord Chancellor makes the decision to refer. What evidence test is used and who gathers that particular evidence?
Chris Philp
Most likely, as a matter of practice, that would be the prison governor or prison authorities who see behaviour of concern, and might draw the matter to the attention of the Ministry of Justice and the Secretary of State.
The shadow minister asked what test was applied. The test is whether there is a significant risk of serious harm to the public by the offender potentially committing a serious offence, such as murder, in the future, as listed in section 18 of the Sentencing Act 2020, and that the risk cannot be sufficiently managed through the use of licence conditions. That is the test that will be applied by those making decisions, but ultimately the decision is for the Parole Board.
The concept of the Parole Board making a discretionary decision about whether to release already exists, and has done for years. Currently it exists in the contest of extended determinate sentences, and in the past it existed—in theory at least—for every single sentence passed. It already happens for thousands and thousands of extended determinate sentences, so what is proposed here is not a radical departure from current practice for extended determinate sentences, nor indeed for people on a life sentence with a tariff. The referral process can add to the criteria taken into account for those offenders. We would expect that to involve small numbers.
In answer to the issue relating to Wales raised by the hon. Member for Arfon, we are expecting the numbers to be extremely low. It will not have a significant impact on overall numbers. It is, mercifully, pretty rare for that sort of evidence to come to light. If the evidence is at the level that it merits prosecution—planning, preparing or inciting an offence, which was asked about—obviously prosecution is the first option. Prosecution for the offence will always be the first option, but if we cannot establish that an offence has been committed to the required criminal standard, a Parole Board referral is the next best thing up to the maximum sentence, but no further. I hope that address the questions—
Alex Cunningham
I asked the Minister to address the issue of the number of TPIMs likely to be applied in the event of somebody considered to be dangerous when leaving prison.
Chris Philp
I cannot speculate on what may happen in the future. The shadow Minister pointed out that the number of TPIMs in use is pretty small and that is most certainly true. Equally, the number of people likely to be referred in that way will be small, albeit likely to be larger than the number of TPIMs. As I said, there is the option for the Parole Board not to have the person serve the full sentence but to have a little bit at the end served on licence. There is that option, as well as the TPIM, plus the option for the police and security services to keep people under observation more generally, if they are concerned. I hope that answers the point.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister has given a full response to some of the issues I raised but not a sufficient one. I am worried about the evidential test in relation to this matter. The Minister said if there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution while the person remains in prison, there will be a prosecution, but if that evidence does not meet a criminal test, there can be no prosecution and this legislation will be relied on to retain the person in prison following a referral to the Parole Board. We remain very concerned about that and about the standard of proof, which we also talked about.
Ultimately, this issue is about how prisoners are managed in the longer term and their rehabilitation. The fact remains that someone who is considered dangerous, though not dangerous enough to be prosecuted, can be released into the community at the end of their sentence without any supervision or conditions. I accept that the Minister says the security services or police might keep an eye on them. That is insufficient if somebody is considered to be so dangerous. On that basis, we still oppose the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before we move on, I remind the Committee that it was notified to the Chair that the Whips wish to get to clause 138 by close of play today. We are moving at glacial pace. I know these are important matters but, if we continue to move at that pace, the Whips may want to recalibrate their lofty ambitions over lunch.
Clause 109
Power to make provision for reconsideration and setting aside of Parole Board decisions
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 109, page 98, line 41, at beginning insert—
‘(1) In subsection (3) of section 239 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the Parole Board), after 3(b) insert—
“(c) the views of the victim or victims of the crime to which the case relates””
This amendment would amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ensure victims/survivors are consulted in parole decisions which will affect them.
I have tabled the amendment because two survivors have raised this as an issue with me this year. I have briefly spoken to the Minister because I am not sure that the amendment will achieve the job I hope it will. By raising it, I hope the Minister will work with me to come up with a solution, because we have a real problem here.
The amendment aims to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to ensure that victims and survivors are consulted on parole decisions that affect them. Currently, victims of crime, such as child abuse, can submit a victim impact statement before it is decided whether the abuser will receive parole. Victims should be informed when their abuser is released from prison or is on parole. However, too often that process is not carried out and victims are unaware that their abuser has been released from prison, or has been moved to a different category of prison.
The all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse found in its survey that as many as 75% of victims are not informed about their perpetrator being released on parole. One survivor who contributed to the report said:
“I found out my abuser was living nearby. In a town I visited regularly with my children for their sports club. And nobody bothered to inform me. I found this completely unacceptable.”
The shock and fear of finding out unexpectedly can be incredibly distressing for victims. Another survivor said:
“I was petrified because they gave him my name and all he’s got to do is look on the electoral roll and he could find me.”
Including victims and survivors in the parole decision-making process would let them understand how and why decisions are made. In discussion of the previous clause, the Minister presented an argument around the word “dangerous” and what makes an offender dangerous. Who better to feed in that information to the Parole Board’s decisions or the Lord Chancellor’s decisions than the victims and survivors themselves? Furthermore, allowing survivors to contribute to the process would ensure their voice is heard and the terror they have experienced in the past will not be relived—if they are listened to.
My amendment would ensure the Parole Board must consult with the victim during any decisions that would give recommendations resulting in parole for the offender. It would amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003, so the Parole Board must take account of the views of the person to whom the case is related. If it becomes a legal necessity for the Parole Board to consult with the victim, the potential for them to not be informed would not be an issue.
In 2019, the Government pledged to allow victims into parole hearings and, in 2020, they also consulted on making some parole hearings open to victims. Both of those followed the Worboys case, which exposed the failures of the parole process. At the time, the Government said they wanted to increase survivors’ ability to challenge release decisions if they felt the decision was flawed. That would save time and resources by consulting with the victim before the decision is made. The current system is not working for victims. We need a justice system that puts victims at the heart of its decisions.
This is not me just making a speech. As I said earlier, this is because I have two cases at the moment where the parole process has completely failed. Both relate to Rotherham survivors of past historic child sexual exploitation, and the first case is a survivor who I will call Elizabeth. The perpetrator was sentenced to nine years for two counts of rape of a girl under 16 in 2018. They were transferred after two and a half years to a category D prison, which we would view as an open prison. They were also told they could have day release but for covid-19.
The victim had signed up to the victim contact scheme, which should have ensured she was notified and provided with information about key stages in the offender’s sentence, including for those cases where release falls to the Parole Board. She should have been consulted on the timing of the Parole Board’s review and whether the offender was released or moved to open conditions. All of that should have been relayed to her. The victim should have been notified that the transfer to open conditions was being considered, and then she should have been told of the outcome. At the moment, victims have only a right of notification, and notification took place, in this case, after the decision was made.
I raised the issue with the Minister, who responded, explaining the legal position that, in accordance with legislation at the time, the offender is required to serve half of the sentence in custody, with the remaining period served in the community on licence and subject to supervision by the National Probation Service. During the custodial period, offenders must be held in the lowest security conditions necessary to manage the safety of their identified risk of escape or absconding, the risk of harm to the public and the risk of any serious disorder. Those are the considerations, not the impact on the victims.
The errors in the case, as identified by the Minister, were that the prison is responsible for managing a case. The prison offender manager should have contacted the victim liaison officer directly to let them know that the move to open conditions was under consideration, but they failed to do so. The senior manager has spoken to the staff at the prison, and a reminder has been sent to all of the staff reminding them to follow the correct procedure. The requirement has been raised with the National Probation Service regional implementation managers to take forward and ensure other prisons follow the correct process.
I will quote from the letter from the Solicitor General dated 21 October 2020.
“The reason for informing victims before the decision is taken, is to ensure that victims are kept updated with developments, so that a move to open conditions does not come as a total shock, and also to ensure the prison is aware of any exclusion zones which the victim has requested. This can help to inform which open prison an offender is moved to. I should like to underline that the Government shares the concerns about offenders who commit very serious crimes, and yet are released automatically at the halfway point in their sentence. We have taken action to address this through legislation we introduced earlier this year. We are committed to ensure that serious offenders spend the time in prison that reflects the gravity of their crimes and intend to bring forward proposals to further strengthen the law in this area”—
the Bill that we are all serving on.
So we got an apology, commitments and managers and staff spoken to. It was never going to happen again, and then, lo and behold, two months later, I got a near identical case—case B. The perpetrator was sentenced to nine years on three counts of sexual activity with a child in 2018. The offender was transferred to a category D prison in February 2021—again, two and a half years after the sentence—but the victim was not notified until April, three months after the offender was moved to a category D prison. Again, the victim was signed up to the victim contact scheme, but was not notified until after the transfer had taken place.
Again, I contacted the Minister, and in January 2021 the prison offender manager told the victim liaison officer that the offender had been assessed as suitable for open conditions in October and that an open prison had confirmed they would accept the offender, but the date of transfer had not been finalised. The POM should then have informed the victim liaison officer when the open conditions were considered, not just about the decision. Once the victim liaison officer was notified, the victim should have been notified, but that did not happen. The victim liaison officer asked to be notified when the transfer had taken place, but the prison, whose responsibility this was, failed to inform her. The victim liaison officer became aware themselves only in April when the community offender manager made inquiries about the conditions that the victim would wish to request for temporary release of the prisoner who raped her three times when she was a child.
Something is going horribly wrong. We have a system in which, twice in six months, victims of the most serious crime have been let down by the state. The system that the Minister currently has in place is not working, so how can we make sure that this does not keep on happening again and again? I am one MP and I have had two cases in the past six months, so it concerns me that this is happening all over the country, but survivors would not think to go to their MP to get it raised. The transfer of offenders guilty of serious offences to open conditions after just a quarter of their sentence is deeply wrong. The thought of an offender being back in the community is deeply traumatising for victims who have already been through both the crime and also the ordeal of a trial only comparatively recently. Notification is vital, as should be consultation. However, consultation is not offered and the system for notification is clearly dysfunctional.
As I said to the Minister, I am not sure that my amendment is the correct amendment, but I really need some reassurances to make sure that victims are both notified and consulted. To refer back to the previous clause, how are we meant to know whether an offender is dangerous and a risk unless we actually hear from the people who have been subjected to the horror that that person can wreak?
Alex Cunningham
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham on tabling amendment 145, which has been crafted with her characteristic care and has won support from colleagues across the House. Contrary to what she might think, I think it is the right amendment. The Opposition fully support the principle behind amendment 145 that victims and survivors deserve to be at the heart of criminal justice and, in this case, to be consulted on decisions made by the Parole Board that affect them. The amendment is a simple one, and I will not detain the Committee by repeating the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham on the technical aspects of how it would work
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for moving her amendment and for her remarks, the spirit of which I certainly completely agree with. Amendment 145 covers only moves to open prisons rather than Parole Board release decisions more generally. I think it is worth making it clear to the Committee that the victim’s rights to participate in the parole process are clearly enshrined already in the victims’ code, published again recently. Under the Parole Board’s existing rules, there is a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide the board with a current victim personal statement if one has been prepared, and that must be taken into account by the panel considering the case. The statement sets out the impact that the offence has had on the victim and their family and any concerns that the victim and their family may have about the potential release. Victims are, as part of that, entitled to request that specific licence conditions, including exclusion zones and non-contact requirements, be imposed on the offender. The victims’ code enshrines a number of entitlements relating to parole, including the right to present a victim personal statement in the way that has just been described. A root-and-branch review of the parole system is going on to try to improve these different things further.
As I said, this amendment relates only and specifically to open prison transfers. But I think that the general point that the hon. Member for Rotherham has raised is important. It is important that we do more to ensure that the victim’s voice is heard in these Parole Board decisions, for all the reasons that the hon. Member eloquently laid out. I will suggest that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who has the responsibility for this area, meet with the hon. Member for Rotherham to discuss these important issues. The matter is obviously in the rules already: it is in the victims’ code; it is in the Parole Board rules. But clearly, what is written down needs then to translate into action, and the hon. Member has raised a couple of cases in which that did not seem to happen in the way it ought to have done. She has clearly had correspondence with the previous Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham took over that portfolio only three or four months ago. I know he will want to meet her to discuss these important issues and make sure that it is happening in practice as it should do, so I make that commitment on his behalf.
Government amendment 132 to clause 109 makes some simple provisions and creates a mechanism for the Parole Board to change a decision where there has manifestly been an error. This follows a recent court case.
The Chair
You have been very generous, so do not regard that as an admonishment. Just temper your keenness to canter on.
Chris Philp
I will take that as a check on the reins. I have nothing further to say on amendment 145, Sir Charles.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I have worked extensively with the Government’s victims team and it is fantastic. The victims code is great, but only if it is implemented. The problem we find is that people are not notified when the offender is coming up for parole consideration, so their rights are not activated because they do not know that that situation is occurring.
I accept his generous offer of meeting the hon. Member for Cheltenham, which I will take up. With that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Philp
I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 109, page 99, line 11, leave out
“resulted from a clear mistake”
and insert
“it would not have given or made but for an error”.
This amendment ensures that the language used in the new provision about when the Parole Board can set aside decisions aligns with a recent High Court judgment which ruled on the circumstances when a Parole Board decision can be revisited and makes a drafting clarification.
I am sorry to have spoiled the anticipation by jumping early. May I speak to clause 109 as well?
Chris Philp
Very briefly, clause 109 makes provision for manifest errors in Parole Board release decisions to be corrected. Government amendment 132 implements a recent court judgment where the language was changed and says that reconsideration will happen where there has been
“a clear mistake of law or fact”.
It makes that change following the High Court judgment in the case of Dickins, with which I am sure the Committee is familiar.
Alex Cunningham
I have nothing to add.
Amendment 132 agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110
Responsibility for setting licence conditions for fixed-term prisoners
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
I have relatively little to say on these clauses, which are technical in nature. Clause 110 covers responsibility for setting licence conditions for fixed-term prisoners. Clause 111 repeals some uncommenced provisions dating back many years that have never been used, and simply removes them from the statute book because they have never been commenced. Clause 112 covers the release at the direction of the Parole Board after recall for fixed-term prisoners. Clause 113 is about changing the release test for the release of fixed-term prisoners following recall. Clause 114 covers release at the direction of the Parole Board in relation to timing.
They are technical changes, and I do not propose to add anything beyond these brief remarks, Sir Charles.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 110 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 111 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Extension of driving disqualification where custodial sentence imposed: England and Wales
Chris Philp
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 115, page 104, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) The amendments made by subsection (2)(a)(i) do not have effect in relation to an offender who—
(a) is sentenced before the coming into force of section 107 (increase in requisite custodial period for certain offenders of particular concern), and
(b) on being sentenced, will be a prisoner to whom section 244A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release on licence of prisoners serving sentence under 278 of the Sentencing Code etc) applies.”.
This amendment ensures that the amendments made by clause 115(2)(a)(i) do not apply to a person who is sentenced between the passing of the Bill (when clause 115 comes into force) and the coming into force of clause 107 two months later and who will be a person to whom section 244A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies.
Chris Philp
Amendment 68 is a technical amendment that introduces a transitional provision that has been identified as necessary to address a short two-month gap before different, but inter-connected, provisions in the Bill come into force. Sir Charles, will I briefly speak to clauses 115 to 118?
Chris Philp
Okay. I will not refer to them again, so I will do so.
Clause 115 relates to England and Wales and makes some changes to the driving disqualification provisions where we have changed the automatic release points. Colleagues will recall that we have moved the release point from a half to two thirds for certain offences, including in changes made last year. We want to make sure that, where a driving disqualification is imposed, it takes account of the change in release point. The clause makes simple consequential amendments to those release points.
Clauses 116 and 117 do similar things to make sure that driving disqualifications properly intermesh with the changes to release provisions. Clause 118 does similar things in relation to Scotland.
Alex Cunningham
The House briefing paper on the Bill explains that when a driver receives a driving disqualification alongside a custodial sentence, the court must also impose an extension period to ensure that the disqualification period is not entirely spent during the time the offender is in prison. The explanatory notes explain that clause 115 would change the law so that the length of the extension period reflects a succession of other changes made by the Government to the release points for certain offenders.
The notes refer to changes made by the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020, changes in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 and further changes proposed by this Bill. These pieces of legislation all change the point at which an offender is automatically released or becomes eligible to be released if the Parole Board agrees they are no longer a danger to the public. Rather than being at the halfway point of the sentence, that release point will now move to the two-thirds point.
As I explained at some length in the debate on clause 106, the Opposition cannot wholeheartedly support changes to the release point of certain offenders. Not only do the changes make a notoriously complicated sentencing regime even more complicated but they also substantially limit the amount of time an offender spends on licence in the community, significantly increasing their chances of reoffending.
The Opposition do not support the Government’s logic in adapting other pieces of legislation, in this case driving offences, to reflect those changes. For that reason, we are opposed to clauses 115 to 118 and urge the Government to use caution before committing to any further changes that would further complicate an already overcomplicated sentencing system. That said, I do not intend to press the clauses to a vote, but let the record show that we are opposed to the provisions.
Chris Philp
No.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 116 to 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Calculation of period before release or parole board referral where multiple sentences being served
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
I will speak extremely briefly to clauses 119 to 123. They simply set out minor amendments to existing legislation that part 7, chapter 1 of the Bill makes. In brief, clause 119 provides clarification on when a prisoner must be automatically released and when referral to the Parole Board is required in cases where concurrent or consecutive sentences are being served, so it provides clarification around how those sentences interact with one another.
Clause 120 addresses the application of release provisions to repatriated prisoners, reflecting some recent alterations that have been made domestically, which we have talked about already—making sure that works with repatriated prisoners.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to debate the following:
Clauses 125 to 127 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 128 stand part.
That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 129 stand part.
That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Chris Philp
Let me start with clause 124, which would give responsible officers the power to compel offenders to attend an appointment at any point in a community order or during the supervision period of a suspended sentence, in exceptional circumstances.
The responsible officer is the statutory term for the probation practitioner who is overseeing the order. Section 198 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the responsible officer to make any arrangements that are necessary in connection with the requirements imposed by the order, and to promote the offender’s compliance with those requirements.
In some cases, the responsible officer might be delivering those requirements directly. In other cases, they might be working with the offender to develop a sentence plan and monitor their progress against it, but referring them to colleagues or to other organisations to deliver particular requirements, for example, educational or treatment requirements.
The current legislation lacks clarity on the extent of a responsible officer’s power to compel an offender, who is subject to a community or suspended sentence order, to attend supervision appointments—meetings, essentially. Offenders serving community sentences have a duty to keep in touch with their responsible officer, and responsible officers also have the power to make any arrangements that are necessary in connection with the requirements imposed by the Order. But it is not currently clear what powers probation officers have if they are concerned about a new or escalated risk that an offender presents, which is not necessarily related to the delivery of what the court has ordered. Hence this measure, which enables the responsible officer to require the offender to participate in a meeting. It simply clarifies that that can happen. I think we all agree that contact between the responsible officer, for example, the probation officer, and the offender is a good thing to make sure that that relationship is being properly managed.
Clause 125 is one of a number of measures in the Bill that seek to strengthen community sentences. In the Sentencing White Paper last September, we set out a new vision for community supervision combining robust punishment and management of risk with a new focus on addressing rehabilitation needs to break the cycle of reoffending. Clause 125 therefore increases the maximum length of time a curfew can be imposed to make it potentially more effective and increases the maximum number of hours that a curfew could be imposed in any given 24-hour period. At the moment, a curfew can be imposed for a maximum of 12 months and we will increase this to up to two years, to give the court a little more flexibility and, we hope, encourage the use of community sentences more often.
The clause will also increase the potential of a curfew to support rehabilitation by providing a longer period during which some of the positive effects of the curfew can be established. It can, for example, reduce interaction with criminal associates. Again, that will hopefully enable the courts to use those sentences more as an alternative to short custodial sentences, which we are all keen to avoid where possible.
At the moment, a community order or suspended sentence order may specify a maximum of 16 hours of curfew per day, which provides in practice a weekly maximum of 112 hours. The clause will increase the daily maximum to 20 hours, but we will not move the seven-day maximum of 112. The number of curfew hours per day can be moved around if, for example, somebody gets a job, or something like that, and that needs to be taken into account, but the weekly maximum does not change. It is important to make the point that we are not altering that.
Clause 126 will give greater powers to the responsible officer to vary electronically monitored curfews on community sentences. Again, we think that will be helpful. To be clear, the responsible officer will not be able to change the number of curfew hours. That is an important point to emphasise.
Clause 127 removes senior attendance centres from the menu of options available. They are not very widely used, and in fact in some parts of the country they are not used at all. These days, there are various other means that are used to provide rehabilitation and so on, rather than senior attendance centres. Schedule 12 contains further amendments relating to the removal of the attendance centre requirements, as I have just described.
Clause 128 simply introduces schedule 13, which makes provision for courts to have powers to review community and suspended sentence orders and commit an offender to custody for breach. Without this clause, schedule 13 would not form part of the Bill. Part 1 of schedule 13 contains provisions relating to the review, which is a crucial element of the problem-solving court approach. As Members know, we are keen to run pilots of problem-solving courts. We think they have an important role to play where offenders have a drug, alcohol or mental health problem, and where the judge can have repeated interaction with the person concerned. We think that could hopefully contribute to the addiction or mental health problem being dealt with. They were piloted in the past—I think they were piloted in Liverpool a few years ago—and they were perhaps not as effective as we had hoped. This pilot is therefore important to try to get the model right. If we can get the model right, we will obviously look to roll it out.
Clause 129 introduces schedule 14. Schedule 14 itself provides the legislative changes required for the problem-solving court pilot that I have just described. We think that problem-solving courts are really important, so the pilots will be important as we have to get the model right. There are lots of different ways of running problem-solving courts. The Americans and the Australians do them differently. We want to get this right. As I say, if we can find a way of tackling the root cause of offending behaviour, whether it is drug addiction, alcohol addiction or mental health, that will help everybody—the community, society and the offender—so I am really pleased that these schedules are in this Bill, laying the groundwork for the things that I have described. I commend these clauses and schedules to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister set out, clause 124 provides legal clarity about what a probation officer or responsible officer can instruct an offender who has been released from custody to do. Specifically, it will give probation officers the legal power to compel offenders serving a community or suspended sentence order to attend supervision appointments. Those appointments can be either for the purpose of ensuring the offender complies with rehabilitative requirements or where there are public protection concerns. If an offender refuses to comply with directions made under clause 124, they can be found to be in breach of their licence conditions and punished accordingly.
On the whole, this is a clause that the Opposition can support. If there is legislative uncertainty about what a probation officer can and cannot do, it is important, for the benefit of probation officers and offenders themselves, that it is ironed out. We accept that. The Opposition also accept the importance of offenders attending the appointments they need to rehabilitate and reform in the community. I have spoken at length about how Labour fully appreciates the importance of time spent in the community when it comes to reforming an offender and reducing the risk of reoffending. We are also keen to support amendments that will make the life of probation officers easier by providing legislative clarity.
However, although we are supportive of clause 124, we have some concerns, which I hope the Minister can respond to today. First, given that failing to attend appointments under the clause could result in an offender being found to be in breach of their licence and possibly recalled to prison, can the Minister set out the procedure that offenders can use to challenge orders made under clause 124?
Secondly, we must also consider the impact that the powers in clause 124 could have on offenders who have learning disabilities or are neurodivergent. As the Prison Reform Trust explains:
“People with learning disabilities can find it particularly difficult to comply with measures such as additional appointments or reporting requirements, and so special attention will need to be given to ensuring they are not unfairly disadvantaged by these provisions.”
In addition to addressing the system for offenders to challenge orders under the clause, will Minister set out what safeguards will exist to ensure that no offender is unfairly disadvantaged by clause 124 due to circumstances beyond their control?
I now turn to clause 125, the effect of which is similar to 124. Clause 124 gives probation officers greater powers to compel offenders to attend appointments in the community, and clause 125 gives probation officers greater powers with regard to curfews. Under current legislation, offenders subject to a community order or suspended sentence order can be subject to a curfew for up to 16 hours a day for a maximum of 12 months. Clause 125 would increase the daily curfew to 20 hours and increase the total period over which curfews can be imposed from one year to two years.
The Government set out in the explanatory notes that this change will increase the punitive weight of a curfew requirement, but also has the potential to support rehabilitation by providing a longer period during which some of the positive effects of curfew could be established. As with clause 124, the Opposition are keen to give our hard-working probation officers the tools, powers and legal clarity they need to do their job properly. We are satisfied that clause 125 is a proportionate means of achieving that goal, particularly as the Government have chosen to retain the maximum number of curfew hours that can be imposed per week.
None the less, as with clause 124, we seek some assurances from the Minister about how these extended powers will be used in practice. As with clause 124, our main concern is about the potential of clause 125 to increase the number of offenders found to be in breach of their licence due to circumstances they cannot control, or because of technical breaches. I will discuss one aspect of this in more detail when we come to amendment 122, but we know that offenders are wrongly accused of breaching their licence conditions, including those relating to curfews, due to electronic tags malfunctioning. What assurances can the Minister give that extending the powers of probation officers in this area will not lead to more offenders accused of being in breach due to malfunctioning tags?
I also repeat my concern in relation to clause 124 about how this power could impact offenders who suffer from learning difficulties or are neurodivergent. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that these offenders are not unfairly disadvantaged by clause 125? Will probation officers be given additional discretionary powers to ensure that these offenders are not punished for a breach that they did not intend to make?
Finally, how does the Minister respond to concerns expressed by the Howard League that allowing probation officers to place strict restrictions on leisure days could prevent people on licence from building the positive social relationships that would help them to desist from crime?
Let us move to clause 126, which, like clause 125, extends the power of probation officers in relation to curfews. As the Government explanatory notes point out, currently, changes to a curfew cannot take place unless they have been authorised by a court. Clause 126 would amend the sentencing code by enabling probation officers to vary a curfew requirement made on a community order or suspended sentence order. Specifically, the clause would allow the probation officer or responsible person to change the curfew requirement in one of two ways: changing the time a curfew starts or ends over the course of 24 hours, or changing the residence of the offender as set out in the order.
The explanatory notes suggest that these additional changes will be beneficial not only for probation officers but for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and offenders:
“This legislative change seeks to reduce the burden on the courts, freeing up time for other matters and saving probation resource by reducing the volumes of papers prepared for court and court visits. There will also be advantages for offenders, allowing for variations where typically there are alterations to work hours or location that make compliance impossible, or where an offender’s curfew residence address needs to be changed in a timely way.”
While the Opposition stand firmly behind any proposal to reduce the horrendous burden currently on our courts, I am somewhat perplexed that the Government’s first thought in this area is to give probation officers the power to vary curfew requirements.
As the Minister will no doubt be aware, the backlog in the Crown court is at record levels, sitting at almost 40,000 cases before the pandemic even began. As we said before, victims of rape and other serious offences face a wait of up to four years for their day in court. While it is true that the backlog has been exacerbated by the pandemic, it was created by the Conservatives closing half of all courts in England and Wales between 2010 and 2019, and allowing 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. If the Government were serious about reducing the burden on our courts, they would have adopted Labour’s package of emergency measures during the pandemic, including mass testing in courts, the extension of Nightingale courts and reduced juries until restrictions are lifted, but they did not, and the result is the catastrophe we see today.
Maria Eagle
Of course, there was also the North Liverpool community justice centre, which I think the Minister may have referred to, which extended the problem-solving court technique to all kinds of offences, not only specifically drug or alcohol offences, domestic violence or mental health issues, and it was very successful.
Alex Cunningham
Indeed, that was the case. We have so much to learn from the best practice around the country, but also from what happened before this Government varied those types of courts when they came to power in 2010.
In total, the Government have committed to piloting five problem-solving courts, targeted at repeat offenders who would otherwise have been sent to custody. The Bill builds on those proposals by laying the legislative framework for the pilots to take place—specifically, clause 128 introduces schedule 13, which will give problem-solving courts the power to periodically review community and suspended sentence orders, and to commit an offender to custody for a breach. The pilot of problem-solving courts is welcome.
The evidence is clear that problem-solving courts have proven hugely effective—for example, in restoring confidence in the criminal justice system among marginal communities. As the Government’s own response to the Lammy review set out:
“Trusted figures in the CJS were described as those who had taken the time to get to know an individual, their background and specific needs and vulnerabilities.”
Moreover, if rolled out nationally, the pilot of problem-solving courts would also play an important role in reducing the huge burden on our courts system, while ensuring short custodial sentences are used only if completely necessary.
Although the Opposition support the powers in clause 128, we have some concerns, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded to them this afternoon—sorry, this morning. It is still morning!
First, as Women in Prison points out in its helpful briefing:
“In order to be considered for a problem-solving court approach, a person must first enter an admission of guilt for the alleged offence.”
The briefing goes on to note that the review conducted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) found:
“Black, Asian and minority ethnic people are more likely to plead not guilty to alleged offences. We know that experience of racism and lack of trust in the criminal justice system prevents people from feeling that they will be treated fairly if they plead guilty.”
I know that we have already raised this issue in debate, but therein lies a difficulty that the Government will have to contend with as they pursue their pilot of problem-solving courts. As the Prison Reform Trust explains, while, on one hand, problem-solving courts have been useful at restoring confidence in the criminal justice system for those in marginalised communities, for them to be wholly successful,
“pilots must work with people who enter not guilty pleas, and on added measures that are likely to increase confidence in the process.”
I know the Minister said that the Government would do what they could to overcome that problem, but what that is, or could be, is still far from clear. Can he be more specific by explaining what steps the Government are taking on the issue of not guilty pleas and to avoid exacerbating the disproportionality that already exists for black, Asian and minority ethnic people in the criminal justice system?
Secondly, if problem-solving courts have already shown themselves to be effective in providing rehabilitative alternatives to custody, why have the Government chosen to pursue such a limited pilot rather than a larger national roll-out? Thirdly, what will the Government do to resource properly the probation and other services that work with offenders who are dealt with through problem-solving courts? The Minister knows, as I do, that resources are thin. If they are not there, the system will fail. Finally, will he report back to Parliament on the success rate of the pilots, and if so, what would the Government look for before they could commit to a national roll-out?
I will be very brief on clause 129. While clause 128 and schedule 13 provide the legislative foundation for the pilot of problem-solving courts, clause 129 and schedule 14 would enable the courts involved in the pilot to impose drug-testing requirements as part of a community sentence or a suspended sentence order. As the House briefing sets out, a court would be able to impose drug-testing requirements only where the two following conditions are met: substance misuse has contributed to the offence to which the relevant order related, or is likely to contribute towards further offending behaviour; and the Secretary of State has notified the court that arrangements to implement drug-testing requirements are available in the offender’s local area. Taken hand in hand with clause 128, the Opposition are happy to support clause 129.
The Chair
It being 11.24 am, it is not fair to get the Minister to respond, so I will ask the Government Whip to move the motion to adjourn.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Tuesday 15th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 June 2021 - (15 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 125 to 127 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 128 stand part.
That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 129 stand part.
That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Before we adjourned, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North, gave a lengthy speech, which we were all grateful to hear. We paused to allow the Minister to prepare himself. I believe he is now prepared, so I call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Thank you, Sir Charles. I trust everyone has had a refreshing and congenial break for lunch. Prior to the break, the shadow Minister raised a number of questions relating to clauses 124 to 128 and to schedules 12 to 14. I will endeavour to answer as many of those questions as I can. He asked what procedure offenders could use to challenge orders made under clauses 124 and 125, particularly to ensure that they were not unduly penalised if they then breached the conditions that had been imposed. If a breach does occur and some serious consequence follows, it is always open to the offender to make a representation when attending their hearing at court to either make the case that the breach was technical or minor in nature, or that the condition itself was not varied in a reasonable way. A significant penalty can never be imposed without the intervention of the court.
Questions were asked about circumstances beyond the control of the offender. We heard about the possibility of a device malfunctioning and about particular circumstances relating to disability that might disadvantage certain people. We envisage the power laid out in section 124 being used only in rare circumstances, certainly not routinely.
I confirm that it is the intention to provide clear advice to probation staff, setting out the rare circumstances in which additional supervision may be warranted, to ensure, for example, that disabled offenders are not unfairly or unduly disadvantaged, and to avoid the purpose of these supervision appointments going beyond the very specific purposes that the order has been imposed by the sentencing court.
The same applies to people with learning difficulties. Courts sentence on a case-by-case basis and, where electronic monitoring has been imposed as one element of that sentence, the officer supervising the offender is already able to review notifications of apparent violations and take a reasonable view, on a case-by-case basis. If someone has been genuinely unable to understand how to operate the equipment or had a genuine technical problem, we would expect probation officers to exercise reasonable discretion.
As I said at the very beginning, if a breach did follow and the court was invited to impose some penalty, it would be open to the offender to make a representation at that point to explain the mitigating circumstances. My expectation is that it would never get that far, because I would expect the supervising officer to be reasonable in the meantime.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I recognise what the Minister is saying. I raised the point that people should be able to make representations after their hearings, but some of the people we are talking about have particular challenges in life and special needs. How will the Minister ensure that their problem—their malfunctioning equipment or otherwise—is properly communicated to a court to ensure that they are not penalised?
Chris Philp
Clearly, in the first instance we would expect the responsible officer to exercise these powers in a reasonable way and to exercise discretion. Hopefully, as I said a few minutes ago, these cases would not get as far as court because the probation officer would act in a reasonable and proportionate way in the first place. The guidance will reflect that. If someone does get to court, there is the possibility of their being represented in proceedings. However, I also would expect the judge to ask a reasonable question of the person appearing before the court, such as whether there were any mitigating circumstances or technical problems or whether they had failed to understand how to operate the equipment. If there is a vulnerability, the pre-sentence report written prior to the original sentencing would be expected to pick up those issues.
The shadow Minister asked whether the powers in clause 126 were too wide and gave the responsible officer excessive latitude and leeway to vary curfew requirements that a court had previously imposed—to dispense summary justice without proper reference to the courts. To be clear, clause 126 is very limited in the powers that it provides probation officers, and they will be able to amend the requirement in only two limited ways, and only if those changes do not undermine the weight or purpose of the requirement imposed by the court. The power in clause 126 is restricted to two areas: a shift in the start and/or end times of the curfew periods—but no change to the total number of hours imposed—and a change to the offender’s curfew address, where the address was not part of the order in the first place. So they are very limited powers to vary, which I hope provides the reassurance asked for.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who unfortunately is not in her place, referred to the problem-solving courts in Liverpool. I understand that the results from that have been a little mixed, but we are committed on both sides of the House to the principle of problem-solving courts, and I noted the shadow Minister’s recitation of the history of these going back as far as 1999. Both sides recognise the important role that problem-solving courts can play. Other jurisdictions have used them, with the United States being an obvious example. We are starting on a pilot basis rather than a big-bang roll-out because the details of how the model operates is important. The details make a big difference, and the design of the way it works—when the reviews takes place, what they are reviewing and what actions are taken—make a difference to whether the thing is successful or not.
While across the House we are committed to the principle of problem-solving courts to tackle the underlying causes of offending, we have to make sure that they work in practice and the details are right before rolling them out. To answer another of the shadow Minister’s questions, I am sure we will be coming back to Parliament and reporting on the progress of these problem-solving courts. My hope is that we find a way quickly to make these work in practice and can then roll them out. I am committed to community sentence treatment requirements, which are a form of disposal that provides for mental health, alcohol and drug addiction treatment. Quite a lot of money has gone into that recently—£80 million for drug addiction earlier this year. Problem-solving courts are a critical way of supporting the delivery of treatment under community sentence treatment requirements. It is something I want to push, and I am glad that there is agreement across the House on that.
The final question that the shadow Minister asked was whether a guilty plea was needed to qualify for an appearance before a problem-solving court. Problem-solving courts do not require a guilty plea, and this Bill does not stipulate that as a prerequisite, but a willingness to engage with the court and comply with the community interventions will be an important factor. The problem-solving courts working group in 2016 considered making a guilty plea a key factor in creating the engagement necessary, but we recognised the number of complexities across the cohorts targeted, and did not think it was necessarily required. People who plead not guilty, and are then convicted, would be eligible for the problem-solving court, and I hope they can be helped as much as anyone else. On that basis, I commend these provisions to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 125 to 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 130
Duty to consult on unpaid work requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
I will follow your direction, Sir Charles, by saying just a few words on this clause, which is relatively straightforward and, I think, pretty inoffensive.
Clause 130 simply creates a requirement for probation officials to consult key local and regional stakeholders on the delivery of unpaid work. Unpaid work—or community payback, as it is sometimes known—combines the sentencing purposes of punishment with reparation to communities. We believe that, where possible, unpaid work requirements should benefit the local communities in which they are carried out. Nominated local projects are already popular with sentencers and the public, but there is currently no requirement for probation officials to consult stakeholders on the design or delivery of unpaid work, so members of communities and organisations within particular local areas that are best placed to understand the impact of crime and what might be useful in the local area do not necessarily have their say.
Clause 130 simply seeks to address the gap by ensuring that key local stakeholders are consulted, so that they can suggest to the probation service what kind of unpaid work might be useful in their local area. We hope that local community groups and stakeholders come up with some good ideas that the probation service can then respond to. That seems to be a pretty sensible idea. The probation service in some areas may do it already. This clause simply creates a proper duty, or a requirement, for the probation service to do it. Of course, if we understand the needs of local communities and their thoughts, we can improve the way unpaid work placements operate to support rehabilitation and also help the local community. If the local community can visibly see offenders doing unpaid work in their local area, whether it is cleaning off graffiti, cleaning the place up or whatever else it may be, that will, we hope, demonstrate that the programme is giving back to and improving the local community, but delivering a punitive element as well.
Chris Philp
I was about to conclude, but of course I will take the intervention.
Sarah Champion
When I used to run a children’s hospice, we had offenders under probation supervision come in. They were meant to be doing gardening at the children’s hospice, but instead they sat around smoking cigarettes. We kept on raising that with the probation worker, because we had invited the offenders there to give them a second chance, to help with their rehabilitation, to enable them to contribute to the community and so on. But the probation officer said, “What do you want me to do? I can’t beat them; I can’t make them work, but they have to come on these schemes.” Could the Minister give some examples of how the probation service will have the resources and the influence to ensure that people who are out in their local community are actually—
The Chair
Order. This is meant to be an intervention, not a speech. The hon. Lady is entitled to make a speech and could have made a speech, but can we treat this as an intervention?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. First, I am extremely disappointed and somewhat shocked to hear that people who were supposed to be doing work at a hospice in Rotherham in fact sat around smoking cigarettes. That is obviously shocking and not what the orders are supposed to be about. The hon. Lady says that the probation officer shrugged their shoulders and said, “Well, what can I do about it?” Of course, if the person, the offender, was not doing the work that they were supposed to be doing, that would amount to a breach of the unpaid work requirement, and they could be taken back to court to account for their breach, so I am extremely disappointed by the attitude of the probation officer that the hon. Lady just described.
The hon. Lady asked about resources. Extra resources are going into the probation service for it to supervise exactly these kinds of activities, and I would expect them to be supervised and policed properly. I will certainly pass on her concern to the relevant Minister. I have already made contact about fixing a meeting for the hon. Lady and the Prisons Minister that we talked about in this morning’s session, in relation to victims being consulted about probable decisions. The same Minister, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, is responsible for the probation service as well—I am just adding to his workload. I will raise it with him, but I would certainly urge the hon. Member for Rotherham to raise this issue in the same meeting, because I know that the account she just gave will concern my hon. Friend as much as it concerns me.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham in that there is a variation in the enthusiasm that some of those who conduct this work display, on both sides. I was told, for example, that a lad who came from a farming family had thrown his back into it very strongly and was encouraging others to join him. I would add that we do consult with the local community, and many of the jobs that are done in my constituency are at the behest of either a local authority or other local groups.
Chris Philp
Wonderful. We would like to see the kind of consultation that already takes place in Scarborough and Whitby take place across the country as a whole, and that is precisely the intention behind clause 130. Where Scarborough has led, the rest of the nation, thanks to this clause, will follow.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131
Youth Remand
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move amendment 128, in clause 131, page 122, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after subsection (5) insert—
(5A) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) “recent” is defined as having occurred in the previous six weeks.””
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 129, in clause 131, page 122, line 16, at end insert—
“(ca) in subsection (7)(b) insert “serious” before “imprisonable offences”;”
Amendment 130, in clause 131, page 123, line 3, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (4)(b) insert—
“(c) state in open court the age, gender and ethnicity of the child.””
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased to speak to amendments 128, 129 and 130 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and myself. However, before I do that, if the Minister could give me a list of where he has influence, perhaps he could fix a few meetings with Ministers for me as well.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the Minister very much for that—it will, of course, be on the record, which I am very pleased to note. Before I get into my speech, I would like to thank Transform Justice and the Alliance for Youth Justice for the extremely helpful work they have done on this part of the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the former shadow Justice Minister, who worked extremely hard on these particular issues. I am grateful to him.
Clause 131 amends the legislative threshold for remanding a child to custody. It will mean that remand to youth detention accommodation can be imposed only in the most serious cases, where a custodial sentence is the only option and the risk posed by the child cannot be safely managed within the community. It will introduce a statutory duty which states that courts must consider the interests and welfare of the child before deciding whether to remand them to youth detention. It also imposes a statutory requirement for the courts to record the reasons for the decision.
First, let me say that we are pleased with the direction of travel that this clause indicates, and we are keen for the Government’s work in this area to succeed. We are in complete agreement with the Government that custodial remand should be used only as a last resort for children. However, we do think that there is scope for these proposals to go further in tightening the threshold for remanding a child into custody. I will speak more on that when we discuss our amendments.
The current youth remand provisions were introduced in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and I well remember the Public Bill Committee, where I had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sadiq Khan, now our excellent Mayor of London, and also my good friend. By 2019, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse noted a significant increase in the use of custodial remand for children. The Opposition warmly welcomes measures which aim to reduce the number of children remanded into custody, especially in light of the fact that in 2018/19 only a third of children remanded to custody or local authority accommodation later received a custodial sentence.
Our concerns about the use of custodial remands for children are compounded by the extreme racial disproportionality on remand, and the record proportion of children in custody who have not yet been tried in court.
Against the backdrop of the record court backlog and the waiting times for trial, there could not be a more opportune moment to address these issues. We particularly welcome the introduction of the statutory duty to consider the welfare and best interests of the child. We believe that, while these proposals can go further—I know that the Minister will listen carefully to our proposals shortly—these changes will help to reduce the number of children who are unnecessarily remanded to custody, so we are pleased to support them.
However, there are a couple of points on which I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts. Has he any further information to share with the Committee on his Department’s considerations of the impact that police remand has on custodial remand? Are there any plans to address that? Research by Transform Justice shows that police remand, where the child is detained by the police until court either in a police cell or in a local authority PACE bed—under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—is a driver of custodial remand. Transform Justice explains that point:
“This is because any child remanded by the police has to be presented in court within 24 hours, meaning Youth Offending Team staff often don’t have enough time to develop a bail package that will satisfy the court. Children who appear from police custody also usually appear in the secure dock, which can bias courts to view the child as more ‘dangerous’ and therefore more suitable for custodial remand.”
The criteria for police remand are spelled out in section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and are very different from those used by the court for remand. In fact, the criteria for police remand of children are almost identical to those for adults, unlike the child-first approach taken in so many other areas of the justice system.
We know that the police remand more children than the courts. Of the 4,500 children who appeared in court from police custody in 2019, only 12% went on to be remanded by the court. Some 31% of those remanded by the police went on to be discharged, dismissed or have their case withdrawn, while 37% went on to get a fine or community sentence. The figures illustrate that police use of remand is seriously out of synch with the courts already. This clause may further widen that gap.
Is the Minister not concerned that the police may continue to overuse post-charge detention, undermining the positive efforts of the clause to reduce unnecessary custodial remand for children? Will the Government consider updating the police remand criteria, so they are in line with the new court remand criteria, to ensure consistent decision making across the whole criminal justice system?
I am greatly supportive of the provision in the clause that requires courts to record their reasons for remanding a child, not least because it will provide valuable data on the use of remand, which will enable us to continue to make improvements in this area. For that to be most effective in informing future policy decisions, we would need to have some sort of centralised monitoring system. Will we have such a system? It would mean that the need to record reasons would not only focus the mind of the court in a specific case; it would also benefit the system as a whole, as each case can inform our ongoing learning process about the use of remand and its effectiveness. Has the Minister considered the possibility of such a centralised monitoring system?
It has been suggested that the obligation on the court to record reasons would be most effective if courts had to specify why non-custodial alternatives were deemed unsuitable and how each of the custodial remand conditions has been met. Is that the kind of detail that the Minister envisages the obligation should entail? I am sure we all agree that it would be helpful for that level of information to be provided, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.
Turning to the amendments, as I said earlier, the reforms to the threshold for remanding a child in custody are welcome, but there are a couple of areas where we believe they should go further. The Opposition amendments, if adopted, would get us closer to the goal of custodial remand being used only as a truly last resort.
Amendment 128 seeks to tighten the history test by defining a recent history of breaching bail or offending while on bail as having been committed within the last six weeks. The clause currently makes provision to amend the history condition so that the previous instances of breach or offending while on bail must be “significant”, “relevant” and “recent”. In order to reduce the number of children held unnecessarily on remand, it would be helpful to amend the clause so that there is a clear definition of “recent”.
In defining recent, we have to be mindful of what that means to a child. As the Alliance for Youth Justice notes:
“If we are to take a child-centred approach, we must consider how children experience time, and recognise the well-established principle that children change and develop in a shorter time than adults.”
The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales has recommended that “recent” be no longer than within a six-week period. I hope that the Minister will agree that clarity on that point would be of great assistance to the courts. I would be interested to hear from him what discussions his Ministry of Justice colleagues have had regarding defining a time limit for this condition.
Amendment 129 is a straightforward amendment to the necessity condition that would again help achieve the aim of using custodial remand for children only as a last resort. Although we welcome the strengthened wording of the necessity condition included in the Bill, which would require remand to be used only when the risk posed by a child cannot be safely managed in the community, we share the concerns of the sector that the benefits arising from this change may be undermined by its drafting. The amendment would therefore tighten and strengthen the wording. Transform Justice says that these benefits of the current proposed change to the necessity condition
“will be undermined by the loose wording of one of the other necessity conditions: that remand to YDA is necessary to prevent further imprisonable offences. This condition is highly subjective and casts a wide net, which may be widened further by youth sentencing provisions elsewhere in the bill.”
We share the concern expressed by the Alliance for Youth Justice that
“the latter part of the condition (to prevent the commission of an imprisonable offence) sets such a low threshold for meeting the Condition as to render the first threshold (to protect the public from death or serious personal injury) somewhat redundant.”
The amendment would tighten the latter part of the condition by ensuring that it applies only to serious imprisonable offences, which we think better reflects the intention of the clause.
Finally, amendment 130 would compel the court to record the age, gender and ethnicity of a child remanded in custody in order to provide better data on remand, particularly on disproportionality. We believe that this could be a helpful tool in addressing the deeply concerning and increasing levels of disproportionality at this point in our justice system. The numbers beggar belief. Nine out of 10 London children who are remanded are from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. A deeply comprehensive report that was published by the Youth Justice Board in January shows that race alone is a factor in remand outcomes for children. The researchers gathered data on thousands of English and Welsh cases, and information provided in practitioner assessments. Even when other related factors were controlled for mixed ethnicity black children, they were, as the Youth Justice Board notes,
“still more likely to be remanded in custody and, if not remanded, more likely to be subject to restrictions on bail.”
This is a serious injustice in our system that needs to be urgently addressed. More needs to be done than this amendment makes provision for, but it would be a helpful tool in breaking down the disproportionate outcomes that we are seeing. The amendment would at the very least provide accurate data to help understand this disparity, in line with the “explain or reform” principle outlined in the Lammy review, which I think is an eminently sensible step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister agrees and look forward to hearing his thoughts. I would also be grateful if he could share with the Committee any other initiatives his Department is working on to address this flagrant disproportionality in youth remand.
Sarah Champion
I fully support the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North on the amendments. I have a fundamental concern about remanding children. It impacts on them disproportionately in terms of their future outlook, opportunities and potential. We see within the remand youth justice system some of the highest levels of disproportionality in the criminal justice system. Although Labour Members welcome the measures in the Bill to tighten the tests that the courts must satisfy to decide whether to remand a child in custody, we still have concerns about this section of the Bill.
We agree with the policy to encourage the courts to impose a custodial remand only when absolutely necessary while ensuring the public remain safe, but as my hon. Friend stated, there are real concerns about the overrepresentation of black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who make up only 12% of the UK population but half the youth prison population. I would be much more comfortable if we were using the Bill to look at the reasons for that disproportionate make-up, rather than at further punitive measures. We have to take steps to ensure that all people, particularly all children, can reach their potential. I am very mindful of the fact that the literacy rate of the prison population is so much lower than that of the rest of the population. Why are we not investing more to address those underlying issues?
Chris Philp
As the shadow Minister said, clause 131 aims to ensure that children are remanded into youth detention accommodation only where absolutely necessary and as a last resort. As the hon. Member for Rotherham and the shadow Minister said, that is something that we can all agree on. We do not want to remand children into custody prior to conviction unless it is absolutely necessary.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said that prevention was important, and of course we agree, although it is outside the scope of these clauses. Money is being invested, significantly, in serious violence reduction units that aim to prevent, but also to divert young people who might otherwise get into serious crime on to a better path.
We are mindful that over a third of children in custody are on remand and that, of those, only around a third go on to receive a custodial sentence. While custodial remand is perfectly justified in some cases, the threshold for confining an unconvicted child to a secure environment must, rightly, be set very high indeed. It sounds like we broadly agree on these principles, and that is why we are amending the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which sets out the test that the courts must satisfy when deciding whether to remand a child into custody. I think everyone agrees with the aim of the clause, which is to make sure that remand custody for a child is an absolute last resort. The shadow Minister welcomed this direction of travel and the steps that are being taken.
The clause introduces a statutory duty for the court to consider the welfare and best interests of the child when making remand decisions and a statutory requirement for the court to record its reasons for imposing custodial remand to ensure that the welfare of the child is at the forefront of the court’s mind and promote a child-first approach to decision making. We are also strengthening the sentencing condition to ensure that the mere possibility of a custodial sentence would not on its own necessarily warrant custodial remand. Similarly, a relatively minor or fairly recent breach should not, on its own, justify remand. We are reinforcing the history condition so that only a recent, significant and relevant history of breaching while on bail should be taken into account to justify custodial remand. The current tests already require the court to satisfy itself that a child can be remanded to custody only where it is necessary to protect the public from death or serious harm. We are reinforcing that necessity condition by making it clear that it means when the risk posed by the child cannot be managed safely in the community. These measures, taken together, significantly elevate and strengthen the test for child remand to custody.
Alex Cunningham
Will the Minister confirm whether there is likely to be some form of time limit relating to the recent history of the child?
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister leads me to his amendment 128, to which I was going to speak in a moment, but I shall address it now as he has raised it. There will not be a hard or specific time limit in the way that his amendment specifies six weeks. We think that a hard-edged limit of six weeks specified so precisely would unduly fetter judicial discretion. The judge should be able to make a judgment in the round, taking into account all the considerations. A hard cut-off of six weeks is too binary. It is made clear that the judge needs only to look at circumstances where there is a history of breach or offending while on bail that is recent, significant and relevant. That is quite a high test, but we do not propose to go as far as amendment 128 does in specifying six weeks. We do not support the amendment for that reason, although, in spirit, our clause as drafted is pushing in a very similar direction. We just think that six weeks is too precise and that the judge should have some residual discretion.
Before moving to amendments 129 and 130, I would like to touch on a question that the shadow Minister raised about whether police remand almost inevitably and inappropriately leads to custodial remand. He said that could be because there is not enough time to consider bail arrangements and that it could create a sense of bias because, if the judge sees the person in the dock, it may lead them to believe that they are a more serious offender. I do not accept either argument. The statistics that he himself gave a minute or two later support that. He said that only 12% of children going into police remand end up in custodial remand. That demonstrates that 88% of children on police remand do not go into custodial remand, which suggests that there is not a strong linkage in the way that he feared there might be.
Alex Cunningham
We need some clarity around the 12% and the 88%. My point is that the police are remanding into custody a very high proportion of children who do not then go on to receive a custodial sentence. That is the problem, not the other way round.
Chris Philp
I think that the shadow Minister also pointed out to the Committee that there is a 24-hour time limit on police remand for children, so it is an extremely short period of time. For that very short window before the court appearance, it ensures that the police do not lose control of the person in their care. Clearly, if that was going on for days or weeks, it would be a matter of concern, but it is a very short time window, as he said.
The shadow Minister’s amendment 129, on the necessity condition, proposes the insertion of the single word “serious”. I contend that any imprisonable offence is in itself serious but, more broadly, we are again relying on judicial discretion. We do not want to unduly fetter the judge’s discretion. The provisions in clause 131 as drafted will send a fairly clear signal to the judiciary that this is something that should be taken very seriously in making these decisions and that Parliament does not want children remanded to custody lightly or inappropriately. The clause as drafted makes that pretty clear. It also makes it clear that not only do the conditions that we have talked about have to be met but, in the opinion of the court, the risk posed cannot be managed safely in the community. Clause 131 as drafted sends a very clear message that custodial remand should indeed be a last resort.
Amendment 130, proposed by the shadow Minister, would require the court to state in open court the age, sex and ethnicity of a child remanded to custody. In all honesty, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the data is already collected and published, so the information is there already. The important point about the new record being created is that the reasons for custodial remand have to be spelt out expressly to ensure that the court is properly considering those things. We can then be absolutely assured that the court has to consider those matters and record them so that they are there to look at subsequently and be reviewed, not forgotten in the rush of a court appearance. The substance is captured already by the requirements in clause 131. It seems that both sides of the Committee broadly agree on this, so I do not think that amendments 128 to 130 are particularly necessary, although I do understand the spirit in which they are moved.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am prepared to withdraw amendment 128, given his explanation, but I ask that he look seriously at time limits, whether in some form of guidance from the Department or otherwise.
On police remand, I am still very concerned that the police are far, far more likely to remand a child in custody than a court is. I ask that the Minister think again and review the advice given to police officers to try to reduce the number of children who are automatically remanded to custody. I am content with the Minister’s explanation on amendment 129 and I will not press it.
When it comes to data, as the Minister will know because I assume that he signs them all off, I get lots of answers to written parliamentary questions saying that the information cannot be provided because it is not available or it can be provided only at disproportionate cost. If we do not gather the data, I will get more of those answers from the Minister, so I intend to press amendment 130. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 130, in clause 131, page 123, line 3, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (4)(b) insert—
“(c) state in open court the age, gender and ethnicity of the child.””––[Alex Cunningham.]
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I have a suspicion, but I could be wrong, that we had quite a broad canter round the principles of clause 131. Does anybody want to debate it again, or are we happy to dispose of it? Excellent.
Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132
Discretion as to Length of Term
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 133 stand part.
Clause 134 stand part.
That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.
Chris Philp
We want a youth justice system that recognises the unique needs of children, tackles the underlying reasons why children offend and intervenes early to provide support and divert them where possible. There is a distinct and separate sentencing framework for children aged 10 to 17, which recognises that children have their own specific needs that require a different and tailored approach.
The clauses and schedule amend existing legislation to enable us to make the necessary changes to the most common youth custodial sentence, the detention and training order, or DTO. The changes are to make the DTO more flexible, fairer and more in line with other youth custodial sentences.
In that spirit, clause 132 amends the sentencing code to remove the fixed lengths of the DTO, meaning that any length of DTO between four months and 12 months can be given. The court can pass the right sentence instead of being constrained to give only sentences of DTOs of four, six, eight, 10, 12, 18 or 24 months. Removing those very fixed lengths does not change the maximum or minimum sentence but just means that any length of sentence can be given between the limits of four and 24 months. Removing the fixed lengths also means that the reductions made for time spent on remand that we have just been talking about, or bail, which is subject to a qualifying curfew condition and an electronic monitoring condition, and for a guilty plea, will be more accurate. At the moment, there is not always a DTO length that directly fits once remand, bail or guilty pleas have been considered, and the court must instead refer the sentence to one of the fixed lengths of four, six, eight, 10, 12, 18 or 24 months. With the proposed changes, the court may go between those sentence lengths, if it needs to, to fit in with the reductions for time spent on remand and so on. It is a fairly straightforward change, which makes a great deal of sense.
Clause 133 amends the sentencing code and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to fix a current inconsistency in relation to early release. That inconsistency means that different lengths of early release are available for offenders sentenced consecutively to a DTO and another sentence, depending on the order in which they receive those sentences. The change means that where an offender is serving a DTO and another sentence consecutively, the offender may benefit from the same amount of early release, regardless of the order in which sentences are given. I think that is a fairly innocuous and sensible technical change to the 2003 Act.
Clause 134 introduces schedule 15, and that schedule amends the 2003 Act and the sentencing code, so that time spent on remand and bail, where that bail is subject to a qualifying curfew condition and an electronic monitoring condition—a tag—is counted as time served and credited accurately against the custodial part of the DTO. That is a change to the current approach, where time on remand or bail is taken into account when determining the length of the DTO, rather than being credited as time served. The schedule also makes further amendments where an offender is given two or more sentences, of which one is a DTO. Those sentences are treated as being a single term for the purposes of crediting the days spent on remand or bail. The schedule also makes changes to the Armed Forces Act 2006 to make sure that there is consistency.
Those are relatively technical and, I hope, relatively straightforward changes.
Alex Cunningham
We all recognise that DTOs are the most common custodial sentence for children. Between 2010 and 2019, 20,000 offenders under the age of 18 were sentenced to a DTO. It is important that we get this right. We are tentatively supportive of the proposals in the clauses, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, which will I hope will be able to allay some of our concerns.
As the Minister has outlined, DTOs currently have to be of a fixed length. I have some sympathy with the Government’s view that having such fixed periods restricts the courts in deciding the most appropriate length of sentences. Clause 132 will address that by removing the fixed length and providing that a DTO must be for at least four months and no longer than 24 months. We agree with the Government that is important that the minimum period for a DTO is retained to ensure that extremely short, unhelpful and, indeed, counterproductive custodial terms are not given out.
I do wonder, however, whether four months is still too short, and I question the real benefits of such a short sentence. Clause 133 provides that where an offender is given two or more sentences, one of which is a DTO, those sentences are to be treated as a single term for the purposes of crediting days spent in custody, or in qualifying for bail. The explanatory notes state that this clause is intended to
“fix an existing discrepancy in relation to early release which meant that different lengths of early release were available for offenders sentenced to a DTO and another sentence consecutively, depending on the order in which they received those sentences.”
The clause aims to ensure that
“where an offender is serving a DTO and another sentence consecutively, the offender is able to benefit from the same amount of early release regardless of the order in which the sentences are given.”
Clause 134 and schedule 15 provide that time spent on remand or bail subject to a qualifying curfew condition and an electronic monitoring condition is counted as time served and credited against the custodial part of the DTO.
Taken together, the clauses increase the flexibility in the system for sentencers and should mean that the sentence length can accurately account for remand episodes already served, electronically monitored bail or a guilty plea, rather than nearest permissible length based on the fixed tariffs that currently exist.
I note that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales broadly welcomes these proposals as well. It notes that the changes may help to solve the issue whereby the fixed lengths of the DTO sentences held the potential to create a barrier to resettlement—for example, where a fixed sentence length would mean that a child would be released just after September and therefore miss out on the intake of a new school or college year. In this instance, the fixed terms would push children out of education for longer than necessary. The more flexible approach proposed here by the Government can help to address such issues.
On the face of it, these reforms seem sensible, and like something we would support. However, the impact assessment contains some concerning projections, on which I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts. The impact assessment notes an unfortunate adverse impact of removing the fixed-term nature of DTOs, in that individuals who receive early guilty plea discounts under the current system may receive longer sentences than they currently do. While there will be no additional children sentenced to DTOs under this option, the Youth Justice Board has said that it anticipates that the increase in average sentence length may lead to a steady-state increase in the youth custody population of around 30 to 50 places, costing around £5.3 million to £8.5 million per year. It has said that there would also be an equivalent uplift in the number of children supervised in the community at any one time at a cost of around £0.4 million to £0.6 million a year.
The Government’s impact assessment predicts that the proposals will increase the steady-state number of children in custody by up to 50 children by 2023-24, costing the youth custody service between £38.6 million and £61.4 million. That is of very serious concern to the Opposition. We share the Government’s stated vision of reducing the number of children in custody, and there has been great progress in that area over the past decade. The number of children in custody has decreased by about 75%, for which the Government ought to be applauded. It would be a terrible shame if we were to roll back any of the progress that has been made in this area, especially as I know how proud the Justice Secretary is of the work that has been done.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how these proposals can be introduced without increasing the number of children in custody. Let us remember that it is the Youth Justice Board that is saying this will happen. Does the Department intend to introduce any safeguards in this area? The Opposition would like safeguards to be put in place to help to avoid the possibility of children spending longer than necessary in custody, which could also mean an increase in the number of children in a secure establishment at any one time.
I would also welcome a reassurance from the Minister on a further point raised by the Youth Justice Board in its briefing. It notes that the impact assessment states:
“Time spent on remand will be taken away from time to serve in custody as opposed to from the overall sentence length. There will be some individuals that spend longer on supervision in the community under this option, which would incur additional YOT costs. It has not proved possible to quantify these additional costs.”
We recognise that it might be beneficial for children to spend longer with the support of the youth offending team as opposed to being in custody, but there is of course an attendant impact on youth offending team budgets, which are already stretched. The Youth Justice Board says:
“Some children may spend longer on the community part of the order which gives youth offending teams more time to work with them but there is no evidence to support this as a benefit.”
The Youth Justice Board also notes that a cost-benefit analysis of these proposals, in terms of the additional spend for youth offending teams, would be helpful. Will the Minister provide such a cost-benefit analysis? Will he also confirm whether youth offending teams will be provided with appropriate further resource to handle any increased workload as a result of these proposals?
Chris Philp
I am glad that the shadow Minister welcomes the broad thrust of these changes. That is very welcome indeed. In response to his questions about the impact assessment, it is important to say that it makes it clear on the second page that
“there will be no additional children sentenced to DTOs”.
The question therefore arises: why, then, will there be this very slight increase in the population, of between 30 and 50 places? The reason, as far as I can see, is that where the DTO sentence length falls between the two fixed points, at the moment it gets rounded down to the lower of the two, whereas under these proposals it can be calculated precisely. No additional people will be subject to a DTO; however, we will no longer have this rounding-down effect. In a sense, when we account for the time served and so on, and particularly the early plea discount, at the moment there is an inappropriate rounding down, because of the fixed points, which will now be eliminated. The time served will therefore better reflect the law and the court’s intention, and that will lead to a very slight increase in the number of people subject to these orders at any given point. However, the total number receiving the order will not change.
Alex Cunningham
I accept that the total number receiving the orders will not change, but does the Minister not accept, and regret, that these proposals will lead to some children—it might only be a handful—being subjected to more time in custody than they would be under the current system? If he does accept that, what will he do to try to change it?
Chris Philp
It is more that, owing to an anomaly in the current system that is a consequence of the fixed points, people are being let out slightly early. This change really means, among other things, that the law as written can be fully implemented, rather than this little rounding anomaly occurring. However, I stress that the effect is very slight.
Chris Philp
By the way, I should take this opportunity to thank the shadow Minister for his earlier commendation of the Government’s record on reducing unnecessary child imprisonment.
In answer to the shadow Minister’s last question, which was about youth offending teams and longer time potentially being spent under their care, clearly it is our hope and expectation that youth offending teams will be effective—indeed, they are effective—in helping to divert young people on to a better path in life. We are generally increasing resources in this area, and I hope that that will have precisely that effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 132 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 133 and 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 135
Youth rehabilitation orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 122, in schedule 16, page 255, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A)After sub-paragraph 4(1) (Duty to give warning or lay information relating to breach of order), insert—
“4 (1A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a reasonable excuse for breach of an electronic compliance monitoring requirement shall include design faults in any necessary electronic apparatus, including (but not limited to) poor battery life; but shall not include intentional failure by the offender to charge necessary electronic apparatus.””
This amendment would introduce a safeguard to prevent children from being criminalised due to design faults, including poor battery life, on electronic monitoring devices.
Amendment 120, in schedule 16, page 258, line 34, at end insert—
“24(1) Paragraph 35 of Schedule 1 (Further provisions about youth rehabilitation orders) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for “The Secretary of State may by order” substitute “The Secretary of State must by order”.
(3) In sub-sub-paragraph (1)(a), omit “enable or”.”
This amendment would make panel reviews of youth rehabilitation orders routine by amending Paragraph 35, Schedule 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Amendment 121, in schedule 16, page 258, line 34, at end insert—
“24(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 (Further provisions about youth rehabilitation orders) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) At end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State shall take steps to ensure that there are sufficient resources in place to allow for a court to make a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance in all appropriate cases.””
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that intensive supervision and surveillance is available in all youth offending areas.
That schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.
I call the Minister.
The Chair
There are amendments, so if you wish to start, Mr Cunningham, by all means fire away.
Alex Cunningham
I am sure you will be sending out for ice creams within the next half hour.
Alex Cunningham
I rise to speak to amendments 120, 121 and 122, standing in my name. Youth rehabilitation orders currently permit courts to impose a choice of 18 requirements from which a sentence can be designed. This also provides for two high-intensity requirements, intensive supervision and surveillance, or ISS, or intensive fostering, as alternatives to custody. The proposals in the Bill would make several changes to youth rehabilitation orders which I will consider in turn.
Chris Philp
As we have said previously, and as I think the Opposition would agree, we believe that, wherever possible, children who offend should be managed in the community, as it is better for their rehabilitation and therefore wider society, as it is less likely that they will reoffend. In that spirit, clause 135 introduces and refers to schedule 16, which makes amendments to YRO provisions set out in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and in the sentencing code, which we believe will give the courts and the public confidence in YROs as an alternative to custody. The amendments are listed in schedule 16 and include the introduction of a new electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement and changes to the YRO with intensive supervision and surveillance, ISS, a high-intensity alternative to custody, with mandatory extended activities, supervision and curfew requirements.
Alex Cunningham
I understand the Minister’s explanation on amendment 120 but feel that there should be an opportunity for far more reviews in this space. I hope that the system out there will look at that far more closely.
In relation to the intensive supervision and surveillance provisions, it is nonsense that a child in London may be subject to a completely different set of penalties from those facing a child in Sunderland. There should be consistency in the availability of orders. For me, that means that the Government should be directing the development of these orders across the country.
While the £7 million increase is very welcome, I am sure that it will have to do many, many things in the system. We keep getting referred to the same sums of money but more tasks have to be covered within that particular budget. I intend to test the Committee on amendments 121 and 122 because the Government have a long way to go to sort out faulty monitoring systems. We want to be on the side of the child. We do not want them criminalised through no fault of their own.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 135 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 122, page 255, line 26, in schedule 16, at end insert—
“(2A) After sub-paragraph 4(1) (Duty to give warning or lay information relating to breach of order), insert—
‘4 (1A) For the purposes of this paragraph, a reasonable excuse for breach of an electronic compliance monitoring requirement shall include design faults in any necessary electronic apparatus, including (but not limited to) poor battery life; but shall not include intentional failure by the offender to charge necessary electronic apparatus.’”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This amendment would introduce a safeguard to prevent children from being criminalised due to design faults, including poor battery life, on electronic monitoring devices.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before we move on, it has come to my attention, courtesy of the Whips, that there will be a vote in the House at 4.30 pm. I am sure that none of you want to come back afterwards. It is up to you if you do, but I thought I would bring the Whips’ discussion to a wider audience, so we know what their ambition is for the Committee.
Clause 136
Abolition of reparation orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Philp
Given your suggestion, Sir Charles, I will place a premium on brevity. Clause 136 is straightforward. We believe that restorative justice is an important part of the justice system. However, the reparation order itself has been made redundant, having been overtaken by the evolution of the wider youth justice sentencing framework. Instead, referral orders and youth rehabilitation orders now provide a wider range of interventions, including elements of restorative justice, and are more flexible than a reparation order. They have essentially replaced reparation orders.
Also, reparation orders cannot be given in conjunction with a referral order or a youth rehabilitation order, which significantly reduces the circumstances in which they can be used. As a consequence, reparation orders have dropped out of usage—they dropped by 98% over the last decade because the other disposals have taken up the slack. Only 51 have been handed down in the year to March 2020. It is by far the least-used non-custodial disposal. Therefore, in the interests of clarity and simplicity, the clause abolishes the reparation order to enable those other forms of disposal to be used, as they are used anyway.
Alex Cunningham
As the Minister explained, the clause would abolish reparation orders, which require the child to make practical amends to the victim or other affected party. The Government White Paper noted that the orders are little used, probably as they have been replaced by some of the more widely used sentencing options, and so have become redundant.
Reparation orders are the least used orders in the children’s sentencing regime, too. Between 2010 and 2019, around 5,000 offenders under the age of 18 were sentenced to reparation orders. The number of reparation orders handed down fell in each year during that period. In 2019, 66 of those sentences were passed, compared with 2,400 in 2010. In the year ending March 2020, there were just under 16,900 occasions where children were sentenced at court; only 51 of these were reparation orders.
While it is not clear why the use of the order has fallen so sharply, it has been suggested that it is as a result of changes in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which removed restrictions on the use of cautions and conditional cautions, which means that children who may have proceeded to court are possibly now receiving out-of-court disposals, which is a good thing. Do the Government plan to do any research to confirm this suggestion? I think it could be helpful if they did so, since this is quite a significant change in sentencing patterns, and it would be helpful to better understand how restorative justice processes are now manifesting themselves, given that usage is low and that reparation can also be included in other sentences, such as the referral order and youth rehabilitation order.
We support the removal of reparation orders and support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 137
Temporary release from secure children’s homes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Amendment 123, in clause 138, page 126, line 40, at end insert—
‘(8) A secure 16 to 19 Academy will be subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.”
This amendment would make secure 16 to 19 academies subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty‘s Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Amendment 133, in page 126, line 40, at end insert—
‘(8) A secure 16 to 19 Academy will be subject to annual inspection by Ofsted.”
This amendment would make secure 16 to 19 academies subject to annual inspection by Ofsted.
Amendment 146, in page 126, line 40, at end insert—
‘(8) A local authority may establish and maintain a secure 16 to 19 Academy.
(9) A body corporate (including any of its subsidiaries) that is carried on for profit may not be a party to an arrangement to establish and maintain a secure 16 to 19 Academy.”
This amendment would enable local authorities to run Secure 16 to 19 Academies, either alone or in consortia, and to prevent these establishments being run for profit.
Clause 138 stand part.
Alex Cunningham
Secure children’s homes accommodate boys and girls aged 10 to 17 assessed as particularly vulnerable. As well as children held on justice grounds, secure children’s homes accommodate children detained on welfare grounds for their protection or the protection of others. The explanatory notes state that they
“currently rely on inherent powers to make arrangements for the ‘mobility’ of children detained in such accommodation to help address their offending behaviour and to support the integration of children back into the community at the end of their sentence. Clause 137 would provide a statutory power for the temporary release of children detained in SCHs. The Secretary of State or the registered manager of the home would be able to temporarily release a child to whom the clause applies. Temporary release under this clause could be granted under conditions. The Secretary of State and registered managers would have concurrent powers to recall children temporarily released…If the period for which the child is temporarily released expires or if the child has been recalled, the child would be deemed to be unlawfully at large.”
Overall, we are supportive of the Government’s proposals in this area and recognise that a good balance has to be struck between allowing temporary release of children from secure children’s homes to support their reintegration into society, and close monitoring of children on temporary release for risk management purposes.
The Opposition understand that temporary release is an important part of the rehabilitation process for children sentenced to custody, and that some child sentence plan objectives will require them to attend meetings or participate in activities outside the secure establishment. As the Youth Justice Board notes in its briefing,
“Allowing children to be released temporarily supports their constructive resettlement into their community both in maintaining family ties and allowing children to start or maintain education placements.”
While the clause is effectively just putting into statute practice that is already in place, we are pleased to see the Government conferring authority for these decisions and processes to the secure school provider, as they will be best placed to support the child in question.
Research published by the Department for Education comparing children on justice placements and those on welfare placements in secure children’s homes concluded that children on justice and welfare placements are fundamentally the same children. The research found that the level of risk posed by individual children was not related to whether they were on a justice or welfare pathway. The report examined whether there was a need to separate children on justice and welfare placements, but concluded that, rather than separating them, if anything the children would benefit from greater integration. While secure children’s homes managers already have powers under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 to consider and approve temporary release for children on welfare placements, we are pleased that the new provisions will put those managers in the same position for sentenced children on justice placements.
We note the concerns of the Howard League, however, that the clause applies only to children who have been sentenced and therefore excludes children who are held in secure children’s homes on remand from being able to access temporary release. The Howard League points out that this change will therefore create a disparity between children who are in secure children’s homes and children who are in secure training centres. Rule 5 of the Secure Training Centre Rules allows children who are on remand to be temporarily released. It explains that unless temporary release also applies to children on remand in secure children’s homes and schools,
“there is a risk that this will undermine the ‘seamless service’ between custody and the community which the Government envisions for secure schools”
We agree with the Howard League that all children remanded to custody should have access to temporary release where appropriate, as they do in secure training centres.
The Bill’s fact sheet on this provision says temporary release is “not a relevant factor” for children on remand. I find this surprising given that we know that, as a result of court delays, children are sometimes subject to quite lengthy custodial remands. The Alliance for Youth Justice further points out:
“introducing new legislation which restricts temporary release in Secure Children’s Homes to sentenced children would be detrimental, particularly to the development of Secure Schools, which we know have ambitious plans for transitions into the community.”
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this and wonder why this distinction has been maintained. Will he consider including children on remand in these provisions? It would be helpful to be reassured on that point, but on the whole we are pleased with the proposal and will offer it our support.
As we have heard, clause 138 would amend the Academies Act 2010 so that 16-to-19 academies can provide secure accommodation for the purpose of restricting liberty but only if approved to do so by the Secretary of State. On the whole, the Opposition support the principle of secure academies and we do not strongly object to these academies being run by charitable entities. But, as ever, there are some areas in which I seek the Minister’s reassurances, especially with this clause, as comprehensive information is not available from the Government.
The Alliance for Youth Justice briefing on this clause says:
“We are aware of concerns that have been prompted by this section of the Bill around the lack of clarity on the status of Secure Schools, in particular what legislation, regulation and guidance will govern and oversee their activities. It has been confirmed to the AYJ by the Youth Custody Service and Oasis Charitable Trust, that Oasis Restore, the first Secure School pilot, will be registered as a Secure Children’s Home and regulated by Ofsted. It has also been confirmed that 12-to-18-year-olds may be placed in Oasis Restore.”
There is clear discomfort in the sector about the limited information available on the plans for Oasis Restore and how the model will operate in practice. Can the Minister confirm that his Department will publish more information on this? Can he provide a timeframe for publication?
Another issue raised by the sector is that it is unclear how the introduction of secure schools fits into the long-term strategy for the youth secure estate. I understand that it is the Government’s stated intention for secure schools to replace young offender institutions and secure training centres, but we have not yet seen any proposed timeline for such changes. Can the Minister provide more information on his Department’s intended timeline for the changeover to secure schools for the Committee today?
The first secure school is being established in Medway, but I understand that children from across the UK can be sent there. Hazel Williamson put it very well in our evidence session when she said:
“As an association of YOT managers, we believe that children in custody…should be placed in small, secure units close to their homes. We do not advocate large custodial establishments where children are placed far away from their home; we would advocate small custodial units.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 133, Q212.]
Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s timetable for delivering secure schools will not entail children being detained hundreds of miles from their homes while still only a small number of these establishments are available?
The Youth Justice Board has shared its concerns about the links to children entering the youth justice system from practices such as off-rolling children. Indeed, there is a high prevalence of expelled children in the children’s secure estate. For instance, in 2018 in HMYOI Feltham, 89% of children had been excluded from school.
Can the Minister confirm that any academy trusts selected through the tendering process to open or run a secure school have got, as the Youth Justice Board put it
“the necessary skills, expertise, structures and ethos to support children in a secure setting”?
I know that the Howard League wrote to the Secretary of State on this issue last year, and its briefing says:
“This clause provides a legal basis for the ‘secure school’ model of youth custody: it allows academies to provide secure accommodation for their pupils if they have been approved to do so and establishes that running a secure academy is to be treated as fulfilling the charitable purpose of ‘advancement of education’ under s3(1) of the Charities Act 2011. In April 2020, the Charity Commission noted that ‘the proposed purposes of secure schools, as we understand them, do not wholly fall within the descriptions of purpose in s3(1) of the Charities Act 2011’ and that ‘we do not think the operation of a secure school can be exclusively charitable’. In November 2020, the Howard League wrote to the Secretary of State outlining the concerns that locking children up does not fall within charitable objectives. The proposal compounds this issue.”
It would be helpful if the Minister could share with the Committee his discussions with the Charity Commission, so that we all better understand the position that has been reached on this knotty issue.
Amendments 123 and 133 both relate to the inspection regime for secure 16-to-19 academies. Amendment 123 would make secure 16-to-19 academies subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, and amendment 133 would make them subject to annual inspection by Ofsted. I understand that the current inspection framework will come from Ofsted. However, I am sure the Government would agree that a secure school is a very different entity from a standard school. We therefore believe that such schools would benefit from a different inspection regime, to ensure that no aspects of their running are overlooked. Although it is true that it is not a prison, a secure school is still part of the secure estate, so there is expertise that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons can provide. Indeed, when Ofsted does inspections on the secure estate, HMIP is part of the broader inspection team. We think the inclusion of HMIP is important and should be put on a statutory footing. I hope the Government agree that it would add value to the monitoring and running of the secure school system as it is rolled out, so I hope they will be able to support our amendment 123.
As I outlined in my earlier speech, there is still much that is unknown and has yet to be decided in relation to secure schools. For that reason, we think it would be important for there to be regular inspections, especially in the early years of operation. That is why our amendment 133 provides for annual inspection by Ofsted, to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks. Furthermore, we are entrusting such schools with the care of some of our most vulnerable children at a point in their lives when positive and engaged care can have the most impact, so it is only right that the schools are subject to the most rigorous monitoring while they do so. I hope that the Government agree and can support amendment 133.
Amendment 146, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, allows for local authorities to establish and maintain a secure 16-to-19 academy, and to exclude profit-making bodies from doing likewise. I am sure she will address her amendment in detail, but she has our support.
Sarah Champion
My amendment 146 is designed to ensure that local authorities are able to run secure 16-to-19 academies, either alone or in consortia, and to prevent such establishments from being run for profit. I will go into the detail of why, but, fundamentally, I do not think profit should be made from keeping our children safe. We are seeing some pretty gross examples of that at the moment.
In December 2016, the Government committed to phase out child prisons—by that, I mean juvenile young offenders institutions and secure training centres—and to replace them with a network of secure schools and children’s homes. I hope that this is not just the Government playing semantics and that they really are going to get rid of these institutions, because it is very clear, and the Youth Justice Board concedes, that secure training centres are not fit for purpose.
The Government must speed up the phasing out of secure training centres. When introducing secure schools and academies, they must ensure that they will meet high standards of care. We must ensure that secure children’s homes take an approach that fulfils all of a child’s needs and that they are not seen as cash cows for the private firms who run them to make huge profits.
The Chair
The vote might come at quarter past 4, although the Whips will be better informed of that than me, and the Whip cannot move the adjournment while someone is speaking, I just remind him of that.
Chris Philp
With that thought in mind, I will try to deal with the important points raised as quickly as I can.
We recognise that young people in detained accommodation or in custodial settings need a lot of support. Secure schools are being developed to do precisely this.
To support this, we think it is important that secure schools are provided by people who have a certain level of autonomy. Many charities have the necessary skills to do this. That is why, starting with clause 138, we are ensuring that providing a secure 16-to-19 academy can be counted as a charitable activity, enabling charitable secure school providers to improve outcomes in youth custody.
We always take changes to charities law seriously. We have to ensure that charities are properly regulated. The Ministry of Justice has worked closely with the Charity Commission and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make sure that is done in a way that preserves the integrity of charity law.
Clause 137 ensures that there is a clear statutory power to enable providers to allow for temporary release where someone is sentenced to custody, which applies to secure schools as well. It is important that these children can be released into the community as part of the rehabilitation that we want to do with them. This clause puts that release provision on a statutory footing. We think that temporary release provisions are an essential tool in the rehabilitation journey, and this makes sure that can happen.
The Youth Custody Service and secure children’s homes that make temporary release decisions always do so subject to proper risk assessments. The YCS will develop formal guidance for SCH managers, outlining the necessary steps to be taken when making a balanced temporary release decision. Both these measures are helpful in ensuring that charities are able to come into this space to provide these services and that temporary release can be facilitated as part of the rehabilitation package, all of which is important.
Amendments 123 and 133 speak to the inspection regime. Like other academies and children’s homes, secure schools will be jointly inspected by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. They will also be inspected monthly, not annually, by independent visitors. As co-commissioners for secure schools, the Youth Custody Service and NHS England will be responsible for ensuring high standards of performance. The minimum frequency of inspection is also set out in the regulations.
As secure 16-to-19 academies will fall under the definition of a children’s home in the Care Standards Act 2000, they will be inspected on an annual basis in any case. The definition of children’s home in the Children’s Home (England) Regulations 2015 makes it clear that they will fall under the frequency of inspections regulations, so they will be annually inspected in any case, making amendment 123 unnecessary.
We have consulted HMCIP on the question of inviting it into the inspection regime, and it agrees with the Government’s position. Although secure schools are a secure environment, they are essentially schools and children’s homes, and so should be inspected by Ofsted and the CQC. Involving the prisons inspectorate in these institutions would run counter to the ethos we are trying to develop.
In speaking to amendment 146, the hon. Member for Rotherham made a compelling contribution on some of the failings that have occurred in the past, which we all agree we want to avoid. We are clearly talking about the new secure 16-to-19 academies. I want to speak to the concern about the profit motive, which amendment 146 addresses. As part of the existing academies legislation, an academy trust is, by definition, a not-for-profit charitable company, so I can confirm to the hon. Member and other members of the Committee that because academy trusts have to be not-for-profit by their nature, this new provision does not open up the possibility of introducing the profit motive into the provision of these secure schools.
I hope that my remarks achieve the twin objectives of giving commitment and assurance on these clauses, as well as avoiding a clashing with a vote that may be imminent.
The Chair
The hon. Member for Rotherham looks happy. I will ask her if she is happy in relation to her amendment, but I will first go to the shadow Minister.
Alex Cunningham
I think we have to be very clear that we are talking about the incarceration of some of the most vulnerable young people in our society. I believe that we owe them a duty of care. When I was a local councillor and a lead member for children, I was a corporate parent for looked-after children, and I was responsible for them. We as MPs should be responsible for children in our society, particularly when we are dealing with such issues. I cannot understand for one minute why the Government would not want the most rigorous inspection regime possible.
What the Government are proposing is actually a testbed on how we look after those vulnerable children in future. It is a testbed; it has not been sorted, nothing has happened, and there here have been no pilots—nothing. Yet the Government are quite content to rely on independent visitors and inspections by different organisations. The most robust possible inspection of those establishments would certainly by conducted by HMIs and Ofsted.
History shows us—my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave some examples—that if we do not get this right, in future, the responsibility for that child who dies, or that child who gets abused, will lie at our door and with nobody else, because we may not have made sure that they had the most rigorous inspection regime possible. For that reason, even though Her Majesty’s inspectors do not wish to get involved in this, I think their expertise should be put to good use, and I intend to press both amendments to a vote.
Sarah Champion
I do not wish to divide the Committee. I am content with what the Minister said about profit, but I would be grateful if he could write to me about why local authorities cannot apply.
The Chair
Excellent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 137 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 123, in clause 138, page 126, line 40, at end insert—
“(8) A secure 16 to 19 Academy will be subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This amendment would make secure 16 to 19 academies subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. In line with the Commission’s decision, face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or are medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye in order to speak to all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
Compensation payments to customers of London Capital & Finance plc
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report that considers the circumstances and impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc and that, in the light of that consideration, sets out the following—
(a) the circumstances in which taxpayer-funded compensation should be paid following the collapse of investment companies in future;
(b) the extent of regulatory failure necessary to trigger compensation funded by the taxpayer in future; and
(c) the limits to taxpayer exposure to investment failings.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report exploring the impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc and giving criteria for when the taxpayer should compensate investors for investment failures.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
“(5) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the payment of compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc under this section, and in the light of that assessment, sets out the following—
(a) an assessment of the regulatory failures that gave rise to the need to compensate the customers of London Capital & Finance plc;
(b) measures the Government is taking to prevent such regulatory failures in the future;
(c) the reasons why the Government is providing compensation to the customers of London Capital & Finance plc but not the customers of other failed investment firms;
(d) criteria for when the Government should be expected to provide compensation following the collapse of investment firms; and
(e) the reasons for the capping of compensation payments under this section at 80% of what customers of London Capital & Finance would have been entitled to under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament that assesses the impact of the Government compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.
Mr McFadden
Thank you for your guidance, Ms Ghani. Later, I will move amendment 2 and, with your help, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East will move amendments 3, 5 and 6, which stand in the Opposition’s name.
Amendment 1 relates to the first clause of the Bill, which deals with the compensation scheme relating to the collapse of London Capital & Finance and which is based on the report published by Dame Elizabeth Gloster, on which we took oral evidence this morning.
Clause 1 enables a very significant Government decision to step in and compensate people for the collapse of an investment firm. The estimated cost given by the Treasury for that decision is about £120 million. As the Minister pointed out on Second Reading, it is rare that the Government do that. He told us that there have been only two other cases in recent decades—Barlow Clowes and Equitable Life—and even those decisions did not always bring matters to a close. With Equitable Life, some investors around the country remain dissatisfied with the levels of compensation that have been paid out. There is an all-party parliamentary group in this House, and we have my indefatigable hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who has led at least one debate, if not more, on these issues, on the Committee. Such decisions do not always bring the matter to a close.
The focus of the amendment is to try to bring some clarity to Parliament and the public about when the taxpayer should be on the hook for an investment collapse, and when not. This issue was raised in oral evidence this morning by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. He used the well-known phrase “caveat emptor”, or “buyer beware”, which applies those who may buy investment products. The trouble at the heart of this case is that the investors did not think they were making a particularly risky decision. LCF sold mini-bonds on the basis of a guaranteed investment return. When those who suspected something might be wrong phoned the FCA, time after time they were reassured that nothing was wrong. To quote one of the FCA’s call handlers, “This is not a scam”. While the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the principle of caveat emptor, how can we blame the investors if the very regulator looking after the thing was reassuring them that there was nothing to be concerned about?
The Government have judged the level of regulatory failure to be so exceptional and egregious that they have decided that the taxpayer has a responsibility to compensate, or as it is sometimes put, to socialise the losses. The level of compensation set by the Government is 80% of the maximum level allowed by the Financial Services Compensation Fund. That maximum is £85,000, so 80% leaves investors with a maximum pay-out of about £68,000.
There is debate about that 80%. Members of the Committee will have been sent written evidence from various LCF investors who think that level is too low. They do not understand why they have been asked to forfeit 20% of their investment because of what the Government acknowledge to be a particularly egregious regulatory failure. The Government will have to debate that. Their justification for any compensation at all is that LCF is a unique case. Both Ministers spelled that out on Second Reading last week. In his opening speech, the Pensions Minister said:
“While other mini-bond firms have failed, LCF is the only mini-bond firm that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to on-lend to other companies.”
He went on to say:
“It is…important to emphasise that the circumstances surrounding LCF are unique and exceptional, and the Government cannot and should not be expected to stand behind every failed investment firm.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 905.]
We agree, and that is precisely what the amendment is about: to try to get some clarity on the Government’s thinking when the degree of regulatory failure is so exceptional that it warrants the taxpayer picking up the bill. When that is not the case, whatever losses there may be should be regarded as normal investment market failings.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend rightly sets out the scale of regulatory failure. Does he think that one of the other potentially unique circumstances of this case is the apparent legislative lacuna about who had the responsibility for regulating mini-bonds? Dame Elizabeth Gloster set out that, on the one hand, the FCA said it should be Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; HMRC was equally clear that it thought it should be the FCA. We do not know whether that legislative lacuna has yet been sorted. Does my right hon. Friend think that was also a factor in the Government’s decision to compensate to the scale they have?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend is right; the lacuna referred to in the report relates particularly to the allocation of ISA status. We asked Dame Elizabeth about that during the oral evidence session this morning. This is important because if there are two things that gave the mini-bonds the stamp of respectability, it would be that prominent in LCF’s advertising was the statement that it was regulated by the FCA, which at firm level was true but was not true of the mini-bonds being sold, and that they could be placed inside an ISA wrapper. Although it is, of course, true that people who invest in ISAs can lose money, for understandable reasons, the ISA wrapper has a certain cachet and a note of respectability.
Dame Elizabeth confirmed during oral evidence this morning that once the ISA wrapper status was allocated in 2017, the degree of investment in those mini-bonds rose markedly, because people would have thought they were investing in something safe. The adverts spoke, in fact, of a 100% record in paying out, when what we were really dealing with was a pyramid scheme where any pay-outs that did come came from other investors and not normal market returns. People thought they were investing in a safe bond. They did not think they were playing investment roulette.
The Economic Secretary also emphasised the uniqueness of the LCF case in his closing speech on Second Reading. He said:
“LCF is unique in that regard; indeed, it is the only mini-bond issuer that was authorised by the FCA and that sold bonds to on-lend to other companies.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 918.]
That is an exact replica, with both Ministers saying the same thing, and I suspect that that phrase has been very carefully honed inside the Treasury. A case had to be made for the uniqueness of this that could not be applied to other investment failures, so I think that form of words is very carefully chosen. However, the Minister may be able to tell us more when he responds.
The amendment is designed to tease out the following point, which I want to clarify with the Minister. Is it the case that even though a number of mini-bond issuers have collapsed in recent years, LCF is the only one that was authorised and regulated by the FCA? The Minister can intervene now or I am happy to wait. As I said to the Ministers on Second Reading, there must have been a discussion in the Treasury about developing a compensation scheme such as the one set out in clause 1. The question would have been asked: if we did this for LCF, what about investors in the Connaught fund or Blackmore Bond or any of the other investment schemes that were raised either on Second Reading or during the oral evidence session this morning? What was the nature of those discussions at the Treasury and what is it about LCF that makes the Government convinced that compensation is due in this case but not in the others? That is why our amendment calls for a report. Having taken the decision to compensate, we believe it would be in the public interest for the Treasury to set out the circumstances under which the taxpayer might be expected to pay when investors lose money. Is it about a firm being authorised by the FCA? Is it about commissioning a report by an eminent and independent figure such as Dame Elizabeth Gloster?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I am very happy to respond at length in my remarks at the end. The distinction we make is that LCF is the only FCA-authorised firm that was on-lending. That is the distinction; not so much the mini-bond issuance but the on-lending nature of it.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful to the Minister. I am just going through this series of things to try to clarify exactly what might place the taxpayer on the hook. Does it require the kind of report carried out by Dame Elizabeth Gloster and commissioned by the FCA into the collapse of LCF? Is there a clear threshold of regulatory failure to be passed? There was obviously regulatory failure in this case, but, as we saw from the witnesses this morning, people will argue that other regulatory failures have applied to other firms.
In this case, the regulatory failures were multiple. I do not want to go through them in detail because we will come on to other amendments in which they can be discussed, but I will mention a few of them briefly: misleading promotions by LCF using the halo effect have been regulated by the FCA yet not adequately dealt with by the financial promotions team at the FCA; a failure by the same financial promotions team to join the dots and alert other parts of the FCA, such as the supervisory team, on the implications of those misleading promotions; and multiple attempts to alert the FCA—more than 600 phone calls, according to annex 6 of Dame Elizabeth’s report. Yet, in the vast majority of cases nothing was passed up the line of pursuit, in large part because the mini-bonds were not regulated by the FCA, so the call-handlers’ instincts were, “You’re phoning us about something that we do not regulate, so we don’t have to pass it up the line”—even though the firm as a whole was regulated by the FCA.
Gareth Thomas
My right hon. Friend is understandably concerned to protect the taxpayer’s interest. Is there not also another dimension as to why the report he seeks is worthwhile? If there is regulatory failure by the FCA in other ways, and not just in the handling of investors’ resources, and if there is no chance of the Government stepping in and offering compensation for that failure, then, for example, if a big financial services company that was not properly regulated by the FCA were to be demutualised, would there not be a reason to offer compensation? Or, if not, would that let the FCA off the hook?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There are many reasons why clarity about the limitations of Government responsibility and taxpayer responsibility, to put it another way, would be extremely helpful. The very fact of producing the Bill will mean that the Government have asked those questions anyway. As I said earlier, the cost in this case is expected to be about £120 million. The costs of clause 2, which we will come to later, are expected to be over £300 million. Over both clauses the cost will therefore be more than £400 million. That is a large sum of public money that will, in the case of clause 2, be recouped over a period of years from pension scheme members.
Of course, it is possible to have investment failings on an even greater scale. Is there any upper limit that the Treasury would see to such taxpayer exposure, or is it always to be on a case-by-case basis? In theory, investment failings could cost billions rather than hundreds of millions. Our amendment seeks to clarify the Government’s thinking on that, which would be beneficial to Parliament and the public.
Those are the reasons why we have tabled this amendment. We think that the compensation scheme and the whole story of the collapse of LCF demands such clarity and that reports such as the one we have called for would be beneficial.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani.
I shall speak to amendment 7, in my name, and in support of the official Opposition’s amendment 1.
Both amendments call for the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on issues that collectively raise many still unanswered questions about the Bill, about the compensation scheme, and about why the scandal of London Capital & Finance was allowed to happen.
By far the biggest criticism of the Bill, which we again heard from witnesses today, is that it has been deliberately framed so narrowly that those questions are in danger of being ignored. I know that the Government will argue that framing it narrowly increases its chances of getting on to the statute book—I accept that argument—but there is a downside to doing that.
The biggest question that is still unanswered is: why do we expect compensation for the victims of one investment mis-selling scandal when so many people have lost so much—possibly a total of more than £1 billion —in other company collapses that share most, and sometimes all, of the key features of London Capital & Finance?
I should make it clear that I am not asking for the setting up of other schemes. We are not asking for approval at this stage, or for other failures to be included in the LCF scheme. All we are asking for is some clear indication that the Government are taking action to look at the wider issues.
The Government’s answer is that London Capital & Finance was regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and that companies such as Blackmore Bond were not. That smacks of looking for an explanation to justify a decision that has been taken for a completely different reason.
Companies such as Blackmore Bond set out to make prospective investors believe that the FCA had a role in protecting their money. Investors in LCF were misled into believing that its own registration with the FCA would cover their investments. The only difference with other company failures is that investors in those companies were misled into believing that someone else’s registration would cover them—a fine point lost on investors themselves.
The Government’s explanation appear to assume that the only problem, or even the biggest problem, with London Capital & Finance was that it was a regulated company selling unregulated investments. That was certainly part of the problem, but, as the written submissions from a number of investors and as evidence this morning made clear, there were other failings and possibly deliberate malpractice within the company and some of its advisers. Other failings of regulation went well beyond those laid at the feet of the Financial Conduct Authority in relation purely to LCF. If the Government constantly remind us that the sale of mini-bonds was not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, surely the elephant in the room is: why on earth not?
The Government will, I know, refer to the principle of caveat emptor. It is correct that anyone making an investment has a responsibility to ensure that the investment meets their needs, but there are hundreds—possibly thousands—of examples in UK regulation where we regulate the market but it is not realistic or fair to expect the emptor to caveat.
We do not expect people to do their own personal survey of a house to make sure it is safe before they buy it. We do not expect people to check the brakes on the bus before buying a ticket. We have regulation to protect public safety, on food standards, on product safety and on a number of financial transactions. It is perfectly possible for the Government to start to look at regulating these investments in future and compensating ordinary men, women and sometimes children who have lost sums that, individually, are not significant to the FCA but are massively significant to their plans for retirement, for paying to support their children at university or for ever.
We must make it clear that we are not asking the Government to approve compensation for every company failure. We are not asking them even to consider the implications of doing that. We are asking them to look specifically at cases where there is clear evidence of the mis-selling of investments, usually to people who the seller knew perfectly well were not suited to that investment. That has been a characteristic of all the cases we have looked at today.
Gareth Thomas
I am particularly drawn to proposed subsection 5(b) of amendment 7. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman shares my view that one measure the Government need to require of the FCA in the future, to prevent further such regulatory failures, is for it to take a more hands-on approach when customers get in contact to raise concerns about particular businesses; and to make it a point of principle that, when a significant number of customers raise concerns about the activities of a firm, the FCA might actually try to meet some of those customers, rather than, as appears to be the case at the moment, only bothering to meet representatives of the board and management of said firm.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. A lot of the issues he raises are covered in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report and recommendations. She even pointed out today that possibly the single biggest failing—certainly one of the biggest failings—was that the Financial Conduct Authority had too restrictive a view of its purpose in regulating the market.
I have to say that it is not only the Financial Conduct Authority that has failed to regulate. What was the registrar of companies at Companies House doing when they got a copy of the audited accounts of Blackmore Bond—the only copy that was ever submitted by that entire group—in which it said, in so many words, that in order to pay the guaranteed interest on money it had already received from investors, it had to keep on getting more and more new investors? It was effectively a Ponzi scheme in all but name. The auditors made similar comments on the accounts but did not seem to be under any obligation or duty to do anything else. Nobody at Companies House, or the registrar of companies, appears to have been under any responsibility to look at the documents submitted to spot the danger signs; nobody anywhere seems to have been responsible for that. Although the Financial Conduct Authority has been rightly and severely criticised for its failure to regulate London Capital & Finance, we are talking about a much wider failure of the regulatory regime. Maybe one of the biggest difficulties is that there are so many people who might be involved and they are quite happy to point fingers at one another, saying that they should be responsible.
I realise I am in danger of wandering off the narrow scope of the Bill. We cannot amend the Bill to set up a more comprehensive compensation scheme just now because of the way it is framed; we cannot even amend it to set up a framework so that the Secretary of State, through statutory instrument, could extend it in the future. However, we can ask the Secretary of State to explain to Parliament not only what the Government are doing to help the victims of this one scandal but what lessons they have learned and what they are doing to make sure these scandals cannot be repeated. I hope the words of the witnesses from the Transparency Task Force this morning are ringing in all our ears. They believe they have evidence that there are other scandals like LCF happening right now and that it is just a matter of time before they collapse and leave yet more investors out of pocket.
Finally, why is it that the Government need to be called to account and asked to explain to Parliament why it is that, while they are supporting the victims of LCF, they are doing nothing to help the thousands of other victims of other scandals that have already come home to roost? For those victims, improvement in regulation alone is far too late.
Gareth Thomas
I do not intend to detain the Committee long, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East made an excellent speech on this issue; I merely want to underline the point that I made in when intervening on him. There seems to be a degree of risk in the Government’s approach. Again, it would be good to hear from the Minister to better understand why the level of regulatory failure in this particular case should merit Government compensation, whereas if there were to be regulatory failure in, say, the case of the FCA’s handling of the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria, that would not merit compensation for the 1 million-plus customers and owners of that financial services business.
I also underline the point that I made when intervening on the hon. Member for Glenrothes, who speaks for the Scottish National party, on the need of the FCA to perhaps rethink its approach to consumers more generally. At least one of the regulators in the financial services business case that I have particularly been following—that of Liverpool Victoria—has met representatives of that organisation some 35-plus times but has not met consumers at all. That seems to be an example of the FCA continuing not to have properly thought through where it might need to change its practices going forward. I know the Minister will be looking at this issue, and I gently encourage him to focus particularly on that aspect of the regulatory failure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East underlined the point in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report that there have been 600 phone calls from customers about LCF’s poor performance, yet that still did not seem to spur on the FCA to take action quickly. There are almost 10 times as many consumers who are members of Liverpool Victoria as those who invested in LCF, which surely further underlines the need to get right how the FCA handles the consumer interests going forward. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
John Glen
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and I thank all Committee members for their consideration of this important legislation.
As I set out on Second Reading, the Bill is a vital step in compensating LCF bondholders, and I will now turn directly to the consideration of amendments 1 and 7. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East set out, amendment 1 seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a set of criteria for when the taxpayer should compensate investors for investment failures. In essence, it brings some clarity about when the mechanism that we are adopting, and hopefully funding, through the passage of the Bill would be used. Amendment 7 seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the Government’s compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.
I have listened very carefully to the speeches made during the passage of the Bill, on Second Reading and today, and to the evidence that we received this morning. I am particularly drawn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who acknowledged that a degree of risk is involved with any investment. With the right set of regulations and requirements, however, investors can be equipped with the right information to understand their risks and to make informed choices. The Government’s scheme appropriately balances the interests of both bondholders and the taxpayer, and it will ensure that all LCF bondholders receive a fair level of compensation for the financial loss they have suffered.
I turn now to compensation. I must reiterate that LCF’s failure was unique and exceptional. It is the only failed mini-bond issuer that was FCA-authorised and was selling bonds in order to on-lend to other companies. In conjunction with the FCA, the Treasury has looked at eight mini-bond firms that have failed in recent years, and LCF is unique in that respect. It is important to emphasise that the Government cannot and should not stand behind every investment loss. As I have probably said previously, LCF’s business model was highly unusual in both its scale and structure, and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding its collapse are unique.
Peter Grant
Has the Economic Secretary or any of his advisers actually read the promotional material that companies such as Blackmore Bond were giving out, to assess the number of times that words such as “guarantee” and “secure” were included in those documents? Does he not accept that something needs to be looked at there—maybe not for compensation this time, but certainly for tighter regulation in the future?
John Glen
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it takes me to the question of what the Government are doing to improve the efficacy of the financial promotions regime that he mentioned in respect of a different failure. We continue to keep the legislative framework underpinning the regulation of financial promotions under review, including whether it is suitable for the digital age. Many of the promotions are obviously online. We will publish a response in the early summer to the consultation on a regulatory gateway for authorised firms approving the promotion of unauthorised firms. It is not an issue that we take lightly. Change, once in place, is designed to strengthen the regime by ensuring that firms able to approve financial promotions are limited to those with the relevant expertise to do so. The FCA will be better able to identify when a financial promotion has breached the restrictions and take action accordingly, but that does not mean that the LCF failure is not unique and of a different scale and quality from some of the other failures.
Mr McFadden
I want to ask the Minister about the point he made about on-lending. What is the relationship between on-lending and the degree of regulatory failure? He is probably right that this was the only firm doing on-lending, but Dame Elizabeth’s report focuses on an egregious regulatory failure and she sets out all the different things that we will discuss. I suspect that the Government have found something about this case that is unique in order to insulate themselves from claims from other investment failures. I do not see the relationship between that uniqueness and the regulatory failures outlined in Dame Elizabeth’s report.
John Glen
As the right hon. Gentleman set out, Dame Elizabeth’s report showed enormous failure in the way that the FCA discharged its responsibility for a regulated firm carrying out unauthorised activities. The point that he is making specifically is about the distinctiveness of the on-lending. There is a distinction between a firm, such as BrewDog or Hotel Chocolat, that raises funds for its own business activities and a firm that, although authorised, has not carried out regulated activities. Through the failure of the FCA’s oversight to look at the broader activities of the firm, it is impossible to verify whether those activities on lending bore any relationship to the raising of funds for that business. That is the distinctive difference. It is that failure of the FCA to execute its broader responsibility for an authorised firm carrying out an unauthorised activity in this distinct area that gives us licence to intervene.
On the specific issue of non-transferable debt securities, which are commonly known as mini-bonds, the Government are consulting on proposals to bring their issuance into FCA regulation. After listening to the evidence this morning, I would just make the point that Dame Elizabeth Gloster made 13 recommendations in her report. In the written ministerial statement of 17 December 2020 that was issued in my name all those recommendations were accepted—nine pertaining to the FCA and four to the Treasury. There has also been a subsequent undertaking by the FCA to report on progress against those actions and recommendations. The FCA is conducting a detailed piece of work to look at the issue of high-risk investments holistically, and that includes a discussion paper to get views on changes that can strengthen the FCA’s financial promotion rules for high-risk investments. This work follows the FCA’s ban on the mass marketing of speculative illiquid securities.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, only three Government compensation schemes have been established in the past three decades: Barlow Clowes, Equitable Life and LCF. I acknowledge that, for some, they have not been complete and satisfactory. Despite many investment firms failing over that period, the fact that there have only been those three interventions on the scale that we are seeking to secure today demonstrates that this type of intervention is the exception and not the rule. Moreover, the particular circumstances of these three cases are quite different. For example, compensation was provided to Equitable Life investors, in most cases not because they had lost their original capital but because the firm had not met the expected returns on which many investors had based their future retirement plans. That contrasts starkly with LCF, where investors stood to lose their principal sum.
The common feature in each case is a degree of maladministration or misregulation—a major factor that the Government considered in deciding to launch the LCF compensation scheme—but the circumstances are idiosyncratic. It therefore would not be possible in any meaningful sense to set out the precise framework for Government to consider when establishing such schemes in future or to stipulate the threshold of misregulation ex ante.
That does not mean to say that as a Minister, and in my frequent engagement with the FCA, I do not look closely at all these matters. Indeed, I have done so throughout the process in getting to this point today. I believe that such a framework could create an unrealistic expectation among investors about the possibility of future Government compensation schemes and the misconception that Government will stand behind bad investments. That would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments, thinking that the Government will provide compensation if things go wrong.
I want to address some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. He mentioned ISAs. As we announced in response to Dame Elizabeth’s report, HMRC and the FCA have now established an ISA intelligence working group to strengthen communication and information sharing between the two organisations. The group has met and agreed the structure and objectives, which is already resulting in information sharing between the two organisations.
In parallel, from this autumn, once recruitment of personnel is complete, HMRC will reinforce its ISA compliance regime with a programme of ISA manager audits. This will not focus on consumer protection, which does not fall within HMRC’s remit, but could detect technical breaches of the ISA regulations.
We are exploring steps to increase consumer understanding of the ISA wrapper. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, this has a large degree of consumer confidence vested in it. We need to tackle the misplaced perception that ISAs benefit from greater Government or regulatory assistance.
I have deep engagement with the FCA. I will speak later this week to the chief executive as part of my routine, regular engagement and I will relay the detailed comments of, in particular, the hon. Member for Harrow West on the degree of engagement of consumer groups versus the regulated firm’s representatives, and especially the case he is on at the moment.
We heard evidence this morning about the retention of one named individual. The chief executive has brought in five new people from outside the organisation in taking a balanced view on how to deliver a successful transformation programme. I urge him to continue successfully to implement the programme.
There are considerable principled and practical drawbacks to the amendment, which is why I ask that it be withdrawn.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful for the Minister’s response.
I am not entirely convinced about the relationship between on-lending and the decision to compensate. I am sure that the Minister is correct in the literal sense that this was the only regulated firm that was selling unregulated mini-bonds. I am not saying that the Minister is wrong, but from reading the report I believe that Dame Elizabeth would have made the same findings. The mini-bonds were not doing what it said on the tin: they were not on-lending but pyramid selling.
The degree of failure, the degree of investment loss and the degree of regulatory failure are not directly related to the point about on-lending: it is more substantial than that. I am not convinced that all the elements of the Government’s case add up. It looks to me as though they have had to find a unique element to insulate themselves from court action or other claims.
Peter Grant
As an indication of the Government having come to a decision and then looking for an explanation for it, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman picked up in the Minister’s comments how for the first time, in my knowledge, the concept of the scale of the failure—if I wrote down what the Minister said exactly right at the time—was that London Capital & Finance was unique and of a scale and nature that made it different from the rest. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the fact that the scale of the failure has now been quoted as a factor, when it was not before, is an indication that the Government have come to a decision and are now looking for reasons to justify it?
Mr McFadden
We are trying to put ourselves into discussions that we have not been party to so, to some extent, I am speculating on the way that the Government have built their argument.
I have made the point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr McFadden
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report setting out progress on the implementation of the recommendations in pages 47 to 49 of the Gloster Report.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out progress on the implementations of the thirteen recommendations in the Gloster Report.
Amendment 2 concerns the recommendations made in Dame Elizabeth’s report. It is a long report, but I am specifically referring to the series of conclusions and recommendations made on pages 47 to 49. As the Minister said a few moments ago, some of those recommendations are for the FCA and others are for the Government. We heard Dame Elizabeth say this morning that if she reached one overall conclusion that she wanted us to understand, it would be about the degree of culture change necessary for the FCA to fulfil its statutory duties. The fact that she judged that the culture that existed was so inappropriate that it stopped the FCA from doing its statutory job effectively is a serious charge. It is, after all, the body that we depend on to uphold the consumer interest and charged with ensuring proper conduct in the sale and provision of financial services. I do not need to tell anybody on the Committee how important those are, either to everyday life or to the UK economy.
One of the most telling parts of Dame Elizabeth’s report is when she discusses the loss of a letter sent to the FCA by a financial adviser called Neil Liversidge in November 2015, fully three years before the collapse of LCF. The letter warned in fairly graphic language, some of which I read out on Second Reading, what was going on at LCF and the financial adviser’s concern. Dame Elizabeth’s damning conclusion is that even if the letter had not been lost in the FCA, which appears to be what happened, so dysfunctional was the FCA that it would not have done anything about it anyway. She says on page 78 of the report:
“it is unlikely that it would have resulted in any”
action by the FCA. She found that degree of dysfunctionality to be deep and in need of urgent attention, as set out in the recommendations.
Every time there is a public failing, we hear some familiar things being said. In fact, we could almost play word bingo with them. People talk about lessons learned and new systems being put in place, and sometimes there is change of leadership or a change of the management team—all those things. In the report, there was a very well publicised disagreement about the nature of accountability and responsibility involving Dame Elizabeth and the now Governor of the Bank of England, who led the FCA at the time. That was all played out in front of the Treasury Committee over several hearings early this year. I want to focus on the 13 specific recommendations on pages 47 to 49. I am not going to go through them in huge detail, but I will mention a few.
The first recommendation is the desire to treat the regulation of companies holistically; that is, to deal with the halo effect of regulated companies selling unregulated products. That was at the very heart of the regulatory failures over LCF. It was a big part of why the many phone calls to the FCA alerting staff to investor fears about what was going on went unheeded. Indeed, Dame Elizabeth’s report records many instances where calls were not acted on because the mini-bonds concerned were not regulated. There is a whole annex containing the transcripts and I will not delay the Committee with them at the moment, but they are all set out in the report.
The failure to act exposed a major weakness in the FCA’s approach. Even if staff could tick a box that said that a phone call was about something that it did not regulate, the FCA was still on the hook at the end of the day if the firm failed, as the Bill now shows. The recommendation therefore requires a major change in how the FCA thinks about unregulated products.
The next two recommendations are about how the FCA deals with information passed on to it and how it is shared. Again, they highlight a failing in how the LCF information was handled. As we have said, the financial promotions team intervened several times to warn the company about the misleading nature of its promotions as it kept saying that it was regulated by the FCA. However, the financial promotions team did not escalate this information to other parts of the organisation that could have taken action.
The fifth recommendation deals with the financial promotion rules and what to do about breaches when red flags should be raised. Page 49 highlights recommendations more for the Treasury than the FCA. As we discussed a moment ago, the first of those deals with what Dame Elizabeth calls a lacuna in the allocation of the ISA-related responsibilities between the FCA and HMRC. The Minister referred to a working group—I think that is the phrase that he used—and I hope it reaches a conclusion quickly. Such a response is common in the catastrophe word bingo that we often hear. A working group is okay, but it has to deal with the lacuna that has been identified.
Just saying that something is regulated by the FCA gives it an aura of safety and respectability and so does saying that about investments in an ISA wrapper. As the report says, once ISA status was granted to these mini-bonds, investment in them grew markedly. Putting money into an ISA is thought to be a responsible thing to do. People believe that those operating ISAs are respectable companies and not those engaged in what are, in effect, pyramid selling schemes like the one that LCF was operating. That is why this issue is particularly important.
Recommendation 12 is about the optimal remit of the FCA. That matters because the failure of LCF sits so squarely on the boundary of regulated companies selling unregulated products. The FCA’s remit is known in the parlance as the perimeter. The Minister gave evidence to the Treasury Committee a few months ago and he said it was not an issue about the perimeter, but about the failure to use the enforcement and supervision powers that the FCA already had. I understand what he means by that. He is saying that if the FCA had acted on the reports that it had received, a great deal less damage would have been done and the taxpayer would not be faced with the compensation bill set out in the Bill. Even though I understand the point he made, the perimeter is still relevant because it informed attitudes inside the FCA on how alarmed it should be about calls reporting concerns about LCF and whether it should act. That behaviour was influenced by the fact that the calls were about products that were not regulated.
How should the Government and the FCA respond to the issue of regulated companies and unregulated products? In theory, one response could be to say that regulated companies can only sell regulated products, but that would involve a major extension of regulation. That is not to say that that is necessarily wrong, but it would be a big step. For example, foreign exchange trading is not regulated but it is carried out by every high street bank in the country and they are, of course, regulated entities.
If the answer is not a major extension of regulatory responsibilities, what is it? Is it the Government’s position that there is no need to look at this because this was such a one-off event that cannot be repeated? How can we be sure of that? We asked the FCA this morning whether this could happen again and, understandably, the witness from the FCA said that he could not tell us for sure that it could not.
Gareth Thomas
My right hon. Friend is rightly dwelling on the issue of the perimeter. May I give him another scenario that suggests that there might still be reasons to be concerned about whether the FCA has got the perimeter point in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report? Let us imagine that the FCA had investigated a financial services business that was recommending one thing to its customers but only 12 months later was doing the complete reverse. The FCA, having looked at it initially, says, “We’ve looked at it already. We’re putting a perimeter around that. We’re not going to consider what happened 12 months before in the context of this decision.” Were that to be a live situation, would it not suggest that the FCA had not grasped the perimeter point that Dame Elizabeth Gloster was making?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. The question of the perimeter is inescapable. One of Dame Elizabeth’s recommendations is that the Government consider the FCA’s remit, and the Government have said that they accept all her recommendations. The Minister said in his evidence to the Select Committee that this cannot be pinned on the perimeter, as it were, but as a conclusion of what has happened the perimeter must be considered. The Government have accepted that.
One way to deal with this is to say that regulated firms and regulated products must be brought together—I shall be grateful for the Minister’s response on that—but if that is not deemed to be the right response how will the question of the remit and the perimeter be responded to? At the heart of this failure is the halo effect of a regulated firm selling unregulated products.
Recommendation 13 is about ensuring that the legislative framework keeps pace with the sale of products through technology platforms. This field of activity is growing daily. It is driven by technological innovation—the movement of more and more activity online—and perhaps by the increased time people have had during the lockdowns to invest online. I do not want to try your patience, Ms Ghani, by delving too deeply into that today, but I think that this issue will occupy the House and this Minister in particular over the next couple of years. We will have to return to it again and again in the House, but recommendation 13 is precisely about legislation on selling things through technological platforms, and the Government and the FCA will have to adapt to it or they will fall behind the reality of the market and of financial crime.
Most of these issues have been put in the hands of the new chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, and the trans-formation programme to which the Minister referred on Second Reading. How are we to know that the 13 recommendations have been implemented? It is easy when a report is published to say, “We accept the findings.” The key is: are they followed through and properly implemented?
Dame Elizabeth’s report should be more than a series of individual recommendations. As she said this morning, it should result in a culture change. Much more communication needs to take place between different parts of the FCA while, crucially, not dropping the ball on regulated firms and unregulated products.
It is unfair of any of us, in government or in opposition, to load more responsibilities on to the FCA if it does not have the resources to fulfil them. We are clear in our amendment that the resources of the FCA have to be covered. Does the FCA have the resources to meet the ever-expanding list of responsibilities, including those on-shored as a result of our departure from the EU? It is funded through a levy on the sectors for which it is responsible. Is the levy giving it enough resources?
The failure of LCF exposed such a degree of dysfunctionality that it prompted the question: can the FCA really do its job? If not, the Government have to act because the public need the protection of a powerful regulator. The imbalance of information between the sellers of financial services products and the buyers absolutely demands that. This amendment is aimed at our receiving a report on the 13 recommendations and on their implementation by both the FCA and the Treasury. Its acceptance would provide Parliament and the public with a mechanism to ensure that statements saying that the recommendations had been accepted had actually been followed through and action taken.
Peter Grant
I am pleased to speak in support of the amendment. There are two questions if the Government wish to reject it. Assuming that no one has any objection to the idea that somebody should keep an eye on what the Government are doing in response to the Gloster report—that would be a good idea—the questions are who should they report back to and when should they report back. Their response to those questions might provide the only grounds on which they could object to the amendment.
There can be no doubt that the Government must report back to the House of Commons and to Parliament. I know I might not look it—perhaps I do—but I am old enough to remember cases like Polly Peck, one of the great corporate scandals of earlier generations. In response to that, we had the Cadbury report that, in effect, invented the concept of corporate governance. It seems obvious now, but one of the key principles that came out of the report is that once the directors who are supposed to be in charge of a company have taken a decision for something to happen, they cannot just walk away. They have to put a process in place by which they, as the directors, individually and personally, can be satisfied that what they say should happen does happen.
The House of Commons in the UK Parliament is not a board of directors as such, but we still have to take responsibility—all 650 of us, individually and collectively—for making sure that, having had assurances from the Government that they will act either directly or indirectly through agencies such as the FCA, they will do things to sort out a £1 billion scandal. We are the ones who ultimately have to hold them to account for that.
I am not saying that a report or a statement to Parliament is the best possible way of holding the Government to account. Frankly, it is a joke of a holding to account, but it is the best that we are allowed in this place. That is why it is included in many of our amendments. Any argument from the Government that any way of reporting back on such vital recommendations that is anything less than regular statements to the full House of Commons and making themselves available to take questions from, if we are lucky, just 5% of all elected MPs, is just not acceptable.
Secondly, when should the Government report back? That is why I made a point of asking Dame Elizabeth whether six months from now—12 months from the original recommendations—is a reasonable time in which to expect significant progress. Dame Elizabeth made it clear that she cannot tell us about parliamentary procedure and all the rest of it, and I accept that. However, her view was clear that, in six months from now, it would be reasonable to expect there to be significant progress on a significant number of the recommendations. At that point, the House of Commons should get a report back from the Minister to explain what has happened and if it has not happened yet, when it will happen. Most importantly, he will explain why what has not happened has not happened. We have had far too many examples of Ministers giving assurances in good faith but of things not happening or, if they did happen, of their taking far longer than they should have done.
Time matters. None of us knows whether there is another London Capital & Finance already happening, and we heard from witnesses who are convinced that it is. There could be another Blackmore Bond, Basset & Gold or you name the corporate investment mis-selling scandal. It could be happening again right now. We do not know how many of them are on the go just now already swallowing up people’s pensions and savings. If the Minister is not prepared to commit to giving an update within six months, will he tell us what timescale he thinks is reasonable for us to expect real change? “In due course” is just not good enough for people who might be losing their investments now even while we dither and dally about what to do next.
Gareth Thomas
I rise to support amendment 2, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East. I share some of the frustration that the hon. Member for Glenrothes aired: this is the only route available to the Opposition to signal to the Government and the FCA the need to provide a continuing update on their progress in implementing the lessons that have been learned from the LCF scandal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East went through some of the many issues and recommendations that Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report highlighted, but let me pick out five in particular.
First, the FCA failed to consider LCF holistically. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, we got Dame Elizabeth to emphasise again in the evidence session today that the most significant issue was a very restricted approach to the regulatory perimeter. I will come back to that point.
Secondly, the FCA’s policy documents were unclear on the handling of key questions. Thirdly, its staff had not been trained sufficiently in various key and crucial matters. Fourthly, there was a series of gaps in the law that needed fixing in order to enable proper regulation. Fifthly, the issue that my right hon. Friend touched on last was the FCA’s scope and capacity to intervene effectively on consumers’ behalf—did it have sufficient powers?
Let me turn to the first of those concerns—the restricted approach to the regulatory perimeter and whether the FCA has learned to consider issues to do with consumers holistically. The example that I gave when I intervened on my right hon. Friend was that of a financial service business that has recommended to its customers something that the FCA has approved, only for it to come down the line, 12 months later, and suggest the reverse approach. That is effectively what is happening in the case of Liverpool Victoria. I do not want to test your patience too much, Ms Ghani, but let me clarify that example very briefly.
Liverpool Victoria converted to a company limited by guarantee from a friendly society two years ago. The FCA looked at it—
The Chair
I am curious as to how the hon. Gentleman will keep this in scope, but I am listening attentively.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful for your patience, Ms Ghani, and I will not test it much more.
The FCA looked at that two years ago and approved it. Crucially, at the time, the chair and the leadership of LV said, “This has got nothing to do with demutualisation.” Where the regulatory perimeter issue comes in is that the FCA will not look at what happened two years ago in the context of what Liverpool Victoria is now trying to do. It is surely legitimate to be concerned about Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s crucial finding that the FCA had not worked out a way to handle decisions being taken by businesses holistically. That has not been properly grasped, and I gently suggest that Liverpool Victoria is the key evidence in that respect.
On the question of the FCA’s policy documents, the way they were used by staff, and whether they were appropriate to LCF’s challenges, they clearly were not up to the job, but at least there was a policy document. In the case of Liverpool Victoria, there does not appear to be any policy document on the FCA’s handling of the demutualisation. That raises a bunch of serious questions, albeit not within the scope of our conversations today.
Clearly, there is a question as to whether staff have been trained appropriately to handle the 600-plus phone calls that customers of LCF made to the FCA, raising their concerns about the products that were on offer, and that they had invested in and were buying. Again, one would have thought that the FCA would have grasped that concern and made sure that staff were trained properly on the big issues of the day affecting the FCA.
Again, I am surprised. I use the example of Liverpool Victoria again. There has been no looking back at previous demutualisations and at how the consumers’ interest was protected in that respect. So even if the FCA has highly capable staff, as I am sure it has, given that they have not looked back, one wonders how they can possibly be trained to think through properly all the key questions.
One of the issues that I raised in an intervention on the hon. Member for Glenrothes was about the extent to which the FCA has learned from the LCF scandal that perhaps it needs not to be quite so close to the boards and management of financial services businesses. Perhaps it needs to move just a little bit more towards having a little more scepticism on behalf of the consumer.
So imagine my concern when I discovered that one of the regulators involved in handling the consumer interest in the Liverpool Victoria case has met the management of LV 35 times and not once with any consumers of the company. That would seem to suggest that they have not learned the lessons.
Lastly, I just want to suggest that there is a series of gaps in the law that need fixing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East rightly drew attention to the concern in the LCF case about who regulates mini-bonds. It is gratifying to hear that there is a working group looking at the relationship between HMRC and the FCA in this regard. However, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I think there is a series of legislative gaps regarding how consumers are handled during the demutualisation of a major financial services business, but I would tempt your patience, Ms Ghani, were I to go down that route. Fortunately, as the all-party parliamentary group for mutuals is meeting the Minister, it will have an opportunity to go through those issues and I very much look forward to that occasion.
John Glen
I will obviously now move to consideration of amendment 2. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, who is an experienced and distinguished former Minister himself. He referred to the catastrophe word bingo. I do not want to address that particularly, but I will address the amendment, which seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out progress on the implementation of the 13 recommendations in the report by Dame Elizabeth Gloster.
I will also tell the right hon. Gentleman precisely what we have done, what I think the FCA has done, and where I think that takes us, and I will address his concerns, raised throughout this debate, on the perimeter, on the halo effect and some of the points that Dame Elizabeth Gloster made.
The Treasury accepted Dame Elizabeth’s four recommendations regarding the Treasury and we welcome the FCA’s commitment to implement all nine of her recommendations that apply to it. We are committed as a Government to act on Dame Elizabeth’s recommendations, to ensure that the regulatory system maintains the trust of consumers. I submit that progress has already been made in implementing the recommendations and I set that out during my evidence session for the Treasury Committee’s inquiry into the FCA’s regulation of London Capital & Finance on 21 April.
Regarding Dame Elizabeth’s recommendations for the FCA, I obviously welcome the FCA’s acceptance of them, and I am sure that the Committee will have noted its commitment to report publicly on its progress in implementing these recommendations and indeed on its wider transformation programme. I am sensitive to the criticism that this is an empty exercise where there is nothing specific that Parliament and Members can address. I would therefore draw attention to the fact that Charles Randell, the current chair of the FCA, provided a detailed update in his letter to me on 16 April.
Mr McFadden
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
John Glen
London Capital & Finance was an FCA-authorised firm that primarily offered an unregulated investment product, commonly known as mini-bonds, to retail consumers. It entered administration in January 2019, impacting 11,625 people who invested around £237 million. The Serious Fraud Office and FCA enforcement have launched an investigation into individuals associated with LCF. The Financial Reporting Council has also launched investigations into the audits of LCF. As the Committee will know, Dame Elizabeth Gloster led that independent investigation, which also revealed shortcomings in the FCA’s supervision of LCF. A complex range of interconnected factors contributed to the scale of losses for LCF bondholders, creating a situation that is unique and exceptional. While other mini-bond firms have failed, LCF is the only one that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to “on-lend” to other companies. As I have said before, LCF’s business model was highly unusual both in its scale and structure. In particular, it was authorised by the FCA despite generating no income from regulated activities. Bondholders were badly let down by LCF and the regulatory system designed to protect them, and I announced that the Treasury had set up a compensation scheme for bondholders who suffered losses after investing in LCF. The scheme will be available to all LCF bondholders who have not already received compensation from the FSCS and will provide 80% of the compensation that they would have received had they been eligible for FSCS protection up to the maximum cap of £68,000. The LCF scheme is expected to pay out £120 million in compensation to around 8,800 bondholders in total. Where bondholders have received interest payments from LCF or distributions from the administrators, Smith & Williamson, these will be deducted from the amount of compensation paid.
There are two main aspects of clause 1, which I shall explain in turn. First, legislation is required to establish the financial authority to enable the Treasury to incur expenditure in relation to the scheme. That will ensure that the Treasury complies with the 1932 Baldwin concordat and the principles of managing public money. Clause 1 provides the Treasury with the spending authority that will enable payments to be made to eligible bondholders. We are working on the details of that scheme but I hope that it will be possible to reimburse them within six months of Royal Assent.
Secondly, the Treasury intends to use the process set out in part 15A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to administer the scheme on behalf of the Treasury. Clause 1 disapplies the FCA’s rule-making requirement so that existing rules relating to the FSCS can be applied to the scheme without the need to undertake a lengthy consultation. That reflects the fact that existing rules have already been consulted on and avoids any further unnecessary delays to compensation payments. In addition, as the Treasury will pay for the scheme, there is not the same obligation to consult FSCS levy payers as there would be for rules that sought to make use of FSCS funds raised by the levy.
I submit that clause 1 is an essential step in the introduction of the LCF compensation scheme without which compensation payments cannot be made. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I understand that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East wishes to make a short contribution.
Mr McFadden
It is really just a question. The Committee has received a number of representations from LCF investors about this 80% level. What is the Minister’s response to those representations? If LCF investors were here and were allowed to speak, they would say, “Why is it that those who invested after getting financial advice get 100% of the FSCS level because financial advice is a regulated product and therefore covered by the FSCS in full but we are getting 80% of that level?” What is his response on this differential treatment of the two types of investors?
The Chair
Before you respond Minister, I call the hon. Member for Glenrothes to make a short contribution.
Peter Grant
The Minister referred to the fact that there are ongoing investigations in relation to LCF. Does he recognise that some of the individuals and intermediary businesses that are now under criminal investigation for their part in LCF also played a major part in other mini-bond scandals that I have written to him about separately? Although he made the point about the uniqueness of LCF, the aftershock of LCF is very definitely being felt in other mini-bond scandals that have happened since then.
John Glen
Out of courtesy, I am very happy to respond to my colleagues. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East asked why the 80% figure was not 100%. As I have tried to explain through the submissions that I have made, the Government have been trying throughout to balance the interests of bondholders and the taxpayer to ensure that we have a fair level of compensation in respect of the financial losses incurred. The scheme is based on the FSCS level of compensation but, as he knows, it is 80% up to that cap of £68,000 to reflect the unregulated nature of the LCF product.
I emphasise that it is imperative to avoid creating the misconception that Government will stand behind bad investments in future, even where the FSCS does not apply. That would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments thinking that the Government will provide compensation when things go wrong. To avoid creating that misconception, and to take into account the wide range of factors that contributed to the losses that the Government would not ordinarily compensate for, the Government will establish the scheme at the level of 80% of LCF bondholders’ initial investment up to the maximum of £68,000. With any investment, there is clearly a risk that sometimes investors will lose money, and the Government and taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to step in and compensate for every failure and every loss. It would not be right or fair for investors in non-regulated products to receive fuller compensation than those who have invested in regulated products, for which the maximum amount is capped at £85,000 under the FSCS.
On the remarks of the hon. Member for Glenrothes about the individuals involved in an ongoing serious fraud inquiry, I am not familiar with the detail, but obviously I am happy to receive any representations. I hope that brings satisfaction to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Loans to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) No loan shall be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an impact assessment of the means of repaying the loan, including specifically the impact on pension schemes from the Fraud Compensation Fund levy.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a loan to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund for the purpose of compensating eligible pension schemes until he or she has laid before Parliament an impact assessment of the Fraud Compensation Fund levy on different pension sectors.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) Before making a loan under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the levels of fraud in the pensions system.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the levels of fraud in the pensions system before making any loan under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(5) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made under section 115A.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within twelve months of this Act being passed, on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made to the Board of the PPF under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.
Matt Rodda
We have tabled a number of amendments seeking to improve the Bill. Amendment 3 seeks to ensure that we have clarity and certainty before taking the step of asking key pension schemes to fund the majority of the bill for the Fraud Compensation Fund. It is perhaps worth reflecting on the evidence we heard this morning, which was so illustrative on this issue. One socially important pension scheme—the People’s Pension fund, which we heard about today—was asked to put forward a large amount of money to help support the compensation fund. The fund is known to take a large number of people—many of them women, on low incomes or self-employed—who have started to save for a pension through auto-enrolment. I am sure the whole Committee will agree that it is a worthwhile objective of Government policy to encourage pension savings by a wide range of people, not just the wealthier sector of the community.
Specifically, amendment 3 would prevent the Secretary of State from making a loan to the board of the Pension Protection Fund for the purpose of compensating eligible pension schemes until he or she has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Fraud Compensation Fund levy on different pension sectors, thereby allowing Parliament to consider the issues affecting them. That is essential because, as we have heard, the burden of compensating victims of fraud is falling disproportionately on certain groups. As we heard this morning, just two schemes—the People’s Pension and the National Employment Savings Trust, which are both not-for-profit operators—have historically ended up paying the lion’s share of the fraud compensation levy, despite their size and the fact that there is no tangible connection between those funds and the fraud that we are trying to address.
It is perhaps helpful to mention the figures again, for the sake of clarification. To recap, the PPF’s 2019 annual report and accounts reported that the FCF levy raised £6.9 million. What is truly surprising to casual onlookers, however, is that 37% of that was paid by the two pension schemes that I mentioned—NEST and the People’s Pension—even though they managed only £20 billion of the roughly £2 trillion of assets held in UK workplace pensions. They were managing just 1% of the total, which is a tiny amount, as I am sure everyone will agree. There is clearly a mismatch, and I am sure that the Minister, who has obviously followed this in great detail, will want to respond because something strange seems to be going on. With the figure now enlarged significantly to hundreds of millions of pounds, and with the potential repayment of the loan via an increased levy, it is understandable that the schemes are anxious about where the burden of repayment will fall. That is a fair point, and one that I am sure we would all want to consider thoroughly.
We have been promised a review of the levy later this year, and I appreciate that the Government are willing do that. However, it does not seem right that, given the significant sums involved for the loan, the legislation should proceed without pausing—all we are asking for is a pause—to consider its impact. Both of the pension schemes I have mentioned play a hugely important part in expanding pensions coverage, and I am sure that members of the Committee are aware of the national policy challenge of encouraging more people to save for their pensions. We all want a much larger proportion of the community—ideally, everybody—to have access to a pension scheme that they can save into as well as the state pension. The two organisations I have mentioned have many low-income savers who I am sure we want to support. It is crucial that we consider the long-term viability of those schemes as we consider the structure of the levy, and that the long-term viability of the two pension schemes is not jeopardised.
Peter Grant
The official Opposition’s spokesperson gave very clear reasons why there is benefit in our agreeing to the amendment. I would like to anticipate the reasons that the Government will give for rejecting it and explain briefly why those reasons are not valid—I nearly said mince, but I do not know if that would be understood.
I hope that the amendment will be regarded, not only today but in the future, in the same spirit as that with which it has been tabled. I can almost see someone at the Dispatch Box, thumping the table in response to a question, saying, “Of course, Mr Speaker, we all know that the official Opposition attempted to delay implementation of the scheme.” Amendment 3 could be misrepresented in that way, but that is clearly not what it seeks to do. It asks the Government to publish the results of something that any responsible Government would do before they created the terms of a loan. All it asks is that, having done an assessment—which surely they will—they tell us the results.
The impact on particular kinds of pension schemes is important, because it could be argued that the reason the clause is needed is that a previous Government did not properly assess the impact of the changes they made in 2015 on certain types of pension holders. That is where pension liberation and pension liberation scams came from. I hope that the Government have learned their lesson. If they do not assess in more detail the impact of major changes on particular types of investors and pension holders, they may be saving up problems for the future.
I will briefly mention the other two amendments. The Government should do what is proposed by amendment 5. Do they have any idea of the level of pension fraud in the United Kingdom right now? They should.
The Minister indicated this morning that the measure proposed by amendment 6 might already have been done by someone else. If that is the case, there is nothing to stop him taking that document and putting a written statement before the House, saying, “I have received the report of xyz this morning and I endorse its contents.” A report is given significantly more weight if it is put on the record in that way. Presenting an annual report also gives Ministers an opportunity to say, “I am unable to endorse its contents, for the following reasons,” but endorsing it gives it a gravity that it might not otherwise have had. The Minister may have noticed that I am no great fan of this Government or this place, but if a Minister of the Crown lays before Parliament a statement taking responsibility for and endorsing the report of a body that reports to their Department, that carries more weight than the report simply appearing somewhere in the pages of the media a day or two later.
The Chair
In case any Member did not quite understand what I said at the top, all of the proposed amendments to the clause are being debated now, including amendments 5 and 6. Mr Rodda, to confirm, are you aware of that, and do you wish to speak to amendments 5 and 6 now?
Matt Rodda
I am very grateful, Ms Ghani. I would like to speak to amendments 5 and 6. Amendment 5 obviously covers a very different area. I sponsored it because I think that the central principle of this country’s pensions system—I am sure the Committee agrees—is that people who work hard all their lives and who contribute and save diligently are able to receive a decent pension in their retirement. I hope there is cross-party agreement on that. I am sure there is; historically, that has been the case.
In recent years, however, it has become clear that an increasing number of pensioners—and, indeed, people approaching retirement, who are also an important group and are in some ways quite vulnerable—have been set back significantly as a result of what are commonly called pension scams. As the Bill Committee, we have a duty to protect people and to help them prepare for their retirement. Amendment 5 therefore seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the levels of fraud in the pensions system before making any loan under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004. We believe that that is a crucial first step in tackling pension scams. Obviously, there are a whole series of ways to tackle them, and we appreciate that the Government are taking other steps. This is important because the consequences of the scams can be utterly devastating for those directly affected. They are also potentially expensive and damage trust in the pensions system as a whole and the operation of many businesses in the sector. It is critical that we have a system that is robust and protected against scams. The Bill highlights the consequences for everyone, including other scheme members, when fraud is allowed to spiral unchecked.
The pandemic has, sadly, given rise to an increase in fraud, as many criminals have taken advantage of the confusion and, in some cases, the isolation of vulnerable people to prey on those who, sadly, can fall victim to these dreadful crimes. However, pension scams were already on the rise. It is worth noting that, since George Osborne’s pension freedoms were introduced in 2015, fraudsters have taken advantage of confusion around what the rules precisely allow. We warned at the time that those reforms would significantly increase that risk. The Government must acknowledge, as I am sure they will, the failings of pension freedoms and their associated tax problems, as in the case of the NHS.
One of the most egregious abuses of pension freedoms has been a scam by sophisticated criminals who trick people into accessing their pensions before the legal age of 55, relying on confusion about the rules, and then abscond with the funds, leaving people in a desperate situation. In some cases, the victims suffer a double injustice: not only do they lose their entire pension pot in some cases; they are also aggressively pursued by HMRC for tax penalties, having broken the rules on money they no longer have. There are some truly heartbreaking cases of innocent people being misled and sadly losing their life savings, as well as being left with tax debts of tens of thousands of pounds.
We would like reassurance that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury will look into tackling this problem in the wake of the Dalriada judgment last year. The Government could provide that reassurance by supporting amendment 5 as a crucial first step. They should also find a way for HMRC to work with the authorities to make sure that these crimes are properly investigated, targeting the promoters, not the victims, and recognising the dreadful circumstances in which those victims find themselves through little fault of their own.
The High Court judgment that is at the centre of the loan we are discussing today is linked to exactly that type of fraud. In its recent report on pension freedoms fraud, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions recommended that particular aspects of pension freedoms and the Pension Protection Fund be reviewed in further detail in that light.
We agree with the Select Committee. Our amendment, which calls for an assessment, could form an important part of tackling the issue. It is important that the Government publish the report the amendment seeks, in order to show the public that they are not simply looking at the symptoms of fraud, but tackling the causes. I am sure the Minister will want to consider that point. The Government should set out an action plan to protect pension savers and an assessment of the level of fraud in the system as part of that work.
I know the Minister campaigned to tackle cold-calling last year in the Pension Schemes Act 2021. The Bill quite rightly tackled telephone cold-calling, but people can be approached in a cold manner online. I ask the Government to consider that avenue for scams. There has been some mixed messaging, but I hope the Minister, who I know is in touch with the sector, will take the point on board. I have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ask that the Government act on this point and include it in the online harms Bill, which is an appropriate place to tackle these serious scams, alongside many others.
Pension savers are particularly vulnerable in the few years just before retirement, when savings have accumulated but before they have actually retired. Pension transfers, especially for those in defined-benefit pension schemes, can be targeted by criminals, alongside pensions liberation fraud, which we are talking about today. This is where the Money and Pensions Service should play a bigger part. As Members will know, the service is a Government-funded body that offers free pensions advice to people aged over 50, through its Pensions Wise service.
Is it possible for Pensions Wise to play a bigger role? I hope the Minister will consider that point. It could be helpful and supportive to individuals, as well as helping the operation of the sector—the businesses that are operating legitimately, as the vast majority are.
It was disappointing that the Government rejected a proposal in proceedings on the Pension Schemes Act that would have booked a default Pensions Wise appointment for everyone in the five years prior to their retirement. The amendment was put forward by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and was supported by the Opposition. It would have meant that everybody would automatically get some basic knowledge about where they stood, better protecting them against scams.
Finally, I would like to share some research from the People’s Pension and the Police Foundation that demonstrates the scale of the problem and why we need to act urgently. The true level of pensions fraud in the UK, though large, is unknown, but could it be as high as £14.6 billion, based on the average pot size of £63,700.
I hope the points I have set out are helpful and that the Minister will consider them. We would like to see this area addressed by the Government. I urge the Minister to respond to my points.
Ms Ghani, should I speak to the other amendment now?
The Chair
The amendments are grouped, so they are all to be debated together. Do you have a contribution on amendment 6?
Matt Rodda
Yes. I will move straight on. I appreciate your tolerance.
Amendment 6 seeks to perform another important role—ensuring that the PPF and the Fraud Compensation Fund work effectively and efficiently for all parties, which I am sure everyone here would support. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within 12 months of the Act being passed, on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made to the board of the PPF under proposed new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.
In the debate on amendment 3, I set out why we needed a fuller understanding of the way the levy works and its impact—I mentioned the two not-for-profit organisations that are doing such valuable work—in order to improve the situation for savers and pensioners. I will not go into the detail of those arguments again, but they are applicable and equally important for this amendment.
It is crucial to highlight the context in which we put forward the amendment. A very limited number of schemes are currently propping up the fraud compensation levy by paying disproportionate contributions, even though they do not have a meaningful connection to fraud at this time.
Gareth Thomas
On a point of order, Ms Ghani. You were very good at the end of the evidence session with the FCA to point out that the director, who was present, agreed to provide two pieces of written correspondence to me and to the whole Committee. As I understand it, that has not yet arrived. I have some sympathy for the FCA, given the timetable on which we were asking it to provide that information, but I wonder whether the Clerk might gently press the FCA for that information at some point this week.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Thomas; your point of order is duly noted. I believe that the Clerk will indeed be pressing for that data as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I gather that we have a possible vote in the House, so I will attempt my entire response in 10 minutes. Before I do so, it is right that, on behalf of the entire Committee, I thank you for chairing the Committee, Ms Ghani. As the former ports and shipping Minister, and in a month when we celebrate the first female Royal Navy captain, some might argue that you are a well-qualified captain to keep what is—let us be honest—a motley crew in order. If you run for Speaker, Ms Ghani, I will definitely be supporting you.
Let me discuss what clause 2 does and does not do. It creates a power to make a loan to the board of the Pension Protection Fund, following the decision of 6 November 2020 in the case of the PPF v. Dalriada. It achieves that by inserting a new section into the Pensions Act 2004 to provide the Secretary of State with a power to loan money to the board of the PPF.
I think it is fair to point out to the Committee that the clause deals with matters that are predominantly––almost entirely––to do with 2010 to 2014. Many would wish to make this a case about pension freedoms, when in fact pension freedoms post-dated these matters. It is clearly a serious and important matter, and, following a court decision, the Government have accepted the entirety of that decision.
The practical reality is that the Fraud Compensation Fund has assets of £26.2 million, and the potential liability arising from the court judgment is £350 million. I accept that points have been made in respect of how the loan is to be repaid in the longer term and I will address that, but I shall now turn briefly to the amendments.
Amendment 3 seeks an impact assessment. With great respect to the Members who tabled that request, it is utterly unnecessary. It is, in fact, precluded by the decision of the House on section 22 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, of which I am sure Members are acutely aware. It states that impact assessments are not required in respect of levies or other such charges in these particular circumstances.
Secondly, the clause is implementing a court judgment.
Peter Grant
Will the Minister clarify his last comment? Did he say that impact assessments are not required or that they are not permitted? Surely, if they are not required, we can still ask for one if we think it would be useful.
Guy Opperman
That is a very fair question that I shall attempt to answer while I am on my feet, but I believe that it is not required. Section 22 of the 2015 Act excludes impact from the definition of regulatory provision, so I believe that it is an exclusion rather than a requirement. If I am wrong in any way, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and correct myself. I may be corrected while I am on my feet, although in the brave new world of covid, that is quite difficult, as I am sure that he understands.
Clearly, if we were to do an impact assessment at this time, it would fundamentally delay the implementation of payment to members, and the blunt truth is that the PPF will run out of money by October if we do not progress this legislation. The levy increase will be consulted on post the passing of this Bill. It will need consultation, regulations and debate in the usual way.
Amendment 5 would also delay the progress of this matter. The Government will respond to the Work and Pensions Committee, to which I gave detailed evidence, before the end of the summer term. The full response of the Government in respect of all matters relating to such scams will be made before the end of term. We are already progressing Project Bloom and there is the work of the Money and Pensions Service that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the previous Act that we worked on. We have produced section 125 of the Pension Schemes Act 2021, which Her Majesty signed on the dotted line in early February, and the consequential transfer regulations that we have consulted on over the past month to ensure that pension scams are prevented on an ongoing basis.
I have been asked to address other matters. It is clear that Ministers are engaging with various organisations, including Google and Facebook. The two of us have made our views very clear to those organisations about how they should regulate themselves. I agree that Pension Wise should be used more but, with great respect, I disagree with the Chair of the Select Committee’s proposal for the many good reasons that I outlined in the debates on Report and Third Reading of the 2021 Act. Clearly the work that we are doing jointly with the Treasury and other organisations, including the FCA, on stronger nudges towards using Pension Wise and other things will make a massive difference.
On amendment 6, there is already an annual report. In true Chamberlain style, I have it here in my hand: the annual report of the Pension Protection Fund, which is published every July. I know, Ms Ghani, that you will have read the most recent version, and will be looking forward with bated breath to the July 2021 report, which will specifically address the issues whose importance today’s witness made very clear.
In those circumstances, I invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.
The Chair
Let us try to ensure that we get through this portion of business before the Division. The Opposition spokesperson may of course respond, but let us keep it brief.
Matt Rodda
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I feel that he is being somewhat generous in his description of the Government’s assessment of this problem and the level of response. I urge him to redouble his efforts and to focus on some of these points in further detail.
I think that the hon. Member for Glenrothes is right to draw attention to the subtle legal difference on the issue of the impact assessment. Surely, given the scale of what is going on, it would be wise to carry out an impact assessment. I appreciate the pressure of time, but perhaps with the considerable resources of DWP, which has the largest staff quota of any Department and a very able group of civil servants, it would be possible to carry out an impact assessment on a rapid turnaround, given the scale of what we are talking about and, indeed, the problems of the sector as a whole.
On the ongoing consultation and the possibility of reviews in this area, will the Minister agree to meet me and the not-for-profit providers to explore the particular issues affecting them?
Guy Opperman
I will, of course, agree to meet them. I already meet NEST and the People’s Pension regularly, and they have made a very good pitch for a reduced levy. It is already a reduced levy, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, and there is already a 0.75% cap, but of course I am looking forward to meeting them as part of the ongoing consultation.[Official Report, Vol. 697. 17 June 2021, c. 3MC.]
Matt Rodda
I am very grateful to the Minister and put on the record my thanks to him for offering that meeting. I look forward to seeing him and discussing the matter.
On amendment 5, the Minister mentioned the regulations in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, but will he write to me to discuss some of the ways in which the specific parts of the regulations relate to this issue? He has been reported in the media as suggesting that it might be wise to consider pension scams in the online harms Bill. Perhaps he will comment on that now or write to me separately, because we would like to work constructively with the Government on this matter. I appreciate that online harms are a huge and wide-ranging issue, and I have a constituency interest in violent crime in respect of a tragic incident in Reading.
Guy Opperman
I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. He can read in detail what I said in The Times on both occasions, and that is pretty much all I can say on that matter.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for his candour and for offering me a cutting from The Times, which is a fine newspaper.
Finally, on the PPF annual report, the issue is that while these documents are very worthy, and we should all read them, there is a delay. I urge the Minister to consider the need to reassure organisations in the sector, pension savers and pensioners themselves in the near term, rather than our having to wait well into 2022 before the 2021 annual report is available.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
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
Levelling-up Agenda
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice, in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. The timing of debates has been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be a suspension between each debate.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of the debate and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind those people participating virtually that they are on screen at all times. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and when they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn at all times, except when speaking.
Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery; I can see some Members there now. Once Members have spoken, I would be grateful if they vacated their seats—Members can speak only from the horseshoe, where the microphones are.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the levelling up agenda.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I am delighted to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and I thank other hon. Members for being part of this debate. I am happy to forgo my summing-up at the end to get as many folks in for as long as possible, but I would like to talk for 10 to 12 minutes now to outline some arguments.
I have two key points to make to the Minister and I will come straight to them. On the immediate issue, the Isle of Wight Council and I, working together, are putting in what we believe is a very strong bid for a development in East Cowes. I am keen that it reaches receptive ears in Government and among Ministers.
Secondly, I would like to talk more broadly about the levelling-up agenda for the Island and ask the Government to work with us—and even to use the Island as a model, a mini region, to see what a strategic cross-Government agenda could look like. I am most concerned to talk to the Minister about the extent to which the Treasury is leading cross-Government work, rather than the Cabinet Office, and how we are developing cross-Government, coherent integrated policy making.
However, if there is one critical element that I want to leave with the Minister today, it is that the levelling-up agenda for the Isle of Wight implies many things. That includes not only economic development, important as that is, but training and skills, education, which is critical, health outcomes, greater environmental protection, housing and planning. Effectively, we want a strategic road map for the next 50 years that has more to offer the Island than we have had in the past 50 years.
[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]
“Levelling up” seems a fancy phrase for regional policy—for taking wealth or economic development out of the south-east and trying to spread it around the country as much as possible. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ours is one of the most unequal countries in the G7 developed nations, which is pretty scandalous.
Specifically on the Island, for nearly two decades we have been making the case for a more assertive regional assistance programme. In 2002, our GDP, our local economy, was 60% of that in the south-east. Things have improved in the past two decades and it is now 66%, but we are poorer than elsewhere in the south-east. Our educational achievements are lower, and our health outcomes worse.
The Island has a unique identity, which those of us who live there are incredibly proud of—frankly, we love it—but there is a downside: the economic impact of dislocation and diseconomies of scale, specific to an island. In other areas of the UK, people can be physical islands, cut off, as we have seen with folks in Hartlepool and other places. That is why the attractiveness of the hopeful levelling-up agenda post Brexit rightly has such a hold on many people. What we must do is deliver on that agenda.
The levelling-up agenda, done right, is one of great hope and potential prosperity for this country. If it is done wrong, we will be letting down millions of people throughout the United Kingdom.
I want to make another point. According to all our statistics, the Isle of Wight should be in tier 1—frankly, we should be two constituencies in tier 1. My electorate is double the size of that of the average constituency in the United Kingdom and we are going to be two constituencies in three years’ time anyway, after the Boundary Commission changes. I am slightly concerned that we are one constituency in tier 2 at the moment. I think our case merits a higher priority.
I come to our bid. The bid going in this week is in relation to a series of buildings in East Cowes that we wish to transform. The purpose is to grow the number of high-paid jobs in marine, but also in the tidal, wind and offshore renewable sectors. Our bid will enable us to develop that cluster of excellence further and ensure that East Cowes continues to grow as a shipbuilding composite and green tech hub for the United Kingdom as a whole.
I would welcome a ministerial visit to East Cowes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) visited during the campaign before he became Prime Minister; many people remember the picture that he had taken in front of the world’s largest Union Jack—on the Isle of Wight: where else? We would equally welcome another ministerial visit to see the excellent work being done there.
This is part of a wider agenda, which I want to turn to. The council is new and we are going to work together. It is not Conservative any longer, which is a shame, but we will work closely together and I know we will have a successful relationship. The council and I are not thinking about the next two to five years, but the next five to 25 years, because we want to see a different future for the Island. That has to be primarily around the regeneration of our town centres using the levelling-up and shared prosperity fund bids.
Our regeneration approach, especially after covid, will be focused primarily on Newport. The town centre has a lot of empty shops and Newport harbour is ripe for development as a regeneration hub. As part of that, we want high-quality new house building for Islanders in sensitive numbers to drive regeneration. We need to bring back young people and housing into the town centre to drive economic growth and to provide employment, for start-up companies, for leisure and for higher education facilities, which I will come to. We need space for start-ups and, potentially, a new railway station, depending on how the rejuvenation of the branch-line project goes. If there was a single long-term item that I would interest the Minister in after the East Cowes project, it would be the regeneration of Newport to drive the Island’s economy.
This is linked to many other things, as I am sure the Minister can imagine. We need to continue to develop higher education on the Island. The education revolution that transformed Bournemouth, Brighton, Portsmouth and Southampton has, scandalously, completely passed us by. Only 23% of Islanders go into higher education, compared with nearly 40% of Londoners. That is unacceptable.
Millions have been pledged by the Department for Education—I thank the Ministers for this—to help rebuild the Isle of Wight College. Under the excellent leadership of Debbie Lavin, the college is doing great work aligning with mainland colleges to be able to offer richer and better vocational courses, as well as degree courses. We are getting there in higher education, but more needs to be done.
Regenerating our towns also means that we can protect our landscape much more. We need our landscape—not only for our quality of life, but because it is a critical part of our visitor economy. Our landscape has specific economic as well as emotional and psychological value over and above a competitive price for low-density greenfield housing.
For 50 years, we have not built for Islanders. That situation needs to stop. As part of any levelling-up plan for the Island, we need greater landscape protection and a policy of building for Islanders. That means exceptional circumstance and, preferably, opting out of national targets. We think that the best way to give long-term protection to the Island, depending on what happens with the Government’s landscape review, is for it to have a new designation—a new template to work with Government: to become an “island park”. That could involve marine protection and landscape protection, maybe up to the level of being an area of outstanding natural beauty, perhaps with some opt-out for economic development.
We should work on a new template, and it can be a template for the UK. We can start in England with the Scilly Isles and the Isle of Wight; in Wales, there is Anglesey; and many Scottish islands could benefit from a similar shared model, although I note that Scotland has the special islands needs allowance. I wish we had that in England.
More can be done, but I am trying to show that economic development and educational aspiration need to go hand in hand with other things to ensure that when we regenerate, we do so in an intelligent, sensitive, long-term way that develops our people and gives them greater aspiration, greater hope for the future, greater education and greater work opportunities, while also protecting our landscape for us and our nation in perpetuity, but also as a critical part of our visitor economy.
I am aware of the time; I will begin to wind up so that others can come in. I will be seeking separate debates on the progress of the island deal. We have made some progress on that, but we need to do more. I stress that there are additional costs to providing public services on an island, and those are not in dispute. I am delighted that the fair funding formula—championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks), now Chancellor, whom I thank for his excellent work—contains an admission that additional costs are involved in providing local government services.
That same argument is still being played out in the field of health, specifically for the 12 universally small hospitals in England—and St Mary’s on the Isle of Wight is the most unique universally small hospital, because it is on an island; by definition, it cannot grow in any conceivable way. The population is about half of what a district general hospital normally requires for the tariff regime that currently operates within the NHS. I will also have a separate debate on ferries, which is far too big a topic just for here; likewise for agriculture.
Finally, I leave a single idea in the mind of the Minister: regeneration—levelling up, the shared prosperity regional agenda—is, for us, about a lot of things. Fundamentally, it is about making sure that our future is better than our past. It is about focusing on development, education, wellbeing and health, but doing so sensitively and intelligently while preserving our environment. As I say, done right, levelling up can be transformative. I very much hope that I can work with the Minister on a coherent, cross-Government approach for the Island in a way that can help us all nationally as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. We have 13 Back-Bench speakers. If there is to be any chance of everybody getting in, we will have to have a tight time limit. I will set it at three and a half minutes at the moment, but that may have to come down to three minutes. I would be grateful if speeches were kept below three minutes.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing a really important debate.
When we talk about levelling up, there is one fundamental point that the Government would rather we all forgot: we cannot level up the country without properly resourcing local government. Councils up and down the country should be at the forefront of investment and regeneration. Councils, combined authorities and Mayors will be delivering the infrastructure and regeneration projects that will level up our cities, towns and villages, but more than a decade of devastating austerity has undermined them, and damaged our communities. It has hit the poorest areas hardest. The areas that need regeneration the most have been left with the least to deliver it. High streets that need investment to change for the economy of tomorrow have been left behind in yesterday, while local budgets have been decimated.
Barnsley Council has faced some of the worst Government cuts in the country, and has lost 40% of its income since 2010. For the services that have been decimated and the opportunities for investment that have been lost to austerity, the concept of levelling up could be a very welcome one, but one-off pots of money will not change a broken system that leaves behind so many people and so many parts of the country.
There is something wrong with the system when the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond (Yorks) is prioritised over Barnsley in the Budget, even though, on almost every indicator, Barnsley is more deserving of funding. That leaves “levelling up” as no more than a slogan. We need to look more fundamentally at the kind of country we are and how and who our economy has been working for. The people of this country have been promised better, and deserve better. Our councils and communities deserve the resources that they need to thrive, not just get by.
If the Government want to level up for Barnsley, they should implement the recommendations of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, which had unanimous cross-party backing—not just because it is morally the right thing to do and because the Government should not be in the business of profiting from miners’ pensions, but because the policy would change the lives of thousands of ex-miners, giving them an immediate financial uplift that would boost local businesses and economies when they spend.
If the Government want to level up for Barnsley, they should invest in our young people and their futures by delivering a children’s recovery plan that meets the scale of the challenge. Whereas the Labour party would meet that challenge with an ambitious £15 billion programme, this Government could not even muster 10% of what their own education recovery commissioner said was needed before he resigned in opposition to their failure.
If the Government want to level up Barnsley, they should make sure we receive the investment that towns such as ours deserve for regeneration and new, decent jobs, making sure that hard work gets a fair wage. Under this Government, in-work poverty has increased, long-term unemployment is rising at its fastest rate for more than a decade, and the Kickstart scheme has provided opportunities for just one in 25 young people. One-off pots of money for selected areas will not fundamentally rebalance our country or reverse a decade of austerity. We need good jobs, opportunities and properly funded services for every town. If levelling up truly means anything, it must mean delivering for towns such as Barnsley and investing in communities like mine.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate. Levelling up, as it has become known, is the biggest challenge that this country currently faces. It is about giving hope to communities that have been ignored for too long, tackling deep pockets of deprivation, giving people the opportunity to realise their full potential and bridging the stubbornly wide productivity gap that has held back the UK economy for far too long.
Levelling up must not be piecemeal, fragmented and short-term interventions. Instead, it must be a set of coherent, sustained and properly funded policy initiatives fully co-ordinated across Government.
One of the pockets of deprivation is in Lowestoft, but I welcome the investment that the Government and councils are making in the Gull Wing bridge, the flood defence scheme and the towns deal, which equates to almost £220 million of public sector funding in the heart of Lowestoft over the next five years. Our tasks locally are to ensure that those schemes are built on time and unleash a tide of private sector job-creating investment.
I also welcome the proposed freeport at Felixstowe, 50 miles down off the Suffolk coast. However, I emphasise the importance of not jumping from one intervention to the next, but instead continuing to see through proven strategies that are already up and running. The Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone, set up in 2012, like other enterprise zones around the country, has been very successful. It has an energy focus that is aligned with the Government’s clean growth strategy. By reallocating the existing footprint of the enterprise zone around Lowestoft port, more than 300 jobs can be created, 40 new businesses can be supported, and between £1 million and £3 million of retained rates can be generated.
Sir Edward, it is great to be here with you and other colleagues, but when it comes to levelling up, today we are a sideshow. The important business is taking place in the other place with the Second Reading of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. Putting skills and lifelong learning at the heart of the Government’s policy agenda is absolutely critical, and we must ensure that the ambitions of the reforms are fully realised. Linked to the Bill are local skills improvement plan trailblazers, and the chambers of commerce and colleges across Suffolk and Norfolk have come together and submitted a compelling application. The bid has a focus on the net zero agenda and rebuilding coastal communities. It highlights the workforce requirements across the region in offshore wind, in Sizewell C, in the emerging hydrogen economy and in the freeport.
I urge the Government to give this compelling proposal favourable consideration. We need to step up to the plate, so that local people have the skills needed to take up these exciting opportunities.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
Clearly, this debate is about a con trick—a gimmick. It is actually the Tories admitting that they have continually let down communities, regions and nations for decades. However, they are now saying, “We’ll give some money back and everything will be better.”
Clearly, additional strategic investment is always welcome, but this investment is not strategic and it also bypasses the devolution settlement. We have heard from other contributors that this investment is far too piecemeal.
When we consider Westminster failures, this levelling-up fund does not even come close to making amends. If we go back to Maggie Thatcher’s flagship policy of right to buy council houses, the fact that initially all receipts went into Westminster coffers meant the erosion of council and social housing stock, with no funds available for new builds. In Scotland, it has taken the Scottish National party Government to try to turn this situation round, with record numbers of new build houses for rent. Unfortunately, England still has an incoherent housing policy that will cause further inequality.
Oil and gas produced £350 billion worth of revenue for the Exchequer and yet there was no consideration about setting up an oil fund to allow legacy considerations rather than the squandering of those revenues in tax cuts. Yet now we are supposed to be grateful for money coming back.
Look at the devastation of coalmining communities. Where is the coherent strategy for levelling them up? When opencast coalmining companies in my constituency went into liquidation in 2013, they left millions of pounds worth of outstanding restoration works and again the UK Government were nowhere to be seen. They did not contribute a penny and even refused to support a coal tax scheme that would have funded that restoration work.
We know that the levelling-up fund is labelled as money that might otherwise have gone to the EU, but the reality is that the likes of Scotland had to make use of EU structural funds to offset Westminster letting us down. Indeed, the fact that the highlands became an EU objective 1 category area under Westminster rule says everything. However, that did allow the highlands to access funding for roads and bridges, including the upgrading of the last remaining single-track trunk road in the UK. That money funded harbour upgrades as well, which was real, strategic levelling up.
Now, conversely, we have Scottish Tories demanding road upgrades for schemes that Westminster failed to deliver on, and we know that it was the Tories who labelled Scottish fishermen as “expendable”. It is those same fishermen who have now been given a poor Brexit deal, and we know that our farmers will be the next to suffer because of the trade deals that have been negotiated by Westminster.
Even when we consider the electricity grid charging scheme, we see that Scotland faces the highest grid charges in Europe, so the system prejudices development in Scotland in areas that would actually benefit from levelling up. Real levelling up would also have seen the contract for difference procurement process amended to include local content.
To be clear, I will support bids by my local authority if they bring additional strategic investment, and I will also support community groups to try to access funding. But the process is a farce. Like the stronger towns fund, it is likely to be politically managed rather than having a proper needs-based assessment. The fact that the first bids have to be submitted by 18 June and be shovel-ready to be delivered in a year confirms a lack of strategic thinking and oversight. There is a real risk that hurried bids will be accepted, leading to cost and programme overruns later on.
Pitting MPs and local authorities against each other is not the way to tackle structural inequalities. My constituency needs additional support, but this is not the way that it should be managed.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), my neighbour, on securing this important debate on levelling up. It is a really great opportunity to explore the scope of this call to action. The timing of the debate really could not be better, as it immediately follows the G7 and the joint communiqué published by the Group of Seven developed country leaders, indicating the shared agenda that we have and the central role that the Government’s agenda of levelling up has across those other nations, which are key trading partners and, indeed, key allies.
The issue of levelling up resonates across the nation, and we saw that in the general election. I believe that we need to look not just at regional levelling up, which we heard about so eloquently from my hon. Friend, but at the broader scope and vision that we saw in the communiqué that was published following this weekend’s conference. The G7 leaders agreed unanimously that in reinvigorating our economies we should be levelling up as nations, so that no place or person, irrespective of their age, ethnicity or gender, is left behind. The full power of the applicability of our vision was seen not just at home but in the wider world.
It was important to see gender equality so clearly and explicitly embedded in the G7 communiqué for levelling up. Gender equality has to be embedded into the strategy of the Government’s levelling-up White Paper when it is published later this year. We need to be talking about left-behind people, as well as left-behind areas, particularly when we look at economic underperformance, which is something we are still having to tackle in this country. It demonstrates itself through low pay and low employment levels in some areas of the country, leading to lower living standards and poor productivity. These issues are still particular challenges for women in work. We may see increased numbers of women in Parliament or in high-profile jobs, but despite that, more women, who achieve higher qualifications than men, will still end up underperforming economically through their working life.
Across all age groups men make up the majority of high and middle-income earners in the UK. Women are only over-represented in the category of low paid work. Although there are record numbers of women in work under this Government, there is a persistent gender pay gap in the over 40s and an unemployment gap of more than 6% between men and women. The Government have to make levelling up as an agenda work hard for everybody throughout the United Kingdom, wherever they live.
The Government would do well to ensure that their policy focuses particularly on the experiences of women and how we can make sure we level up for women across the United Kingdom. It is important that every single part of our country is performing as it should in economic terms. If we do not give women the support they need, particularly through employment policies supporting maternity leave, we will continue to see an under-representation of women in the workplace.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My warmest congratulations to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate. We in the highlands were disappointed to be put in level 3; the leader of the Highland Council, Margaret Davidson, and I said as much. However, we are where we are.
One of the best ways to level up in the highlands and the islands—the remotest parts of Britain—is through tourism, so I want to speak in support of a bid that will be put to the Treasury in the next couple of days by the Highland Council. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight briefly touched on harbours, and I will as well. Wick harbour was once the herring capital of the UK. When the swell or the wind is in the wrong direction, it can make the harbour unsafe, so the bid is to build a new sea gate to increase the marina potential of the area.
I have often talked about a string of pearls. If we can take rich people who own boats—we call them yachties—up the east coast from the south-east, all the way up to the top of Scotland, and then get them to turn left, go along the top and go down again, not only will they have a great journey but we in the highlands, being canny Scots, would aim to lighten their wallets and their bank accounts on the way round. Doing up Wick would be a major step in that direction. It would accompany improvements to the town centre and to the industrial units next to the harbour.
The second part of the bid that the Highland Council is putting in is related to this. We have a very successful tourism enterprise, of which some hon. Members will have heard, called the North Coast 500. It is a brilliant idea supported by His Royal Highness Prince Charles, or the Duke of Rothesay as we call him in Scotland, and various local businesses. In the last few years it has been a tremendous success and an enormous number of visitors have come north. They have really enjoyed this truly scenic and amazing way around the top of Scotland. However, this has brought infrastructure challenges. One thinks of not enough car parking facilities, the structure of bridges that are starting to fall apart or congestion. If an ambulance in north-west Sutherland has to get in a hurry to the hospital at Wick, it can end up behind a lot of camper vans.
The bid is “Please, help us to finance improvements that are much needed”. I say again, that sort of enterprise will take money from the south-east and the richer parts of the UK to the poorer parts. That is levelling up without the Government having to do much more than putting their hands in their pockets to help finance the initial capital expenditure. That will include electrical charging points and other improvements.
An example of the success of the North Coast 500, the former Member for South Ribble, who was in her time the parliamentary private secretary to the Prime Minister, and her partner are going to come and stay with me in August. I warmly encourage the Minister and his colleagues at the Treasury; they would have the most enjoyable time coming up north to see where their money would be wisely spent. Of course, I would offer them bed and breakfast—what is more, it would be free bed and breakfast, which for a Scot is pretty astonishing.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on this subject today. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this very important debate. Much like his patch, Somerset has suffered from a historical fiscal concentration on London and the south-east. A major part of addressing that is for those outside the metropolitan bubble to be given the kind of investment in connectivity and infrastructure that will allow us to properly compete.
As Somerset’s representative on the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership, I see first-hand the need for investment and the marvellous potential that even quite modest investment can unlock. If we are to rebalance our economy and properly level up, investment in connectivity is key. That means digital and physical connectivity, such as the dualling of the A303— the major arterial road for the entire south-west—which I have been talking about endlessly for many years. I am sure that 4,000 years ago, when the ancient Britons hauled the stones to Stonehenge, they got stuck in queues on the A303. If the A303 was in a decent state, President Biden would have driven to Cornwall, purely to take in the glorious view of Somerton and Frome on the way. The real issue is that so many of my constituents rely on that road to get to work, to get to school and to visit family and friends, and not all of them have a helicopter lying around.
Connectivity also means public transport. I am delighted that, with the Langport Transport Group, we secured the funding for a feasibility study for a new railway station for Langport and Somerton from the restoring your railway fund. At the moment, the splendid people of Somerton and Langport drive miles to Taunton, Bridgwater, Yeovil or Castle Cary just to catch a train, which is faintly ridiculous.
In the 21st century, digital connectivity is as important as physical connectivity. Last week I met Wessex Internet, a local internet service provider—a family business supported by Government investment that is building full-fibre networks across south Somerset. That really is a great example of public and private sector synergy. But much more needs to be done; in my constituency, more than 90% of households do not have access to superfast broadband. There are pockets, such as Isle Brewers, Compton Dundon and many more—too many to mention—where getting a 1 megabit connection is about the best a man or a woman can get.
One of the greatest threats to the levelling-up agenda and so much more is the continuation of the covid restrictions, which will continue to harm lives and livelihoods across Somerton and Frome, costing jobs, harming the economy and depriving ordinary people of the opportunities they have worked hard to create. Levelling up is an essential component of the country’s agenda, and vitally important for Somerset. Let us get properly connected, up to speed and able to compete with the rest of the country on a level footing.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on bringing forward this debate.
There is no doubt that the negative effects of covid have been felt in the most deprived areas of our country, in education, in work and in health outcomes. That has made the task of creating a society where a person’s life chances do not depend on where they were born more challenging, and all the more urgent. There are opportunities to be grasped, but only if the Government has the wit to recognise them, the will to act on them and the courage to provide investment.
Lockdowns have brought changes to the way many of us work and some will be permanent. Businesses have had to take the plunge into homeworking and found productivity held up or even improved. They have found themselves looking at the cost of large, permanent office space as an unnecessary burden. Employees found themselves relieved from long and expensive commutes and, for those who can move, an exodus is under way from the big cities.
That movement has seen rents in city centres such as London, Manchester and Leeds fall, while they are on the rise in areas such as Wigan, Keighley and Durham. It is bringing more disposable income to parts of the country that have been largely neglected for more than a decade and has obvious benefits for local economies, but there is a greater prize to be had.
Residents of those areas need to see more than a rise in rents and a few more jobs in upmarket shops and restaurants. They now have the opportunity to do the same well-paid jobs—jobs that were previously unavailable in that area. There are reasons beyond the financial for people wishing to remain local, such as family ties, caring responsibilities, a sense of community and belonging to a place. That is certainly the case in Hull, where there is a strong local identity. The desire to remain in their community means many instinctively look at what is available and adjust their aspirations to fit. The new possibilities contained in remote working are a way of broadening horizons and opportunity, while maintaining social cohesion and community, but that can only happen with action.
Fast, reliable broadband needs to be universally available. Schools and colleges need to be properly funded and pupils need to be made aware of new career opportunities. Not everyone has the space at home to work comfortably and successfully, so digital hubs and hybrid workspaces will be necessary to support this new way of working.
I am proud to say that Hull is well placed for all these changes. It is blessed with the best fibre-optic coverage and upload speeds in the country, provided by KCOM. As a result, we have also seen the opening of the kind of digital hub I have described in the Midland Bank in Whitefriargate. What is available in Hull should be available to all other areas that have been on the wrong end of de-industrialisation and ruinous Conservative austerity.
The Irish Government have already set about redistributing jobs and opportunity and are aiming for 20% of Ireland’s 300,000 civil servants to have moved to remote working by the end of the year. To ensure jobs are distributed across the country, they are creating a network of more than 400 remote working hubs and introducing tax breaks for individuals and companies that support homeworking. This Government could and should embark on the same path. Will they? It will require foresight, intelligent planning and a determination to invest in the future of all of this country’s people—qualities that have been in short supply so far.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate.
I am delighted to say I see no conflict between levelling up in Stoke-on-Trent and improving quality of life across the whole country, including the Isle of Wight. There is a clear win-win in relieving housing pressures by levelling up development opportunities in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, which I have discussed previously with my hon. Friend. We have multiple hectares of brownfield land and an eagerness to build, but the clean-up costs for former heavily industrial land are considerable and often unviable in lower priced housing markets. We have a proven track record in Stoke-on-Trent of delivering. Last year, Stoke-on-Trent built more than the average London borough, with 99% on brownfield land. We are one of the busiest housing markets nationally.
I welcome the investment we have seen through the housing infrastructure fund in the north of the city, but we also need similar sites in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South. Will the Minister help us to deliver even more and ensure that we get a good slice of the £100 million brownfield fund?
Of course, people need more than just a good house. They need skilled, well-paid jobs, better transport and an improved quality of life. Levelling up is about all those things. If anywhere in the country reflects the need to level up, it is Stoke-on-Trent. It is 12th highest in proportion of deprived neighbourhoods and, after decades of neglect and decline, it has huge potential just waiting to be unleashed.
We are unparalleled in our friendliness, right at the heart of the UK and now with the best fibre gigabit-connected city in the whole country. I slightly disagree with the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who said Hull was the best connected. Stoke-on-Trent is now the best connected in terms of fibre broadband connectivity.
We submit our fantastic levelling-up fund bids at the end of this week. We have been working closely with the city council. I hope the Minister will support our plans. It will be particularly important to capitalise on our authentic industrial heritage in the Potteries to create a modern, dynamic and prosperous city. In Longton especially, we must build on the PSICA—partnership schemes in conservation areas—and heritage action zone schemes we secured in partnership with the city council and Historic England, attracting new residential, leisure and employment uses.
Stoke-on-Trent is on the up. It is one of the fastest-growing city economies nationally and is a centre for world-class advanced manufacturing and the digital revolution. We recently launched our Silicon Stoke prospectus, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), which is about building on the fast-growing cluster of digital firms taking advantage of our investment in gigabit broadband and strengthening what we are seeing at Staffordshire University in games design and e-sports. Attracting these sorts of industries is key to raising aspirations and boosting opportunities locally, as is ensuring that people have the skills to access them, through schemes such as the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, the kickstart scheme and T-levels. That is especially important in places like Stoke-on-Trent, where high-level skills and wages and far below the national average.
Access to better jobs and opportunities is also critical in a city where a third of households do not even have access to a private car. We need to level back our transport following decades of local bus and rail decline, and I am glad that we are working on just that. Building on the success of the transforming cities fund, we now need to reopen Meir station and the station at Fenton Manor on the line between Stoke and Leek, and we also need to secure important investment from the bus strategy fund.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Sir Edward; it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate.
There is of course an evident need to level up the nations of the United Kingdom and the regions of England, but rather than bringing communities and nations together for the common good, the Government have used this agenda to make light of our democratically mandated institutions. Nothing more clearly demonstrates this than the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—legislation so hostile to devolution and destructive to joined-up economic development that even the Welsh Labour Government tried to take the UK Government to court. The “Westminster knows best” school of thought has already left the UK with one of the most regionally unequal economies in the west.
The Government’s regional development funds may be dressed up as silk purses, but the most cursory inspection reveals them to be sows’ ears. We know that the UK Government have now broken their 2019 manifesto promise that Wales would receive the same level of financial support from the UK as from the EU. Allocated funds are a pale shadow of what Wales received and had control over from the EU. The EU takes a needs-based approach, which resulted in Wales receiving four times the UK average per person. Why? Because that was recognised as necessary to challenge chronic deprivation. What are the UK Government doing? They are taking a competitive approach, which guarantees Wales only 5% of the levelling-up fund. The Welsh Government themselves reckon that Wales could end up getting as little as £50 million a year—a fraction of the £375 million a year that we received from the EU.
On top of that, rather than working with experienced Welsh institutions, UK Government institutions such as the UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has no track record whatsoever with devolved affairs, will now bypass the devolved Governments and control funding directly. The consequences are already clear. Local funding will be tied to the effectiveness of representations by local MPs, just as Westminster cuts the number of Welsh MPs by a fifth. How is Wales supposed to receive its fair share? I reiterate that Wales is one of the poorest countries within the EU, the United Kingdom and the western world. We have not received what we needed in the past, and we are set to receive considerably less.
Equally outrageous is how the Tories have engineered a system so that they can indulge in patronage politics. The Chancellor is set to funnel public funds to his own constituency and other Tory seats. My county of Gwynedd was prioritised under previous EU funding, without fear or favour, for the simple reason that it is one of the least developed regions of Europe, let alone the UK, yet now Gwynedd is put at the bottom of the list in the levelling-up fund tiers.
Gwynedd, Wales and indeed the UK are owed more and deserve better. The Government must keep their word and ensure that in future, Wales gets at least the equivalent of what we previously received in EU funding. They should work with the devolved Parliament on the principle of mutual respect and parity of equals. The Tories of all Parliaments should respect their political traditions and repudiate the in-built centralising instincts of Westminster. Public money should be spent on the long-term public good, not on short-term political glory.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this important debate. The Government have shown clear signs in recent months with the levelling-up fund and the towns fund that they intend to make sure that the future is, indeed, better than the past, to quote the opening speech. On this occasion, I come not to criticise the Government but to praise them.
In the past, there have been certain times when I have been critical, but the levelling-up agenda is benefiting my constituency and, I hope, will continue to do so. When the Government published their industrial strategy four or five years ago, they introduced the concept of town deals. The Greater Grimsby town deal, which includes the town of Cleethorpes, was the first one to be established.
The important point is that, rather than focusing on one-off projects, valuable though they are, applicants need a comprehensive programme that will continue through and therefore attract the different funding streams that Governments introduce. Key to that is getting a team together that knows its way around Westminster, understands local government and has entrepreneurial flair. We created a town board chaired by the local entrepreneur made good, David Ross. We also had the former resident of Grimsby and former Chancellor, Lord Lamont, on our board and the former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake. We assembled a team that understood the workings of Government and the needs of the area, and they put together a comprehensive plan.
Coupled with that, the Government recognised our freeport bid. The bid for the Humber port was successful in every category and scored high, above all others—congratulations to the team that put the bid together. The Humber is the energy estuary of the UK: we have carbon capture, hydrogen and the offshore renewables sector. The development of the marine energy park by Able UK at Killingholme, close to Immingham, has attracted £75 million of Government funding in the last year. That has taken 10 years to achieve. When I was first elected in 2010, one of the first calls was from Able UK. It has been a long, hard road, but we are getting there.
Connectivity is vital. Sir Edward, you will know of our campaign to get the through train service from Grimsby and Cleethorpes through your constituency to London. We are making progress with that. LNER has pencilled it into next year’s timetable, but we need to keep up the pressure.
On local government reform, at long last in Lincolnshire the three top-tier authorities have agreed on a scheme that I hope the Government will push through over the next year or two. If we can align local government with the town board and a comprehensive plan, I think the successes of recent years will continue.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on leading this important debate.
Levelling up is a concept that I strongly support. For it to work, we have to identify disadvantage and take action to tackle it. There is a lot that I could ask the Minister to consider today, but he will be delighted to hear that what I am asking for will not cost very much money and could be absolutely transformational in much of rural Britain.
Over the last 15 months of the covid crisis, a housing crisis in areas such as mine in the lakes and dales of Cumbria has turned from crisis to catastrophe. Members who have been monitoring the housing market will have noticed things similar to what has happened in my communities. We have seen an increase in the number of holiday lets in my constituency of 32%. From talking to dozens of estate agents across the county, I know that the proportion of houses purchased during this period that are going into the second-home market is anything from 40% to 80%. At the beginning of the crisis South Lakeland had an average household income of £26,000 and an average house price of £250,000, which shows a serious problem from the start. That problem has been massively exacerbated during this time.
What does that mean for our communities? Hospitality and tourism are critical to our economy and I am proud to stand behind them, but people involved in that industry know that vibrant communities are vital to the survival and strength of the lakes, the dales and the rest of Cumbria. The increasing proportion of homes in the second-home or holiday-let market means no permanent population. No permanent population means no kids at the local school, so the school closes. It means the loss of the post office, the pub and bus services. We end up with beautiful places that are empty. We must surely recognise that as utterly unacceptable.
I have provided some top-line statistics, but on an anecdotal level, people who pay £600 a month for a flat in a lakeland village are being kicked out so that the landlord can charge £1,000 a week for a holiday let. That is happening, and many people are calling it the lakeland clearances. Extreme circumstances require drastic responses if we are to level up here and not leave rural Britain behind.
I am pleased that the Government are closing the loophole that allows people to pretend that second homes are holiday lets, when they are not, and so avoid paying tax. That is a good thing. The Government, however, must accept some responsibility for the stamp duty holiday fuelling this crisis to a large degree, leading to a huge spike in purchases.
The really important thing for the Government to do is to change planning law. They need to ensure that holiday lets and second homes are distinct categories of planning use, so that local authorities can say that there are enough homes of that sort in the community and, therefore, protect it.
Bob Seely
I agree wholeheartedly. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the Isle of Wight, although there are not that many second homes on the Island as a whole, in some communities 80% of villages are second homes? It is a thoroughly excellent idea to require change of use for a second home or holiday let.
Tim Farron
That is a free measure the Government could take to have real power. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The Welsh Government have given local authorities the power to increase council tax on second homes. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) talked about Gwynedd, which has been able to double the council tax on second-home owners in those areas. What has that done? It has provided a disincentive in some areas for excessive second-home ownership. It has also led to revenue that can be spent on supporting schools, post offices, buses and other local services, which are losing resource because of the lack of a permanent population. I call on the Minister to do something free but powerful.
Extreme circumstances that come about quickly require a response equally extreme and quick. If the Government are not to get a reputation for taking their eye off rural Britain and leaving rural communities behind—for example, leaving areas such as mine in level three for levelling up—they need to act, not in autumn or winter, but before the summer, to save my communities from the new clearances.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for calling this hugely important, timely and useful debate.
I had thought about how to lever North East Derbyshire into a debate about the Isle of Wight, but my hon. Friend drew the boundaries of the debate so generously that many of us can talk about our constituencies. I hope he will not mind my saying that one of his forefathers lived in North East Derbyshire—that was going to be my way into the debate. In the century since his forefather lived in Wingerworth Hall, places such as North East Derbyshire and the Isle of Wight have been at the forefront of great change, tumult and, at times, great difficulty. That is the same in my part of the world as it is in his.
We went through a period of huge changes 40 years ago when the mines closed down. We have long-standing structural issues around skills and jobs, and ensuring that school leavers get the quality skills that allow them to thrive over many years. Pre-recession, we did not necessarily share in the benefits that came in the 1990s and 2000s, but we have made huge progress in the past four years. Some Members in this debate have—perhaps understandably—focused on greater challenges, but there is so much coming down the line. It is important that we understand that. We must recognise that in my constituency alone, there is a £25 million town deal for Clay Cross and a town deal for Staveley worth nearly £26 million. Those are huge opportunities for regeneration.
Broadband is being rolled out not only in places such as Stoke-on-Trent South, but in my constituency, as well to villages such as Spinkhill. We have finally moved on the Staveley bypass, which has been stuck for 80 years in design, and the Government enabled us to move that further along in the Budget before last. We are tackling congestion problems on the A61, we had the opportunity to bid to restore new rail for the Barrow Hill line, and we now have the quickest trains that we have ever had to London. Things are really on the up in many parts of the country, including North East Derbyshire, although there is much more to do.
My hon. Friend’s question about what levelling up is is the most interesting and important part of the debate today. For me it is important to articulate the point that it is not all about money. We can have as much money as we want, but, ultimately, if that does not achieve anything for people and we do not focus on the outputs, it will not get us anywhere. We can put as many trains on as we want—I would like a lot more trains in my constituency—but if we put loads of trains on that nobody knows what to do with or where to go with them, or how to get to the jobs to transport them, it will have little meaningful effect.
We also have to emphasise the important point, which was lost in a few of today’s contributions, that we have the ability to solve some of these problems ourselves. I congratulate places such as Killamarsh Parish Council for sorting out a 20-year problem with our sports centre and the council tax, which it managed to do on its own.
There is also a broader perspective and the important questions about future jobs. We can fix levelling up now for our constituencies, but if the hearts of our constituencies are to be ripped out by AI and automation and all of those challenges over the next 20 or 30 years, we must think about that as well. Where do we get the education and skills from? Process is important. We have to involve people in these debates and discussions. Lots has been done in North East Derbyshire, but there is lots more to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Edward, and to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley).
I am wholeheartedly behind the Prime Minister in his calls for us to level up, and indeed the action behind those calls in the form of funding. I was grateful to hear that each region will receive a share of the funding to strengthen and enhance areas of excellence. In Northern Ireland, it not just a matter of what we could spend the money on; we have so many areas that are on the cusp of the next level. As the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire alluded to, it is not just about the money; it is about how the money can help us build on what we have. That is what I will speak about.
We are widely considered to be Europe’s cyber-security capital. We could easily take that to a global level if we invested more fully in our infrastructure and connectivity, and increased the number of tech placements and learning courses. We have the skills and a pool of available people, so we want to build on that. With more levelling up, we could take it to the next stage.
The film industry has taken off with the success of “Game of Thrones” and “Line of Duty”, which featured Strangford lough in my constituency. It was always a challenge for me to find which part of Strangford lough it was on, but it was good to be able to put the two together. Anything from TV series to major film releases, based in any period of history or in the modern day, can be produced in Northern Ireland. Where better to find built-up cities, beautiful countryside and ocean views—we have it all. I say that unashamedly, and investment will certainly bring about dividends as we attract more global companies to our shores.
The agrifood sector is doing well and creating jobs, and the investment has been great. We have the highest standard of products. I look to Lakeland Dairies, Mash Direct and Rich Sauces, to name but a few global entities that are well-grounded and employing local people in large numbers to supply to China and America, as well as Europe. We have the product; we need the marketing and the support to see what level we can get to. Again, it is about levelling up what we have.
We have not even scratched the surface in exploring the tourism potential we have, from spa breaks to second holidays, from walking groups to cruise ship stop-offs, from water sports to mountain hikes, from high-end boutiques to antique treasure troves. We have much to offer. With a bit of levelling up, our borders will not be able to contain the volume of visitors flocking to our shores. With levelling up, we can build on what we have. We need to level up our connectivity and disengage from Tourism Ireland. We need an entity concerned only with promoting what we have to offer in Northern Ireland. I challenge anyone who has come to Northern Ireland to say that it was not more than they expected.
We must also give local councils the ability to get funding to host more global events, such as the golf opens and other sporting events. Northern Ireland is also awash with culture—we have such a tale to tell and we need to attract investment to match that. Again, we must level up.
In the short time allocated me, I have indicated three diverse areas in which we are ripe to level up, and yet the funding allocated cannot carry out all the work. The infrastructure work required is immense and our connectivity requirements are huge, but so too will be the reward. I therefore ask the Minister, whom I greatly respect, and the Government to deliver our share of the funding. If they do so, everyone in Northern Ireland will benefit, operating at the top level at which we are designed to operate. We are already levelling up; we need that extra bit to level up and do even more.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate. Although the sentiments behind the levelling-up fund are laudable at first glance, it has a profound and far-reaching effect on the devolution settlements and the democratically elected Governments of each of the devolved nations. Alongside the UK shared prosperity fund, which also breaches the devolution settlements and UK Government promises, the way in which the levelling-up fund is to be administered encroaches on devolved areas in unconstitutional and unacceptable ways.
It is all very well for the UK Government to huff and puff and protest that the devolved nations should shut up and be grateful for the boundless munificence of their paternalism, but funding should not be tied to riding a coach and horses through the democratically elected Governments of these nations, and nor should it be designed to undermine the democratically established Parliaments in each of these nations.
For the UK Government to reject that analysis plays to the agenda not of levelling up but of exerting undue power and influence over democratic instructions, the very existence of which is due to democratic support for them. These Parliaments in Wales and Scotland were designed, in part at least, to address the democratic deficit that has existed between those nations and Westminster Governments. How does attempting to circumvent, undermine and emasculate those institutions address that democratic deficit?
Yesterday the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government gave the game away, because he accepted that there is no formal requirement for local authorities to work with the Scottish Government on devolved policy areas, and that this levelling-up fund is
“about local authorities and communities working directly with the UK Government”.—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 13.]
Given that this work goes to the heart of devolved powers, that is quite an admission. The idea that each different local authority will submit bids for much-needed funds does not in any way negate the cynicism and political opportunism in the way in which this fund is being distributed, as indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). This is piecemeal stuff, with no strategic thinking whatsoever.
The Scottish Government expected £400 million in consequentials from this fund, but that is now to be decided by the UK Government sitting in Whitehall. How that money will be deployed across local authorities is a nonsense and offensive. There will be no opportunity for a regionalised, Scotland-wide approach. The competitive nature of this process will set authority against authority, while we know that the most effective way of boosting local economies requires collaborative working.
Why does the Minster believe that Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall, with little or no detailed knowledge of Scotland or her local authority areas, are equipped to judge the merits of competing bids? If levelling up was truly the agenda, why would they not build into that process the strategic expertise of the Scottish Government and local MSPs? Funding should be allocated by formula instead of competitive bidding. That would improve transparency and guarantee support for those places most in need, as pointed out by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), representing Plaid Cymru.
As it stands, bids will be at the mercy of the whims of this Tory Government and which local authorities are able to submit the best bid—not those most in need. Given the towns fund, will the bids be judged according to which are considered to be the best—whatever that means? Who knows? There is every reason to fear that the bids may be subject to the same pork barrel politics that we have seen in all its glory in the towns fund.
Despite the fact that the Tories have a majority on the Public Accounts Committee, it has delivered a damning verdict on the Tory towns fund, saying that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has
“not been open about the process it followed and it did not disclose the reasoning for selecting or excluding towns”
for funding. Despite the Government’s refusal even to acknowledge that and other damning verdicts and concerns about the Tory towns fund, we are now expected to believe —and, better still, trust—that the levelling-up fund will be shiny, new and bright and we need not worry about transparency because, as the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government said in the main Chamber yesterday:
“The answer to that is that it is all published on gov.uk and it has been for months now.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 14.]
I do not know about you, Sir Edward, but if it is published on a website, I am certainly reassured.
The fact is that this Government have shown that they cannot be trusted to deliver this funding in a transparent way and it has been deliberately designed to undermine the devolved Parliaments. The good people of Scotland and Wales are not so easily fooled as the Tory Government seem to think, which is why they reject Tory Governments repeatedly—at every opportunity. Since the Brexit vote took place, this Government have taken to themselves the power to take decisions on spending, economic development, infrastructure, culture, sporting activities, domestic educational and training activities and educational exchanges, and this fund will further allow the UK Government to bypass devolved decision making and override the democratic process for allocating spending in Scotland. That means that more than £100 million a year could be spent in areas that are usually devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
In this Government’s ham-fisted attempt to undermine devolution, they are in fact cementing support for independence in Scotland. If devolution is indeed the opportunity to do things differently, that opportunity is being eroded bit by bit by this Government, who seem desperate to govern devolved areas in Scotland. They could govern those devolved areas if only they could win an election in Scotland, but they have given up on that, and we see now an agenda to undermine the very institution that the people of Scotland will not vote to permit them to control—the Scottish Parliament.
Of course, every local authority will wish to bid for levelling up funding. Why on earth would they not? But the towns fund shows that we are wise to be concerned about the transparency of this process. We know that the real agenda on the devolved nations is cynical, to say the least. Any local authority in Scotland and Wales receiving money from this fund will be expected to doff its cap in gratitude for the munificence and benevolence of the UK Government, but the UK Government need to understand that riding roughshod over our democratic institutions, which have huge support from those living in the devolved nations, cannot be excused by fanfare about funding that is not new. We are not so easily bought, and our democratic institutions, including our Scottish Parliament, cannot be so easily bought. Nor can trust in this Government be bought. Some things, such as democracy and trust, are not commodities; they are values and principles, and this Government would do well to remember that.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that you are chairing, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate. In his opening remarks, we heard about the very full set of interventions that he believes are needed to fix challenges in his constituency, including jobs, transport, education, housing, long-term economic development and so on.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the decade of under-investment and the impact that that has had. I know he said that he would not speak later in the debate, but I wanted to ask him who he thinks is responsible for that decade of under-investment and whether he can see in this room a Minister from the party that has been in charge for the past 11 years—because meeting those challenges will need a level of sustained investment in devolution that goes well beyond the one pot of money that is currently on offer in the form of the levelling-up fund. One pot of money will not undo the 11 years of real-terms cuts to public services, stagnating real wages and inadequate investment in the future. One pot of money will not change our country when decisions will still be taken in Westminster by Conservative Ministers, rather than democratically in our communities by locally elected politicians.
As my hon. Friends have set out, far more comprehensive change is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) explained how local government must be in the driving seat and have the resources it needs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) set out the importance of having real determination to invest in the future of all people in this country. It is also telling that as we engage in this debate, my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) are in the main Chamber right now, pressing the Chancellor and the Treasury to come clean on why they blocked the comprehensive plans put forward by Sir Kevan Collins, the Prime Minister’s appointment as education recovery commissioner. The truth is that the Government’s decisions on education recovery are very far from achieving anything that looks like levelling up.
When the chips are down—and after months of school closures, the chips are very much down for the children of this country—the choices that Governments make betray the reality behind the rhetoric. We are in no doubt that the Government have chosen to betray a generation. Their expert commissioner set out plans that matched the scale of the challenge, focusing on extending the school day, improving teaching and targeted tutoring. In February the Prime Minister promised that no child will be left behind, and Sir Kevan’s proposals sought to make that a lived reality for our children in the years ahead. Drawing on research from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the proposals were informed by the knowledge that urgent, sustained and multi-year expenditure on children’s educational recovery has the biggest impact on those who are furthest behind.
That would indeed have been levelling up. Instead, the plans that have been announced are but a truly pale shadow of the programme we need. The money announced is a tiny proportion of the money invested for the same purpose in the Netherlands and the United States, and I and my colleagues refuse to believe that Dutch and American children are five or 10 times more deserving of sustained Government support than British children.
As the Financial Secretary is due to speak shortly, I want to pick up briefly on a discussion that he and I had yesterday in the main Chamber relating to the G7 communiqué, which the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) mentioned and which I believe is also relevant to this debate. A key part of any levelling-up agenda for our country must include the Government doing all they can to create a level playing field for British businesses that pay their fair share of tax, by preventing them from being undercut by a few large multinationals that do not.
I asked the Minister and his colleague three times yesterday to explain why the UK Government’s position has been to push for a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% rather than to back the ambitious 21% proposed by President Biden. The Minister said it was
“completely inappropriate for a Minister to comment”.—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 50.]
However, the Exchequer Secretary, who I think spoke after the Minister had left the main Chamber, seemed quite happy to defend the Government’s backing of 15%. She said that it was settled on because it would leave
“appropriate room for countries to use corporation tax as a lever”.—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 70.]
There we have it: an admission that the UK Government supported a lower rate thanks to a desire to keep alive the possibility of a future race to the bottom.
This is a once-in-a generation opportunity for an ambitious global deal to prevent large multinationals from avoiding paying their fair share of tax, but our Government are letting it slip away. That is a shocking failure. Had they supported an ambitious 21% deal, that would have brought in an extra £131 million a week for public services in this country, while preventing a few large multinationals from undercutting British businesses that pay their fair share of tax. That would have been levelling up.
Lastly, I want to ask Conservative Members why they think this country needs levelling up. It has been 11 years since a Labour Prime Minister left Downing Street, and 11 years since a Labour Budget spread power, income and opportunity across the country. For 11 long years, spending decisions in this country have been under the control of the Conservative party, leaders chosen by Conservative Members, and Conservative Chancellors.
James Murray
I am just about to finish. There have been 11 years of real-terms cuts in so many public services, stagnating real wages and inadequate investment in meeting the challenges of the future—11 years in which so many of the problems that we face have been ignored and their solutions underfunded. We can only conclude that levelling up is a nebulous, undeveloped and yet-to-be honoured attempt by the Conservative party to address the problems that it has created.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, as it was to serve under your predecessor, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), when she was in the Chair. I thank her very much for stepping into the breach.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate. It is testimony to the importance of the issue and the breadth of the debate that he has created that so many colleagues have made interventions and speeches today—and very welcome they were, too. I am replying for the Government on behalf of the Exchequer Secretary.
My hon. Friend is right that this is a very important public issue. It has been the mission of this Government to seek to overcome geographical disparities—disparities of prosperity and of opportunity—and to do so through what we have called levelling up.
By and large, this has been a very good debate and generally good mannered. I think everyone would acknowledge that it has been a bit of a gallop, given the number of speeches, but that is testimony to the huge interest in the topic. I congratulate colleagues who have passed the conversational baton seamlessly from one to another on the vigorous and effective way in which they have put on the public record their own local concerns. I will talk a little about the wider agenda before turning to some of those contributions.
It is plain that the Government believe in the substance and the importance of levelling up. What does that mean? It will mean different things in different places, but the core idea is that everyone should have access to good jobs, good wages and good economic prospects, wherever they live, whether that be in Barnet, Birmingham, Bolton, Bristol or, indeed, Bembridge.
It is built into the energy of our society that at different parts of their lives many people will want to move to different parts of the country to seek work and opportunities, but some may not wish to do so and many will not. We want people to be able to take pride in their local areas and to see them as vibrant, exciting places to live their lives and build their livelihoods. That is at the heart of levelling up and that is why the Government announced a series of significant policy measures designed to begin a longer-term process of redressing geographical imbalances.
Those measures include, as has rightly been touched on, freeports, which are going to be an important catalyst for regional economic growth. We want them to be magnets for innovative businesses, to provide a platform to generate the greater prosperity that will revitalise each area, and to create great jobs and great economic growth.
At the Budget, the Government announced the locations of eight freeports across England, ranging from Teesside in the north-east, to the Solent, close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. That is a potentially very significant intervention, but they are only one part of a wider picture, which is, of course, infrastructure.
Last year we published a national infrastructure strategy that contemplates £600 billion-worth of investment over the next few years—half from the private sector, half from the public sector. Very high levels of capital investment are already being made in many different areas up and down the country, including in roads, through the road investment strategy, in railway, through High Speed 2 and other works, and in many other modes of transport and activities. The transforming cities fund has done a huge amount to support cycling, walking and greener transport across the country.
That investment also includes the towns fund. One or two colleagues have been rather dismissive of the towns fund, and wrongly so. One cannot say that there has been inadequate transparency but then grumble when the details of the fund and the methodology by which the selections were made have been put on the internet for all to review or interrogate. The fund itself is turning out to be a remarkably effective and interesting way to build a holistic local platform for economic growth, because it is not something that can be dominated by local authorities. It requires voluntary and private sector leadership to work with local authorities and, in doing so, bring the best ideas to the table, build long-term pipelines, pump-primed with public money, that will, certainly in many cases, last for years. It is going to prove to have been a very important intervention.
It goes a long way, picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on the importance of supporting rural areas. I come from a rural area myself, in Herefordshire, and I am keenly aware of that. He will be aware that although many of the effects of covid will be, in some respects, negative, they will also be positive effects. People will move out of cities, often at earlier points in their lives, to conduct effective and successful careers, no longer fettered by geography as they might have been, adding new energy and vibrancy to areas that are already vibrant. That is another good thing, in many ways.
We are working on the creation of the new UK infrastructure bank, which will be an important intervention. We will announce its launch soon, but many details are already available for colleagues to look at on the internet. It is designed to act as a cornerstone investor for infrastructure projects, to partner with the private sector and local government to develop major infrastructure projects, with the twin goals of green growth and levelling up.
The bank will act across Government as a place to pool expertise, so that people can pick up the phone and get a cross-governmental view about how projects should be financed, which will itself be very important. It will prep and prepare important development work in sectors of green economic growth that we have not yet seen—for example, hydrogen for powering the next generation of transport or potentially for home heating, carbon capture and storage, and the like. About a third of the initial £12 billion in funding for the new UK infrastructure bank will be earmarked for local and mayoral authorities, which will make a huge difference. If we can, as we anticipate, then crowd in private sector investment, that will make a remarkable difference.
It is important not to talk about levelling up without mentioning some of the most important aspects of it, which are to do with skills and training. The Chamber will know about the work we have done on the lifetime skills guarantee, on employer-led skills retraining and on apprenticeships. They all point to a holistic approach, designed to tie skills and infrastructure together, with a local perspective that brings a fuller understanding of local needs to bear.
Bob Seely
I thank the Minister for his extensive response. That brings to the fore one of the problems here. When he stood up, he said he would answer to the Exchequer section or the economic section, but who is leading? How are Government going to deal with a coherent, integrated approach that brings in everything from landscape protection to stamp duty for second home owners, to the skills and education agenda, to immediate economic progress? Who is dealing with that?
Jesse Norman
Of course, my hon. Friend is right to point to this. In many cases, the core is going to be effective local leadership that brings the different elements together. As a Member of Parliament, he knows that the stronger towns fund has shown that energy can be brought in. For example, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government can have a view on the housing aspect of a stronger towns fund bid, and what expertise and expectation will be there. The same is true of other aspects of Government. It may be a bid with a heavy environmental component or a heavy transport component.
Government also need to be joined up. At the Treasury, I lead on the national infrastructure but on levelling up specifically it is the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), who leads—she would be here under normal circumstances, but she is in Committee at the moment. However, she and I work closely on this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight would imagine.
I turn to some of the points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight rightly highlighted aspects of his own bid, including East Cowes and Newport. I could not hear him talk about the development of the Isle of Wight without thinking about my own uncle Desmond, one of the founders of Britten-Norman, who designed the aircraft whose wings came off in “Spectre,” the James Bond movie, and that went skiing as a result, which was built on the Isle of Wight. Indeed, he was one of the developers of the first hovercraft, the Cushioncraft. I am well aware of the technology and the genius of the Islanders and the espoused Islanders, one of whom Desmond certainly was.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) mentioned the importance of local authorities. She is right about that. They have been a very important part of stronger towns fund bids. It is quite interesting when local opinion is surveyed about the public services delivered locally. Whatever one may think about the local authority funding settlement, which was very generous in the past year and before that in many cases, it has not led to a perceived reduction in public services—quite the opposite. In many local areas, public services are regarded as having gone up in quality over the past 10 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about skills. He was absolutely right and I thank him for that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke talked about the importance of women and gender equality. That was absolutely right and I salute what she said, because that is an important part of levelling up. There is some wonderful evidence from India, where they looked at the effect of women mayors and leaders in villages. It turns out that, based on the regressions that economists have done, women leaders in those contexts have been more co-operative, more effective and less prone to forms of corruption than their male alternatives. That is an important lesson that we will reflect on.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) invited Ministers to bed and breakfast —a very fine offer that will receive deep consideration in the Treasury—for which I thank him very much indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) reminded us that Stonehenge would never have been built if they had to drag the stones down the A303. I fully concur, having been more or less parked outside Stonehenge, as have many others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) talked about the bid that he is putting in for the levelling-up fund. I congratulate him on that and encourage all Members to do that, because the levelling-up funding will be a very important national initiative. I have touched on the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I am glad he mentioned cutting out the loophole on holiday lets, because that was important. I hope he also noticed the speed with which we acted on that, because the tax process is never an instant thing, but we have moved as quickly as we could, given the circumstances, to try to address the issue. Obviously, it has become particularly important in the context of covid.
Tim Farron
Once the announcement was made, they did act swiftly, but I first raised the issue with the then junior planning Minister, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It took quite a long time to get to the stage where they made the announcement, but I thank the Minister anyway.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Minister, could you please give the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) a couple of minutes to make his closing remarks?
Jesse Norman
I will end in 26 seconds to allow my hon. Friend plenty of time to speak.
I want to engage quickly with the points made by Opposition Members. It is not paternalistic of the UK Government to wish to take a view and to support people up and down the country. It is not paternalistic of the UK Government to offer enormous support for the devolved Administrations on an agreed basis, as we have done in a time of crisis. It is non paternalistic for this country’s collective resilience to have seen Scotland through three periods of crisis in the last 15 years: the financial crisis of 2008, the fall of the oil price and most lately in covid, which might have had disastrous effects but for our collective resilience.
In answer to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) quickly, it is not appropriate for me to accuse another Member of Parliament of hypocrisy, but I remind him that this Government are raising corporation tax from 19% to 25%. On 24 February, he himself said, in relation to the Budget and the question of corporation tax, that
“we don’t want to see tax rises—this is not the time to do that”.
I do not think he is in any position to lecture the Government about corporation tax.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Thank you for a very good debate on the levelling-up fund—I wish that Gainsborough could get some levelling-up fund too, but that is not for me to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the levelling up agenda.
New Airedale Hospital
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a new Airedale Hospital.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent debate—it is urgent for reasons that I will outline in my speech—and giving me the opportunity to continue my campaign in this place for a new Airedale Hospital in my constituency. I would also like to record my thanks to the Minister, who has met me on multiple occasions to allow me to raise the issue with him.
I am lucky enough to represent such a diverse constituency. My constituency is home to different towns, different communities and, with that, different challenges. Yet one thing that I hear from all four corners of my constituency—be it in Keighley, Ilkley, Silverstone, Worth Valley or any other part of my constituency—is that Airedale Hospital needs and deserves a rebuild. I am not alone, because the issue is being raised by many constituents.
Airedale Hospital serves a huge catchment that reaches right up into the Yorkshire Dales and into Lancashire, serving many residents in West Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), whose constituents benefit directly from the hospital’s services, is also fully behind my campaign for a new rebuild, as are my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson). They have all worked tirelessly with me on our joint endeavour to secure the hospital long into the future. Even the Chancellor’s constituents use the Airedale.
I will outline the background and explain why my ask for a rebuild of the hospital is urgent and very important to our communities. The Airedale employs over 3,500 members of staff and volunteers, serving a population of 200,000 while providing training and education, creating lifelong careers for many of my constituents. The hospital was opened in 1970, construction having started in the 1960s. The original life expectancy of the 1960s build was only 30 years, but last year we celebrated the hospital’s 50th birthday.
Like many buildings constructed in the 1960s, the hospital is constructed predominantly from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, or RAAC—aerated concrete for short. That material is widely known for its structural deficiencies. A staggering 83% of the hospital is made from this material, including the roof—the Airedale has the largest NHS hospital flat roof in the country, compared with any other NHS asset. That does not help when you take into account our lovely Yorkshire weather. Given our geography, our area where the Airedale Hospital is situated is one of the wettest areas in the UK. Coupled with its 1960s-design flat roof, that means that the Airedale unfortunately experiences more leaks than any other hospital in the country, creating challenges with water pooling, which of course increases the weight on the concrete roof panels. It also means that the flat roof soaks up the hot summer sun, and years of heat, rain and frost through the tough winter months all take their toll on the current design of the building.
While many of these 1960s constructions have come and gone, Airedale Hospital remains. It is thought to be the oldest aerated concrete hospital in the UK. Aerated concrete is present in the roof and walls and the hospital is the only NHS trust asset that has aerated concrete in its floor panels. In fact, in total the hospital has over 50,000 aerated concrete panels, which is five times more than any other hospital affected by reinforced aerated concrete design.
Aerated concrete is known to have about one 20th of the strength of normal concrete. The Building Research Establishment has identified that aerated concrete roof panels are prone to fail when deflections between 50 mm and 90 mm come about. It is deeply concerning that Airedale Hospital has identified a significant number of aerated concrete panels with deflections approaching that threshold.
Time is of the essence. I cannot stress enough to the Minister how important and urgent this is. The warning signs are there for everybody to see, hence my lobbying hard with colleagues for a complete new rebuild of the Airedale Hospital, so that we can completely remove the risks of aerated concrete construction. My worry is that no matter how much surveying and mitigation works are undertaken, all we are doing is delaying the potential risk of a collapse at a later date.
The Minister will be well aware, from our previous conversations, of a school in Scotland where the roof, constructed by aerated concrete, unexpectedly collapsed in May 2019. Fortunately, no one was injured or killed, but that was a matter of timing and luck, nothing else. The collapse was not due to mislaid bricks or improper contracting. The Standing Committee on Structural Safety concluded in its report:
“The cause of the collapse was a shear failure due to inadequate bearing following some structural alterations made by the school. The failure was triggered by outfall gutters becoming blocked which allowed ponding of water on the roof to quickly build up during a storm”.
I understand from previous reports by the Building Research Establishment that it was thought that aerated concrete planks gave adequate warning through visual deterioration before failing. However, recent failings, including the school roof collapse in Scotland in May 2019, showed that this can no longer be relied on. It is therefore necessary to reconsider maintenance and inspection regimes. In fact, the same Committee issued an alert stating that pre-1980 aerated concrete panels
“are now past their expected service life”.
I reiterate that my hospital was built in the 1960s.
The reality is that the longer the hospital remains in its current state, the greater the possibility that such a tragic event could happen, if action is not taken. Should there be such a collapse, even if only in one small part of the hospital, imagine the consequences: the impact on life, services and the day-to-day operations of our much-loved hospital.
I have had several visits to the hospital since becoming an MP, including going on to the roof to see the issues for myself. I also visited parts of the hospital that are currently closed to the public, sealed off for reasons directly linked to mitigating the risk from the fact that the hospital is built from aerated concrete.
When one thinks of how much we rely on the NHS every day, particularly over the past year, the idea of any hospital, or even just a small part of it, having to shut its doors temporarily really hits home. Members of Airedale’s trust have also made it clear to me their fear of a loss of public confidence in the hospital, given its structural deficiencies. Such a loss of confidence would be through no fault of their own. They have a brilliant team and I have been working incredibly closely with them. However, it demonstrates why the problem must be dealt with as soon as possible. The more time goes on without acting, the greater the risk of structural failure.
What is currently being done to mitigate such risk? The Airedale NHS Foundation Trust performs several procedures to try and mitigate the dangers created by aerated concrete. It carries out regular inspections of the hospital, but those inspections have found more than 500 related structural failure incidents caused by aerated concrete, including 27 cracked concrete panels, 327 roof leaks and one incident of falling debris. The trust is regularly forced to make changes within the hospital to deal with those problems and ensure that it can operate.
During the winter months, the trust must act quickly to remove rainwater and snow to prevent the flat roof from leaking and ensure that gulley drains remain unblocked. As one would expect, that work comes at significant cost and the trust has already had approval for emergency funding of £15 million, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The backlog maintenance for the site currently stands at £480 million, making it financially unviable to consider removing or replacing aerated concrete from the existing structure.
Of course, it is not just about the maintenance cost; it is also about the impact on healthcare service. The trust has predicted that if a temporary closure were to happen, 45,000 referrals to treatment across West Yorkshire and Harrogate would be delayed. Some 60,000 diagnostic tests and procedures, including MRI scans and ultrasound therapy treatments, and 2,000 maternity deliveries would also be affected. Overall, the trust has estimated that if an emergency closure were to happen, up to 346,000 patients across the local area could be affected. Those are chilling figures that make a new Airedale Hospital a necessity.
A modular approach has been suggested and provides a potential means to regenerate Airedale Hospital, in line with the Department for Health’s commitment to eradicating aerated concrete from NHS buildings by 2035. In my view, while that is an option, it comes with significant challenges in terms of structural connectivity with existing parts of the building—not to mention the impact on the provision of healthcare services. We cannot forget that the trust’s independent structural engineers’ report warns that the hospital’s aerated concrete panels must be replaced by no later than 2030, which is in only nine years’ time. I make my case and I know that the Minister, with whom I have had many a meeting and conversation, gets my concerns. However, we need action and we need to make decisions now.
As I continue to lobby with my right hon. and hon. neighbours, Airedale Hospital continues to provide an incredible service to many of my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley, as well as the wider area. A service delivered by incredible doctors and nurses, and other NHS staff, with a real sense of duty. At this point, I must extend my personal thanks to Brendan Brown, the chief executive of the Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, and his team, and of course I also thank Friends of Airedale, a fantastic local charity whose volunteers do so much to help staff and patients.
We need to look ahead at what the next stage is for Airedale Hospital. I am delighted to say that the trust has provided an ambitious, detailed and affordable plan for a complete new rebuild that we can make into a reality. The proposals are convenient, in that they would not disrupt the current workings of Airedale Hospital in the same way the current problems do, or in the same way that any sticking-plaster approach would. A strategic outline case was completed in January 2021, when a full appraisal recommended that the most cost-effective and future-proof solution would be to build a new hospital for Airedale within the 43-acre grounds owned by the trust. That work could be completed in as little as three years from sign off.
These are exciting plans, with a strong environmental case. The Airedale trust’s vision is to create Europe’s first carbon-neutral and fully digitally enabled hospital, with the capabilities to generate renewable energy on site. The financial, environmental and practical case for a new Airedale hospital is clear for all to see, and I am delighted to invite the Minister to come and join me, chief executive Brendan Brown and his brilliant team for a visit to the Airedale, so that we can continue our discussions and get some concrete commitment from him that a new rebuild is the way forward.
Of course, I welcome the announcement that the Government will invest in another eight new-build hospitals, but we want to have an update now on how and when we will be able to bid for this funding, and to know whether those eight places will be ring-fenced for NHS trusts with hospitals that have the highest risk profile.
I will end by sending a message that is loud and clear to the Minister. I cannot stress enough the urgency of this issue and the desperate need for clarity now, so that we can take matters forward in a sensible manner and so that we are not simply throwing good money after bad. I am not in the game of seeking a make-do or half-hearted approach to solve this challenge. Given the facts, the high structural risk profile of the Airedale hospital—the highest of any hospital in the UK—the solution I seek is a complete new rebuild to eliminate any risk and to provide the healthcare service at the Airedale site long into the future for many generations to come.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I have known you a very long time, Sir Edward, so it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this place.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) on securing this debate. I know that since his election to this House, he has worked tirelessly for his constituency, not just on healthcare matters but in representing all of his constituents’ needs, particularly, in the context of my role within Government, on the issue of the hospital estate at Airedale.
Quite rightly and justifiably, my hon. Friend thanked the team there and I hope that he will allow me to join him in doing so. I ask him to pass on to them my thanks for everything they have done, not just during the past extraordinary 18 months, when they have been amazing, but year in and year out. They do so not only for his constituents but for those of the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I know that all of them join with him in pressing the case for a rebuild of Airedale General Hospital.
In a sense, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is also putting his money where his mouth is, because, if I correctly recall my reading of Keighley News, one of the things that he is doing—he is certainly a braver, or at least fitter, man than I to do it—is running 100 km in, I think, 10 weeks, to raise money for a number of charities, including Friends of Airedale, which he rightly paid tribute to. I wish him all the very best with that.
As my hon. Friend alluded to, I had the pleasure of meeting him and other local MPs back in February to discuss this important matter; indeed, he and I have spoken about it on several occasions. Since his election to the House, he has never missed an opportunity to lobby me, very politely but firmly, and to raise this issue with the Secretary of State and I, on behalf of his constituents.
My hon. Friend set out the history of the hospital site and quite rightly highlighted the vital issue, which is the fact that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—the light form of concrete used primarily for roofs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s—is the key component part of these buildings. He also quite rightly highlighted the limited durability of RAAC roofs, saying that it has been long recognised but that recent experience suggests the problem may be more serious than previously appreciated.
My hon. Friend also highlighted in his comments that surveying is continuing at Airedale General Hospital to assess fully the extent and condition of the RAAC planks, and I believe that completion of that survey is expected in the coming months. I have asked to be updated when that full survey becomes available. However, I understand that preliminary survey findings have found issues relating to the deflection of rack panels, which I know caused his trust concern.
I fully recognise the need to invest in improving health infrastructure across the country. These safety risks are no different, and my hon. Friend emphasised the urgency of this. At the spending review 2020, courtesy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we provided the NHS with £4.2 billion in 2021 for operational capital investment to allow hospitals to maintain and refurbish their infrastructure, including a £110 million ring-fenced allocation to address the most serious and immediate risks posed by RAAC planks. Within that ring-fenced allocation, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is a significant multimillion-pound allocation earmarked to mitigate RAAC risks at his local hospital. That will go towards re-roofing, as well as decant facilities while work is under way, helping to improve safety for patients and staff. We will continue to review business cases and progress at RAAC-affected trusts, including his, to ensure that we make the full and best use of all those funds over the coming year.
My hon. Friend highlights an important point: at what point does fixing or mitigating something cost more than actually eliminating the risk by having a modern, fit-for-purpose facility going forward? I fully recognise the need to mitigate RAAC risk beyond this year, alongside further investment in mitigation, which I have to confess will be a matter for my right hon Friends the Chief Secretary of the Treasury and Chancellor in the spending review. My hon. Friend would not expect me to pre-empt them, as that can sometimes have unfortunate consequences.
My hon. Friend will know, in that context, that RAAC remediation is not the only area we are investing in at Airedale, because of course on top of that the foundation trust received just shy of £250,000 to upgrade its emergency department from the wider package of £450 million for A&E improvements announced last year by the Prime Minister. Last year, the trust also received a £1.7 million allocation to address backlog maintenance at Airedale General Hospital from the £600-million critical infrastructure risk fund.
Of course, my hon. Friend wants me to speak about the future. He highlighted his strong campaign for investment in a new hospital for his constituents beyond the investment we are making to manage and mitigate the immediate risks. As he will be aware, the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary confirmed that 40 new hospitals will be built by 2030, with funding of £3.7 billion confirmed for the first tranche. I know my hon. Friend was disappointed that Airedale was not in that first tranche, but as is typical of him—ever undaunted—he continued his campaign to persuade the Government with ever-renewed vigour. I can offer him some hope on that, in terms of the prospects for the eight hospitals to which he referred.
An open process will be run to identify those eight further new schemes, delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment. He asked a couple of specific questions about those, which I will endeavour, in so far as I can, to answer now. The details of this, the criteria and how that process will be run are due to be announced soon, with a generous period for trusts and sustainability and transformation plan and integrated care system partners to respond. To put a little bit more colour on that, I hope that we will be able to make that announcement of the process before the summer recess. I will of course keep him fully aware of progress on that.
My hon. Friend also asked about funding and how it might be allocated. Again, with the caveat that I cannot pre-empt any spending review announcement and the Chancellor’s decision on that, I would not anticipate that all eight of those would be ring-fenced for hospitals such as his. However, I would say, which I think will encourage him, that clearly one of the key criteria and considerations in the allocation of whatever funding is made available will have to be safety considerations and the urgency of any need for a new hospital. That will not be the only factor, but I reassure him that the Secretary of State and I will bear that very much in mind. I also reassure him that any trusts that receive and spend money in the interim to mitigate safety issues will not find that having undertaken that work will in any way count against them in a bid for a new hospital. It will be fairly and openly considered. I am sure the points he has made will be reflected in that.
We continue to work closely with trusts and regions to ensure that the criteria for selection best meets the needs of the NHS both nationally and locally and, of course, achieves value for money for the taxpayer. In that context, those schemes that we will consider will be based on the balance of benefits realised for staff, patients and local communities, condition—going to the safety point—and affordability and value for money.
As part of a national programme, seeking to achieve value for money, we will look for a greater degree of standardisation across those new hospitals, with modern methods of construction and modular builds, where appropriate. I note my hon. Friend’s points and, should we get to that point, I suspect he will want to be engaged in the discussions to ensure we get value for money. Were his hospital to get the go-ahead, it would also deliver what is needed locally. As my hon. Friend touched on in his speech, we are looking for new hospitals to be digitally fit for the future, clean, green and sustainable.
I suspect my hon. Friend will continue, until I, the Secretary of State or the Chancellor relent, to make the firm case for Airedale’s inclusion in our hospital building programme of those next eight. I very much look forward to seeing the bids for the remaining slots when the time comes for them to be submitted. I suspect, though I cannot pre-empt it, that his hospital might be one of those bids that I see put forward by the trusts.
In conclusion, as ever I want to commend my hon. Friend’s work to raise support for Airedale hospital, and personally raise money for the friends of the hospital. On numerous occasions in this House, he has raised the estate issues faced by his hospital. We are taking action in the short term to help mitigate those risks, but he continues to make the case for the long term. His constituents are incredibly lucky to have a Member of Parliament who is so assiduous and determined in carrying out his role in representing them to Government and in this place.
He kindly invited me to sunny Airedale—hopefully sunny, if I go in summer—to visit the hospital and the trust, and I would be delighted to take him up on that. He may face the challenge, given my risk of vertigo, of getting me up on the roof, though I suspect that will not deter him from trying to persuade me to see the issues for myself. I am happy to come and visit him and other right hon. and hon. Friends in the area.
More broadly, I look forward to continuing to work closely with him; my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon; the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle; and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, in seeking to deliver on the Government’s ambition of levelling up and improving the NHS services available across the country to our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Covid-19 and Loneliness
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19 and loneliness.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am pleased to have secured this debate on covid-19 and loneliness during Loneliness Awareness Week. It is a chance for each of us not only to think about the issue, but to remember to take clear action to address loneliness as organisations and individuals. It comes a day after we heard that some covid-19 restrictions will continue, which may extend the period for some people.
It is appropriate that we have this debate today, the day before the fifth anniversary of the murder of our colleague, Jo Cox MP. I did not know Jo personally—I was not in the House at that time—but I know how people have spoken of her and the tremendous work that the Jo Cox Foundation is doing as part of her legacy, with the Great Get Together bringing so many people together for a chat in many different communities, making those connections and taking real action on loneliness. Of course, there is the important work carried out by the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness, which was so influential in the development of the Government’s loneliness strategy.
Sadly, loneliness is common, and its negative effects are wide-ranging and complex. Even before the pandemic, between 8% and 18% of adults in the UK reported feeling lonely often. An estimated 200,000 older people regularly went without having a conversation with a friend or relative for over a month. Although loneliness is often thought of as an older person’s issue, it can and does affect people of all ages. Young people aged between 18 and 24 consistently report the highest levels of loneliness, and the numbers have increased over the past year, as we have all been so much more isolated during the pandemic.
According to the Office for National Statistics, around 7.2% of adults—3.7 million people—reported feeling lonely often or always in the period between October 2020 and February 2021. According to research by the Red Cross, around two in five—39% of UK adults—say that they do not think their feelings of loneliness will go away after the coronavirus crisis is over, and a third say that they are concerned about being able to connect with people in person in the way they did prior to the pandemic. Finally, more than a third of people feel less connected to their local community than they did before covid-19. That is a sobering thought.
Last Friday, I had the opportunity to visit Gateshead Carers, an organisation that supports unpaid carers, who spend so much of their time looking after others at home. While I was there, I met Irene and Trish. As it happens, they were meeting each other for the first time in person, having been linked up through a befriending scheme that has been operated by Gateshead Carers throughout the pandemic. Trish had been caring for her husband—first at home, and then when he was in residential care—for several years. She told me that before covid-19, she spent every day with him in the nursing home and lived at home by herself, but covid-19 meant that she could not spend that time with him, and she was spending much of her time at home alone. Both Trish and Irene told me how the befriending scheme had been a real positive for them by allowing them to reach out and make a connection with another person. It was clear to me that they were getting on like a house on fire.
Covid-19 has had a huge impact on so many people, regardless of whether they have contracted the virus. For many people, lockdowns, restrictions on activities, and not been able to see neighbours, friends and family have had a huge impact. For many, it has led to feelings of isolation and loneliness, as those everyday connections and contacts just have not been possible. It has been hard, and although virtual meetings have helped for some of us, they have not helped at all for those who are not so digitally savvy.
However, let us not imagine that loneliness has just appeared since covid-19. For too many people, loneliness existed before, and we must look at it in the longer term, but there is no doubt that covid-19 has made things worse. We need to address the covid-related issues that have highlighted the problem, but also take longer-term action. Loneliness will sadly not go away when covid-19 is no longer at the forefront of our minds or when restrictions are fully lifted.
Over the last year, the all-party parliamentary group on loneliness, with the support of the British Red Cross and the Co-op, has looked at loneliness and how we can best counteract it post-covid and in the longer-term. We held an inquiry over a number of sessions, taking evidence in writing and in person virtually from a wide range of organisations and individuals. We listened to their experiences and heard how they see the issue and how they are seeking to address it. In March, we published the report, “A connected recovery: Findings of the APPG on Loneliness Inquiry”. If the Minister has not had a chance to see it, I am happy to send her a copy.
Our inquiry contains a wealth of evidence and experiences about what we need to do to tackle loneliness and build a connected recovery. The recommendations set out action that can be taken at Government, local authority, neighbourhood and individual level. They are detailed and thoughtful. Today, I will set out the main recommendations.
First, tackling loneliness needs national leadership. The Government must commit to a connected recovery from the covid-19 pandemic,
“recognising the need for long term work to rebuild social connections following periods of isolation”.
That must include long-term funding to bring together the different strands of action needed to make that difference.
We should translate policy through local action. Our local authorities have been crucial in helping people and local communities during the pandemic. For many people hit by the pandemic, who have perhaps seen their income reduced, been forced to shield or self-isolate, or needed essential supplies, the support of staff in local hubs such as those set up by Gateshead Council in Winlaton, Chopwell and Birtley in my constituency has been essential. It has not only helped individuals, but made connections with voluntary organisations to link people up on more than just the practical level. I visited each of my hubs and found the staff, in many cases redeployed from leisure services or libraries, responding effectively but sensitively to people, many of whom called in distress. The staff went beyond the practical to make connections with others who could offer broader support. My thanks go to all of them—they have been vital in combatting loneliness, and that work needs to be built into the work of councils as we learn lessons.
The report states:
“The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government should incentivise and support all areas to develop local loneliness action plans, which should encompass action on placemaking and delivering the activities needed to support social prescribing… Tackling loneliness should be built into all local authority COVID-19 recovery plans and…population health strategies.”
On investing in community infrastructure, the pandemic has shown us clearly the important part played by voluntary organisations, some long-established and some that sprang up in response to the need for practical support for those hit by the pandemic, such as local mutual aid groups. Those groups made a huge difference by shopping, collecting prescriptions and delivering meals. There is real benefit in having support at a local level. However, our third sector organisations, many well-established charities, need reliable funding if they are to continue that important work. The report states:
“The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport should work across government…to create a sustainable fund to support”
the work of those organisations on loneliness.
On closing the digital divide, the pandemic shone a light on the need for digital skills. We may be getting weary of endless meetings on Teams or Zoom, or some other platform, but for many they have been vital in keeping that connection with friends and families or in enabling them to join in with virtual activities. The charity Skills 4 Work, based in Birtley in my constituency, has had virtual afternoon teas for local people to keep the connection between the younger members and their local community. Before hon. Members suggest that virtual scones do not sound very attractive, let me assure them that the scones are very real. They are delivered in a covid-secure way by the project members to those taking part. I very much enjoyed mine.
We need to make our local communities and places loneliness-proof by providing places for people to meet. The APPG heard a good deal of evidence on that point recently. Loneliness affects people of all ages, not just older people. Young people reported some of the highest levels of loneliness even before the pandemic, yet they are struggling to access support. I urge the Government to consider the campaign by YoungMinds and the Samaritans to establish and fund mental health support clubs for young people across the country.
I want to briefly mention some of the people and organisations who have responded so magnificently in my constituency, such as Northumbria’s biggest coffee morning, organised by PC Andy Hyde for the local community in Ryton. Last year, it had to be a virtual coffee morning, but we were determined to carry on and make those connections. There are the volunteers at the Winlaton Centre, who provided hot meals for people who needed them; the Chopwell and Rowlands Gill Live at Home scheme, run by the Methodist Homes Association, which, among other things, held a socially-distanced VE Day celebration in which it called on people in a socially distanced way and took the celebration to them; the staff at Edberts House, in particular the community link officers who have been working to keep in touch with people and have an important part to play in social prescribing; and Age UK Gateshead, which has done so much to support people locally in so many ways. This year, it is making 36,000 phone calls per month. Prior to covid-19, it supported 3,148 individuals; three months later, it was 14,817. As Age UK Gateshead says, at the point of crisis, full need is identified. The chief executive says:
“Moving forward, do not implement services—talk to communities and individuals. Each street, village and town is different. Listen and enable people to help themselves. It’s at this point people talk to people and the real magic happens.”
I ask the Minister to meet me and representatives of the British Red Cross and the APPG to discuss how we can take this important work forward. I finish by remembering again that tomorrow is the five-year anniversary of the murder of our colleague, Jo Cox. I believe we must all carry on her work, bringing people together and working to end loneliness.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing the debate and on the way she laid out her case. I pay tribute to her for the work that she does with the Samaritans. I entirely echo her remarks about our late colleague, Jo Cox.
Before the coronavirus pandemic, people with a long-term disability, widowed homeowners, unmarried middle-agers and young renters were most likely to feel lonely, according to the Office for National Statistics, but now the feeling of loneliness has increased in many more of us, as we were told to stay inside and could not see family and friends. If colleagues knew some of my family and friends, they would understand why for me personally that was a small relief, but I know that the majority of people were very sorry not to see family and friends.
With the Prime Minister’s announcement last evening delaying the ending of the coronavirus restrictions, many people who are lonely will still not be receiving the assistance they need. The hospitality industry has not been able to fully reopen, large-scale events are not what they once were and there is still a limit on the number of people someone can see inside and outside. The extension of the restrictions will inevitably result in some people remaining on their own, because they are vulnerable or cannot access the help they require to socialise in their community once again.
Loneliness is a very complex experience. We see colleagues who seem to have lots of friends, but who can be very lonely. If we are all honest with ourselves, the number of true friends that we have can be counted on our hands. I have given up, over the years, on knowing the number of Members of Parliament who are really lonely. I would send a message to our Whips saying, “You do need to look after your flock.” We never know how our colleagues are suffering. Although it is not always accepted, we are members of the human race, so the hon. Member for Blaydon has done the House a great service by drawing the whole issue to our attention.
Despite the delay in ending the restrictions, I am pleased that the Prime Minister announced an end to the 30-person limit on weddings. I have a personal vested interest in that: two of my daughters are getting married this year, so they were cheering about the whole thing, although my bank manager was not necessarily cheering. The relaxations on wakes and visits outside care homes are also to be welcomed. Those announcements are a step in the right direction towards combatting loneliness. I encourage the Government, with our excellent Minister present, to further ease lockdown rules and allow friends and family to meet as soon as it is safe to do so.
It was Carers Week last week, and that was an opportunity to thank all the carers for the wonderful work that they have selflessly done throughout the pandemic to look after the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the lonely. My area, Southend West, has the largest number of centenarians in the country. Not many of their contemporaries are alive, obviously, so we need to look out for elderly people in particular. Many people in nursing homes in my area and in our local hospital experience severe loneliness, as their friends and families are either unable to visit them or uneasy about doing so because of the health risks. There are many carers in Southend and they deserve recognition. I was delighted with the awards in the birthday honours list for their invaluable work throughout the pandemic in our many nursing homes and at Southend Hospital.
Charities have, similarly, been a lifeline to many individuals who are lonely, and I am pleased that we have so many of them locally in Southend. An example is the St Vincent de Paul Society, which visits vulnerable people and offers them practical support and friendship. Trust Links supports those with mental health and wellbeing issues through gardening and community involvement, and the Southend West scouts bring young people together.
More must be done, however, to raise awareness of the impact of loneliness and to encourage people to speak up about it. There is a stigma about being lonely. Some people think, “Well I am such a horrible person and that is why I haven’t got any friends,” but that is not the case. There is nothing as sad as going to a funeral when there is nobody there at all. It is absolutely heartbreaking. There is a stigma about being lonely and it needs to be eradicated, because it is hindering people in reaching out for help. Schools and local community groups should work closely with charities and organisations that help reduce loneliness, because—as has already been said—even if someone is surrounded by people every day at school or here, it is very possible to feel excluded. Loneliness does not just affect older people. With young people, parents get anxious when it appears that their children have no friends for whatever reason.
The Wesley Methodist church holds monthly local services for people with dementia, and socialising and art activities take place after the service. That is a great initiative for people with dementia to be active in the community. St Helen’s church, my local church, also holds youth clubs and friendship clubs that meet regularly to encourage community engagement. I hope that those events will resume soon.
Friends and Places Together helps young people with friendship groups, activities and trips in England. Younger people can feel lonely too. David Stanley set up the Music Man Project, which played at the London Palladium and went on to the Royal Albert Hall, and would be going to Broadway were it not for the pandemic. It is absolutely inspirational. David Stanley has so helped and encouraged people with learning disabilities through the power of music, and I hope that the Music Man Project will spread throughout the country to every single constituency.
Friday is the first anniversary of the death of Dame Vera Lynn. We are holding a live event at the top of the white cliffs of Dover. There will be a few surprises for older people, and I hope that those who support older people can tune in. I envisage that on Friday we will all be singing “Land of Hope and Glory”, “We’ll Meet Again” and “The White Cliffs of Dover”.
There has been a considerable rise in the number of people with pets during the pandemic to tackle loneliness. I am animal mad. By and large, animals are grateful for everything that is done for them. Owning an animal is a big responsibility though, and pets are for life, not just until someone gets bored with them. There is no excuse for animal neglect, and I encourage anyone who gets a pet to help with their loneliness to first be sure that they know what is involved in looking after one. There are services that can help people.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I am very pleased the Government have introduced support bubbles and the “Let’s Talk Loneliness” online service for those who feel left out to give them advice and support. We must, however, continue the support programmes and further reduce the stigma of loneliness as the coronavirus restrictions ease, because many people feeling lonely might be anxious about once again engaging with their community and the general public.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, for the second time today. Who am I to speak in this debate after two terrific speeches from the hon. Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Southend West (Sir David Amess)? I have been here for four years and a couple of days, and it strikes me that one of the best things that Westminster does is the Westminster Hall debate, which is more like a tutorial. What I have heard in the first two contributions is thought provoking and has altered what I am going to say.
Lockdown was not terribly difficult for me and my wife because we had each other, and my son and his wife, just in the nick of time before the first lockdown, came north with their two little girls, which was a pleasure. However, I want to talk about a constituent of mine called Sally Cartwright. Sally is a widow in her 80s. She has been successful in life. She ran a business with her husband and had a successful small business. She became chairman of the local enterprise company—I think the first female chairman of a local enterprise company in Scotland. She was awarded the MBE. Halfway through the first lockdown, I called her about something or other. I asked for advice and she said, “Jamie, I’m so damned lonely. I am not in a bubble. I can’t go out. I am not daft. I am not very good with mobility, but I am a thinking lady, and it’s really getting me down.” That shook me because this lady is a pillar of society and one would not expect that to come from her.
I then took to ringing Sally on a regular basis to say, “How’s it going?”. In fact, I spoke to her today to get permission to use her name in this debate. My excellent constituency officer manager, Heather Macmillan, said, “You ought to get in the habit of making perhaps 10 calls a day, and I will suggest people you can call.” The reason I am telling Members this is because I was relatively comfortable in my own home in lockdown and I had not seen it for what it really was, and it shook me to the core. So what is the answer?
I am speaking only briefly in this debate and I am speaking only because of Sally. I thought, “Damn it, I will take part in this debate.” I do not normally go on about things in the north of Scotland, as Members know. However, yesterday—this takes me back to the hon. Member for Southend West—hot and bothered I walked from this place to my flat. It had been a really hot day and I longed to get in, pull myself a glass of lager and put my feet up. I heard music as I walked towards St John’s, Smith Square, and it got louder and louder as I walked past that beautiful church heading towards Pimlico. I realised the doors of the church were open because of the heat, and the orchestra was in full practice. I thought, “What are they playing? Is it Prokofiev? What is it? I don’t know.” At that moment, it hit me like a bolt of lightning, exactly as the hon. Gentleman said: music touches the human psyche more than we all realise.
We all have different tastes, but music is a sort of strange common language that works, and I think that it is possibly part of the solution—although there are no solutions to this—but it could be part of the way we can approach it. The next time we have to go through this awful process again, and I fear that we will because viruses mutate and there will be new viruses—although, God, I wish there weren’t—I think more music will be part of the solution.
The second thing is that every time I spoke to Sally, she told me that one of her grandchildren had zoomed in and, for all the difficulties of this way of talking to each other through a small screen, the grandchild saying, “Hello, Granny. How are you?”, really gave a little lift to her day. Perhaps we could, in each of our communities, develop the idea of having teams of people, including young people, who can talk to one another. Sally said to me, “I’m not so mobile, but I’ve got a brain on my shoulders,” and so she has. She is, as we say in Scotland, as sharp as a tack. If I put a foot wrong in politics, she is on to me just like that. I was saying, “Sally, if we have to go through this again, how would it be if you did some telephoning or whatever and we just opened this up?”
I do not know the solution, but I have made two suggestions to the Minister. I have enormous respect for the Minister—a lady of compassion. I suspect that we are sowing our seeds on fertile ground, in terms of what the Government might come forward with.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. First, I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for calling this debate. At some point in all our lives, we will feel lonely. That may be for an endless number of reasons, but it is worth noting that loneliness is not the same as being alone. We can be surrounded by friends and loved ones and still feel fundamentally lonely.
The covid-19 pandemic has had an undeniable impact on loneliness. A report by the British Red Cross found that almost 40% of UK adults are more concerned about their loneliness now than they were a year ago. A similar number had gone more than a fortnight without having a meaningful conversation. Around 39% of UK adults say that they do not think that their feelings of loneliness will go away after the coronavirus crisis is over, and one third say that they are concerned about being able to connect with people in person in the way they did prior to the pandemic.
Loneliness has long been thought of as an issue that is most likely to affect older people, and indeed older people are hugely affected. Before the pandemic, an estimated 200,000 older people regularly went more than a month without having a conversation with a friend or relative. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said, loneliness can and does affect people of all ages. Young people aged between 18 and 24 years old consistently report higher levels of loneliness than any other age group, and more than 11% of children are estimated to feel lonely often.
During lockdown, our young people were isolated from their friends at school and university. Their prospects of starting new careers were dashed as a result of many industries limiting staff numbers. In particular, hospitality, which as an industry is the largest employer of young people, was closed throughout lockdown. All the data show an alarming trend such that the pandemic will have a long-lasting impact on the mental health of young people.
I pledge my full support for a connected recovery. When emerging from this pandemic, we must ensure that nobody is excluded from our recovery. The only way in which we will all recover is by connecting, reaching out, and ensuring that no one is left behind.
In April 2020, at the start of the national lockdown, the Government launched a comprehensive plan to try to tackle loneliness. That included categorising loneliness as a priority for the £750-million charity funding package; continuing the “Let’s Talk Loneliness” campaign; and bringing together the new Tackling Loneliness Network, made up of private, public and charity sector organisations that want to make a difference. Following this, the recommendation from the Red Cross that tackling loneliness should be built into all local authority covid-19 recovery plans and integrated care system population health strategies, would ensure that tackling loneliness was at the heart of the recovery.
I thank the Government for recognising the scale of the issue of loneliness and laying out plans to tackle it. I specifically commend them on attempting to tackle, through the “Let’s Talk Loneliness” campaign, the taboo around discussion of loneliness. My belief is that this problem will not begin to be tackled until anyone can, without fear of judgment, reach out and say, “I feel lonely.”
Covid-19 has also demonstrated how vital our digital infrastructure is. When families and friends could not be together in person, they could see one another online and still connect online. That is why I am so glad that the Government have come together with the national lottery for the local connections fund. The funding will help to bring people together in safe and secure ways, recovering the costs of technology and equipment that will help people to feel more connected in their communities. It is my hope that the funding will begin to bridge the digital divide by building skills and confidence online.
I recently held a number of meetings with WaveLength, a charity that uses technology to help those suffering from loneliness. I was delighted when, just this week, WaveLength was able to support multiple organisations in my constituency of Broxtowe.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon for calling this debate during Loneliness Awareness Week. I end by thanking all the charities and organisations that are working tirelessly to help tackle loneliness—Mind, Age UK, Samaritans, Re-engage, Calm and the British Red Cross. All those organisations help those dealing with loneliness. I encourage anyone listening today who is struggling to reach out to one of those groups. It is more important than ever that we connect with each other while emerging from this pandemic and ensure that we have a connected recovery, so that the message from the Government, coming out of this pandemic, is that you are not alone.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
We now go to Jim Shannon, for the second time this afternoon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship all day, Sir Edward. It does not bother me, and I do not think it will bother other Members here either. We are very pleased to be here. Thank you for that and for calling me.
First, I especially thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for bringing this debate today. When I saw the topic in the Westminster Hall diary, I was keen to come down, first, to support her, but also to tell the public a story, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) also did about one of his friends.
The contributions from right hon. and hon. Members have been incredible. I doubt whether any family across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have not had some personal story to tell, as the hon. Gentleman referred to. I have been incredibly impressed by the speeches. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) referred to the “city to be”. I refer to it as a “city already”. I think we all know it as that; we are just waiting for it to be said officially—that is all.
The hon. Gentleman referred to how some people can be lonely in a crowded room. That is true. I know people who are like that. I know people who were the life and joy of a party and when the party was over, they were the loneliest people in the world. We cannot always tell a book by its cover or a person by the persona we see. That story resonates with me when I think about the people I have known over the years who fit into that specific category.
I have listened to so many difficult stories during this covid pandemic. I have seen at first hand the devastating effect that social distancing has had on the most vulnerable people. I lost my mother-in-law, Jemima, to covid in October last year. Her husband, Robert, my father-in-law, is a very private man and obviously found it devastating, personally, as did the rest of the family. But he had to grieve in isolation, because he was self-isolating when Jemima went into the hospital on the Monday and she then died on the Friday. My sister-in-law, my wife’s sister, was also in the intensive care unit with covid, so we could not even have the funeral until everyone was out of covid-19 isolation. For my boys to have had to contact Robert through a window was not the way it should have been. To say that he is a changed man vastly under-states what has happened.
Who will forget Her Majesty when Prince Philip passed away? Who did not resonate with Her Majesty as she sat in solitude, removed from those who loved her at the funeral service of her husband of 73 years? That was a dreadful scene, but one replicated in too many churches and too many funeral parlours throughout the land.
I think there is some encouragement; it is always good to have encouragement. The book by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, “Hold Still”, struck and stirred a chord in so many of us, as we understand that our pain is shared by so many.
During the lockdowns, my wife and I became grandparents—twice. However, we have not seen one of those grandchildren. Wee Max was born last October; Freya’s birthday will be Monday coming, but we will have a birthday party on 20 June. That will be an occasion when all 13 of us can come together. I should say, by the way, that the hon. Member for Southend West’s time as a grandparent is coming. I was saying one day to my wife, “We started as two, with three sons. Three sons got three wives—and now we have five grandchildren.” That is how the two became 13. Maybe the hon. Gentleman will end up with as many as that—I do not know. It is wonderful that we can come together after 15 months and have some joy. We understand that there are so many other people who have lived through this situation, as well.
The rules were in place for a reason—they were, and they are. They saved lives. We have adhered to the rules the whole way through because, first of all, we have to set an example, but also because I believe is right to do so. If the rules are set, let us adhere to them.
Our mental health as a nation is low—indeed, a lot lower than it ever has been in most of our memories. I live on a farm, so I am very fortunate. I go for a walk every night that I am home and I must say that I found comfort at home—not just with my wife, but because whenever I went for a walk I took my dog. The good thing about a dog is that it will always wag its tail. It will always be a friend, unlike a cat, which makes up its mind about whether it will be someone’s friend or not. That is how cats are. The point I am making here is this: if I had not had that opportunity to go for a walk, I think it would have been a very difficult time for me.
I commend all the charities, in particular the Red Cross in Northern Ireland, which conducted a poll that found that almost half the people in Northern Ireland—some 47%—said it was hard to talk about their problems when so many people are having a difficult time due to covid-19. Worryingly, more than two in five—some 41%—said that they would not be confident about knowing where to go for mental health or emotional support if they needed it. We need to consider how we can help those people and support them. That is what the hon. Member for Blaydon and others have said.
In Northern Ireland, the Red Cross is calling for the Northern Ireland Assembly to tackle loneliness and social isolation, advocating early action in the covid-19 recovery plans and a mental health strategy, while committing to develop and implement a cross-departmental Northern Ireland loneliness strategy. I think that is really what we need. Mental health issues have become so strong and so disjointed that we really need to have a loneliness strategy in place. I believe this approach must be funded UK-wide, to rebuild not simply our economy but, just as importantly, our people and our communities.
I also believe that we need to encourage the safe meeting of mother and toddler groups; how important that is, to get normality and for mothers to interact with mothers, and children with children. Children will always play together, because that is what children do, but mothers also need verbal communication and physical contact. Our nature is not to be on our own. I suppose that is the reason why we are all married; I presume that we are all married, or are about to be, or whatever the case may be. We need company; it is very important.
There are also the afternoon tea dances that we held in our neck of the woods, in Strangford in the Orange Halls, or the face-to-face parent-teacher meetings. We used to look almost with fear at the parent-teacher meetings, but now people would just love to have one; it would be great just to have that interaction.
We need to rebuild the notion that we are not alone and that together we are stronger. I join all my colleagues who have already spoken and those who will speak after me in asking the Government to do more to acknowledge the problem and to begin to allow the solution: a renewed sense of family, and of a community standing together, with a real connection, to help as and when needed. That is what we all do every day as elected Members of Parliament and as elected representatives. We do it because our people have chosen us. They often do that because it is our character and personality to help others.
I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place; I always genuinely look forward to her contributions. I know that she has empathy with all of us in the stories that we tell because she has been through those stories as well. I am also looking forward to hearing the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I did not know that she was back until today and I have seen her sitting there. It is a pleasure to see her in place because I have not seen her physically for a while—it must be six or seven months, I am sure. I very much look forward to listening to her. I am sorry, I have meandered on for a while, but I just wanted to make those comments.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, even if it is only once today. Congratulations also to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate during Loneliness Awareness Week and for her tribute to Jo Cox. The Marmalade Trust runs the campaign, and the theme this year is acceptance. Its purpose is to encourage people to talk about loneliness in an attempt to remove the stigma and shame around it.
The coronavirus pandemic has made me feel very lonely at times, in spite of a busy life and a supportive family and colleagues. I do not intend to dwell on my own loneliness; I just want to say that this is something I really understand. The groups most at risk of loneliness have already been alluded to, but I can add to them and say they also include members of the armed forces, carers, people from ethnic minorities, migrants, refugees, people from LGBT+ groups and homeless people.
Loneliness can and does affect folk right across society and that has been exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic. Living through an extended period of not spending time with our friends and loved ones has been painful for everybody, but extremely damaging for some. The SNP Scottish Government are fully committed to tackling social isolation and loneliness across Scotland and are providing investment to promote equality and digital inclusion. The events of this year have reaffirmed the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling social isolation and loneliness as a serious public health issue. That is why part of the Scottish Government’s winter plan for social protection had a specific focus on addressing that.
In addition to funding communities and digital inclusion, the Scottish Government have also funded partners, including £100,000 for befriending networks. Befriending organisations, such as Befriend Motherwell, BeFriend in Bellshill based in Orbiston, and Getting Better Together in Wishaw and Shotts, all cover my constituency. Those and other organisations switched to telephone befriending services, which, although not the same, are helping many folk throughout the pandemic. I also salute all the organisations involved in my poverty action network that have worked so hard during lockdown, combatting loneliness.
The SNP Scottish Government have invested £4.3 million to tackle social isolation and loneliness through digital inclusion via the Connecting Scotland programme, which has helped 5,000 older and disabled people get online and so tackle isolation and digital exclusion. It also supported families to maintain contact with a loved one in prison custody through digital services and internet access, and it will have invested £5 million to increase the work organisations already do, fund new ones and help provide safe places online and in person for people to connect. We should expect that level of commitment from the UK Government too.
The SNP remains committed to supporting the mental health, wellbeing and equality of our communities. Our manifesto says that the SNP is committed to increasing direct investment in mental health services by at least 25% and ensuring that by the end of the Parliament, 10% of the frontline NHS budget will be invested in mental health services, with 1% of NHS frontline spending being invested in child and adolescent mental health services.
A sense of community, and the resilience that we all draw from it, has helped Scotland get through this pandemic. In the first 100 days of the new SNP Government, they will develop their new five-year social isolation and loneliness plan, which is backed by £10 million over five years and is focused on reconnecting people as we come out of the pandemic and tackle loneliness head on. They will also establish a steering group, inviting cross-party representation in order to progress the delivery of a Scottish minimum income guarantee. People are more isolated if they do not have the funds to make social contacts, travel short distances and view the world outwith their four walls.
Loneliness is a blight on people’s lives and has impacts on their mental health. All Governments should and must work with community partners to end the scourge of loneliness. Funding spent now will decrease the cost to ongoing health services in the future. Governments across the four nations have a duty to improve people’s lives by allowing them to feel less lonely and anxious. Again, following what the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) said, we should thank all the organisations across the UK that have done so much to alleviate people’s loneliness in all sorts of circumstances. As hon. Members have already said, we do not know how someone feels when we look at them, but it should be incumbent on us all to make sure that we always have a friendly word and an understanding of how other people live their lives.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Edward, in what has been an outstanding debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who not only set out the scale of loneliness, but has served well on the APPG on loneliness. Of course, she focused all our minds on tomorrow, the fifth anniversary of the passing of Jo Cox.
Few people have never felt the aching pain of loneliness. Thankfully, it is fleeting for most—those moments pass—but not for all. Once trapped in the cycle of loneliness, it can be difficult to escape. Lost connections happen at transition points in life, such as a move or a new baby, when old friends are left behind or new demands fill people’s days. For some, however, those days turn to weeks, months and years. Disabled people are trapped behind a multitude of barriers, refugees are in a strange land, single people are home alone, and the elderly are often confined to their own homes and, for many with dementia, their own worlds. Their carers, too, can fall into loneliness, as demands replace time with friends. For others, loneliness has stemmed from the loss of a job or a loved one.
The past year has been particularly brutal. Some 41% of adults say that they feel lonelier than they did before the first lockdown. Being bereaved in lockdown has been particularly harsh—not being with loved ones as they died, and not being able to grieve properly. It hurts. The digital divide in an increasingly digitalised society can make isolation all the more challenging. Others just find it hard to make secure friendships, and it is okay to say so. If someone quietly longs for a buddy—someone to share things with, or to journey parts of their life together—help with making connections must be available. The call for connected recovery is a recognition that things do not have to be that way; they can change and bring meaning, friendship, love and purpose back into our relationships.
Loneliness is the greatest public health challenge of our age. Each day, millions of people would identify with such a diagnosis, but instead of the hope of a cure, the deafening chill of emptiness pursues them. For some people, it never departs. Although the Government’s loneliness strategy is a packed agenda on combating loneliness that is high on aspiration and complex in ambition, we have to be honest: it was incapable of responding to covid-19. The reality is that relationships are built from within communities, and they need the tools and means to respond.
As with all public health emergencies, we need to map those who are lonely. Our directors of public health should lead the local partnership to reach different environments, ages and intersectional challenges with a strategy to reach their communities. Government have to trust directors of public health to formulate their public health frameworks and provide them with the tools and the means to deliver. So, the first issue is trust in a local public health approach.
Secondly, there is funding. Let us not pretend that this can be done on the cheap, because not delivering is costly. A recent survey commissioned by the Government concluded that severe loneliness cost just short of £10,000 a person each year. Let me scale that up. Researchers calculated that it cost £32 billion a year. Public health budgets have been slashed, the communities sector has been starved and charities are struggling more and more each day that restrictions are extended, yet Government have completely failed to recognise that they need support. Just £5 million was given to addressing loneliness at the very start of the pandemic, over a year ago. Charities have been largely forgotten. The very organisations that can address loneliness are now facing further restraints from cash-strapped local authorities.
Will the Minister take a strong message back to the Minister for Loneliness? Until this Government get a grip on the funding crisis in the sector, they have no chance of supporting people who experience loneliness as the infrastructure is simply unsustainable without funding. It must be addressed now and in the comprehensive spending review.
Thirdly, success must be measured and shared. Such a project must be evaluated and a long-term commitment to meet need achieved.
Finally, the Marmalade Trust, the British Red Cross, Age UK and the Jo Cox Foundation are all at the forefront of finding ways to break the stigma of loneliness. If people say they are lonely, it is okay. If they are lonely, it is okay. However, it is not okay that the Government are not providing the tools and the resources to the very people who can make those connections.
May Loneliness Awareness Week empower all to recognise loneliness, to reach out to those who are lonely and to rekindle the hope that as a society we can build strong connections, so that no one need be lonely.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am delighted to be able to discuss such an important topic. It has been a high-quality debate. Without exception, every single contribution has been first class and I thank everybody who has taken part. There were some heartfelt and touching contributions.
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for calling for such an important debate. I know that she is a member of the all-party parliamentary group on loneliness and she brings a great deal of knowledge and experience, as well as passion and care, to the debate. I am grateful to her and I join her in paying tribute to our former colleague, Jo Cox, who we all miss terribly.
I am grateful to the APPG for its review of loneliness during covid-19 and the recommendations for the Government’s role in supporting a connected recovery from the pandemic. I am sure that my brilliant colleague, the Minister for Loneliness, will be very happy to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the APPG.
The covid-19 pandemic has associated social distancing measures with loneliness. We know that, but the importance of social connection has been highlighted for us all during this. As the Office for National Statistics indicated, levels of chronic loneliness among adults in England has increased between spring 2020 and February 2021 from 5% to 7%.
As we start to be able to see each other in person more, we know that there will be a large number of people who felt lonely and isolated long before the pandemic started, and will continue to feel that way after the restrictions lift. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said, unpaid carers, who give so much of themselves with their love and their care for those they love, often feel the impact of loneliness and deserve our attention.
There will also be those who have lost confidence as a result of the impact of covid, who may struggle to reconnect or feel left behind as a restrictions ease. That is at the top of the Government’s agenda. As the APPG report sets out, the Government’s response to covid-19 has recognised the importance of social interaction and connection. That work built on our existing commitments, set out in our strategy of 2018 and reiterated in two annual loneliness reports since. We have provided funding to organisations that provide vital support to a wide range of people at risk of loneliness.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) says, since the beginning of the pandemic we have invested more than £34 million in such organisations in England alone and helped people who experience loneliness through a £750 million charity funding package. We also set up a £4 million local connections fund in partnership with the National Lottery Community Fund. Through the first round of the local connections fund, we have already awarded more than 840 microgrants to charities and community groups that help people to connect via the things that they enjoy.
The “Let’s Talk Loneliness” campaign, which a couple of Members spoke about, aims to raise awareness of loneliness and remind people that it is okay to ask for help when feeling lonely. Several colleagues beautifully set out how loneliness hides in plain sight. Anybody can feel lonely at any time; it can affect anybody at any age. During the pandemic, we have used the campaign to share advice on simple steps we can all take to support ourselves and others.
In response to covid-19, we also set up the Tackling Loneliness Network of more than 80 organisations from across the private, public and charity sectors to take action on loneliness. We published an action plan in May setting out a series of actions that they are taking. In this Loneliness Awareness Week, they have launched the Connection Coalition’s loneliness chatbot service on WhatsApp.
Local people understand what is needed in their communities, and we agree with the APPG that local and grassroots action is vital in tackling this issue. That is why we want to build a shared understanding of communities’ needs and assets and focus on supporting local areas to share and learn what works locally.
I really welcome the APPG’s emphasis on digital inclusion. As Minister of State for Digital and Culture, I know that the ability to connect digitally during the lockdown has been a lifeline, but too many people faced a barrier to connecting because they lack the mobile technology, the internet or the skills and confidence to do it. That is an issue that the Government are dedicated to addressing. Our £2.5 million digital lifeline fund is providing tablets, data and free digital support to more than 5,500 people with learning disabilities, allowing them to connect with friends and support.
As I mentioned, this Loneliness Awareness Week is a really important opportunity to highlight some of the amazing work that is happening with grassroots organisations around our nations, as a number of Members have already. We have seen extraordinary examples over the past year of community spirit and of charity groups and organisations that have really stepped up and adapted to this new world to ensure that local people do not feel isolated.
Through our “Let’s Talk Loneliness” campaign we will this week partner with a wide range of organisations to encourage everyone across society to continue to reach out to support people who may be feeling lonely, even as restrictions ease. Every single one of us can make a difference, and the Government are really determined to do our bit as well. I thank everybody for their great contributions to the debate.
Liz Twist
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been a useful debate in making sure that, during Loneliness Awareness Week, we do not forget this issue and we pay attention to it. It is interesting to hear the different experiences of colleagues in their constituencies.
I conclude by reiterating that we would very much like to work with the Government, and I hope that it will be possible to arrange the meeting we talked about so that we can progress things further. We need not only to talk about loneliness in debates like this, but to really make a difference, which is what so many organisations are doing on the ground.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered covid-19 and loneliness.
Written Statements
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Declaration on Government Reform
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The covid-19 pandemic has strained our country’s resilience like nothing we have seen out of wartime, and the public have endured huge sacrifices. Our mission now is to respond by transforming the country for the better, levelling up, and making opportunity more equal. These changes will require the re-wiring, and renewal, of government. That is why reform is necessary—not as an end in itself, but as a means of delivering the better Britain the public demand and deserve.
To this end, the Cabinet and permanent secretaries have committed today to a collective vision for reform, agreeing immediate action on three fronts:
People—ensuring that the right people are working in the right places with the right incentives;
Performance— modernising the operation of government, being clear-eyed about our priorities, and objective in our evaluation of what is and is not working; and
Partnership—strengthening the bond between Ministers and officials, always operating as one team from policy through to delivery, and between central Government and institutions outside it.
The “Declaration on Government Reform” sets out the Government’s ambitions in more detail, with a set of concrete actions under way and more planned for the year ahead. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS93]
Strengthening Transparency and Fairness in Elections
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government’s 2019 manifesto pledged to take steps to protect the integrity of our democracy, tackle electoral fraud, and prevent foreign interference in elections.
Further to the written statements of 12 May 2021 (HCWS10) and 27 May 2021 (HCWS62), I am announcing today further measures to be included in the forthcoming Elections Bill to support public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system, by strengthening and updating political finance and campaigning regulation. This will ensure that our electoral law continues to be fair and transparent.
Political parties
While political parties are already required to give details of their assets and liabilities in their annual accounts, a new requirement will be brought in for new political parties to declare if they have assets and liabilities of over £500 when registering with the Electoral Commission and, if so, to provide details of these. This will allow earlier public scrutiny of their finances and ensure public confidence in the transparency of all political parties’ financial positions.
We will also protect the integrity of spending limits further by prohibiting third-party campaigners—also known as “non-party campaigners”—from additionally registering as a political party. This closes a loophole that was highlighted in the 2019 general election, as a route to access multiple spending limits and unfairly increase spending potential.
Third-party campaigning
All third-party campaigning will be restricted to UK-based campaigners or otherwise eligible campaigners, including overseas electors, further ensuring that only groups with a legitimate interest in UK elections are able to spend money to campaign at UK elections.
In addition, to bring about greater transparency in electoral campaigning, we will introduce a new tier of registration for third-party campaigners. This will require any campaigners spending more than £10,000 during a regulated period to register with the Electoral Commission, ensuring clarity about who is campaigning.
The Government will extend reporting requirements for joint campaigns to cover political parties and third-party campaigners who are working together. This will ensure existing spending limits cannot be unfairly expanded by sharing costs and will rightly increase the transparency of such arrangements.
Candidates
To ensure transparency and fairness around political finance, the Elections Bill will clarify the rules on notional expenditure so that candidates and agents are only liable to report benefits in kind that they have used themselves or have directed or encouraged others to use on their behalf.
Following a Supreme Court ruling in 2018, the current rules in this area have led to widespread uncertainty and risk a democratic chilling effect by discouraging parties from campaigning in marginal constituencies. This clarification will also be extended to other campaigners who are subject to notional expenditure controls. This will defend the British tradition of party leader “soapbox” visits. Expenditure which promotes an individual candidature would continue to count towards a candidate’s own spending limit.
Campaigning material
The Elections Bill will legislate to extend the “imprint” regime to digital campaigning material. The imprint regime ensures there is accountability over who is promoting campaigning material (and on whose behalf), provides a recourse to challenge, and can help discourage the publication of anonymous intimidatory material.
The Government today are publishing a response to the consultation on how digital imprints should be implemented. This is a complex area, given the need to avoid unreasonably restricting the free speech of individuals, or impose disproportionate measures which would discourage political campaigning. These balanced measures on digital imprints will update our campaigning laws for the modern age and protect the integrity of our democratic processes. A copy of the response has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government have engaged with the Electoral Commission, social media companies and political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel in developing all these provisions, and carefully considered policy recommendations made by respondents to the consultation, think tanks and by parliamentary Select Committees.
Overall, these measures strike the right balance between further strengthening our regulatory framework and ensuring democratic engagement in this country can continue to be vibrant and inclusive.
[HCWS92]
United Kingdom Debt Management Office: Business Plan
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The United Kingdom Debt Management Office (DMO) has today published its business plan for the financial year 2021-22. Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the DMO’s website, www.dmo.gov.uk.
[HCWS91]
Public Service Pensions: Government Actuary Review of the Cost Control Mechanism
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government have today published the Government Actuary’s final report on his review of the cost control mechanism.
The Government are committed to providing public service pensions that are fair for public sector workers and for taxpayers. The cost control mechanism was introduced into the valuation process for public service pension schemes in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 following consultation with member representatives. It was designed to ensure a fair balance of risk with regard to the cost of providing defined benefit (DB) public service pension schemes between members of those schemes and the taxpayer.
I commissioned the Government Actuary to conduct a review of the mechanism amidst concerns that it was not operating in line with its original objectives. These objectives are:
To protect taxpayers from unforeseen costs;
To maintain the value of pension schemes to the members;
To provide stability and certainty to benefit levels—the mechanism should only be triggered by “extraordinary, unpredictable events”.
The Government Actuary’s report sets out his findings and makes a number of recommendations on possible changes to the mechanism. The Government will respond to this report in due course.
The report can be found on the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-control-mechanism-government-actuarys-review-final-report.
[HCWS90]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. The time limit on the first debate is one hour.
Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2021.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this order, which was laid before the House on 13 May 2021, be approved.
The question of how we act on climate change is perhaps one of the most pressing issues of our time. Climate change is here—this Government absolutely accept that and are determined that the UK play its part in upholding the Paris Agreement and driving down our own greenhouse gas emissions. This Government are committed to decarbonising the UK economy while of course, at the same time, driving economic growth, and to meeting our ambitious targets for net zero emissions by 2050. We were the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to reach net zero carbon emissions across our economy by 2050, and we have shown that rapid progress on decarbonisation is possible alongside a thriving economy. Our emissions are down by almost 44% across the last 30 years and our economy has grown by 78% during the same period. We are currently in the process of reaching a significant milestone in approving legislation to enshrine the UK’s sixth carbon budget in law, proposing a target that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035, compared to 1990 levels. This is a huge commitment and one which the Government are working flat out to achieve.
Turning to the topic of today’s debate, under the Climate Change Act 2008 the Government must set a limit on the number of international carbon units that can be credited to the net UK carbon account for each budgetary period. These carbon credits represent the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions overseas. The legislation we are debating today sets a limit on the net number of international carbon credits that may be used to meet the fourth carbon budget, which runs from 2023 to 2027. The Climate Change Act, passed with near unanimous support in this House, allows for the flexibility of using carbon credits to meet a carbon budget. The order will set the credit limit for the fourth carbon budget at 55 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is about 2.8% of the total carbon budget. This is the same amount of flexibility as the House agreed for the second and third carbon budget credit limit orders. However, I highlight that this legislation does not commit the UK Government to buying international credits: as we have witnessed with previous carbon budgets, the Government have a strong track record of delivering clean growth and have not used any of our allowances on other budgets to date.
We continue to put forward ambitious plans to meet future carbon budgets, including through our bold sector strategies, and are committed to meeting our world-leading targets through domestic action. Noble Lords should be aware that the credit limit set through this legislation excludes any net use of credits that result from the operation of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. The exclusion is required because, while the UK Emissions Trading Scheme replaced the UK’s participation in the EU ETS on 1 January 2021, Northern Ireland electricity generators continue to participate in the EU ETS and will therefore receive EU ETS allowances within the fourth budgetary period.
The role of the Climate Change Committee in providing independent expert advice to government on climate change mitigation and adaptation is widely accepted as global best practice. The Government’s net zero target covers the whole of the UK, and all four parts of the union have an integral role to play in delivering the Government’s carbon budgets leading up to 2050. As such, we of course also work closely with our partners in the devolved Administrations in order to achieve our climate goals.
In determining the appropriate credit limit for the fourth carbon budget, which is the subject of the present discussion, the Government have considered the advice of the Climate Change Committee and the views of the devolved Administrations. All parties agree that the purchase of international credits should not replace domestic abatement when delivering our net zero target. While the Climate Change Committee and the devolved Administrations recommended a zero-credit limit, the Government have concluded that it is best to maintain a small amount of flexibility over the fourth carbon budget period.
As a Government, we have undertaken our own robust analysis to validate our position and have considered the range of factors required by the Act, including the economic, fiscal, social, scientific and international circumstances. We judge that this flexibility will continue to ensure that the Government can best deliver our carbon targets more effectively and be resilient to unexpected changes in future emissions.
We are extremely grateful to our independent advisers for their expert analysis and advice, and to the devolved Administrations for their valuable ongoing engagement. We look forward to working closely on the fundamental decisions that we will need to take over the coming years in order to drive forward this progress.
The Government recognise the significant advantages that the net zero transition can bring, in addition to the essential benefits of ending our contribution to global warming. Now is the time to double down and decrease our emissions further and faster. Ahead of COP 26, we will bring forward further bold proposals, including our net zero strategy, to cut emissions and create new jobs and industries across the whole country, going further and faster towards building a stronger, more resilient future and protecting our planet for this generation and those to come.
As for the legislation for debate today, the Government’s sustained drive ensures that we are on track for the fourth carbon budget. However, as we have outlined, in our view it is still prudent to allow ourselves a small amount of flexibility in the future in order to manage the uncertainty in emissions projections and to continue to deliver emissions reductions in the most prudent and fair manner for the whole of the UK. I therefore commend this order to the House.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the progress they are making so far and on not drawing down credits from abroad. However, the going might get tougher now. We have probably taken into account quite a lot of the low-hanging fruit, and getting nearer to the target will demand more and more effort.
The resistance of the transport industry to economy in CO2 is notorious. Interestingly, in a referendum this weekend the Swiss voted not to take on board some of the tougher decisions that need to be made if people really are going to economise in the use of transport. Economy is particularly needed in air transport and in diesel and petrol-fuelled motor transport.
The Minister said that we are keeping some overseas credits at our disposal, but could he venture to suggest whether this will really happen? If we undertake to plant 2 million acres of forest in the United Kingdom, we can be fairly certain that that will be done and measured. If we are relying on other countries to take carbon-hungry technologies or practices out of commission, it will be much more difficult to monitor whether they actually do so and whether the climate in fact ends up benefiting.
So, it is good to see that we will rely more on ourselves, because that is only prudent for an economy that prides itself on being at the forefront in this regard. However, if the going is to get harder and as decisions become more difficult—for example, if there are to be restrictions on how and when people use their cars—we will come up against resistance. The Government will need great resolve if they are to stick to their guns and make sure that we secure the anticipated carbon reductions.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has such a breadth of knowledge in this area, particularly in the realm of transport.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out the effect of this order. Before I turn to it, I congratulate the Government on adopting the sixth carbon budget from the Climate Change Committee, covering the five-year period from 2033 to 2037. Doing so will set in law the ambition of slashing emissions by 78% by 2035, based on 1990 emissions levels. Also, significantly, this carbon budget will incorporate the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions for the first time; that is most important. Indeed, this was an issue at Paris and since. I warmly welcome this.
The budget keeps us on track with the Paris Agreement goals. It is important to acknowledge the progress that has been made. We have overachieved against the first and second carbon budgets, and we are on target to outperform against the third. In the light of the significant cuts in greenhouse gases across the economy, in industry in particular and in the power sector, it is worth pausing to congratulate the Government on the success we have had. It is heartening, too, to see the G7 in a better place on this following strong leadership from President Biden and others—including, indeed, our own Prime Minister.
The order relates to the fourth carbon budget, from 2023-27. It limits the net use of carbon units for this budgetary period to 55 million carbon units or 55 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. That sounds concerning, but it follows the approach taken in previous budgets, and we have not used those carbon units at all. I understand that—it provides headroom for flexibility; the only danger, of course, is that it sends out a slightly contrary signal. On the other hand, it is most important that Governments are judged by what they do. Judged on the actions, we have a good story to tell, although more needs to be done.
The Minister and the Government have announced that they do not intend to use this facility, intending instead, as in previous budgets, to draw solely on domestic action to fulfil the ambitious budgets that have been set. I accept totally that this is the Government’s intention, and they are likely to achieve that aim based on past action. I support that flexibility. I accept that there is an argument about the signal sent, but it is more important that we have that flexibility.
Ahead of COP 26, can the Minister please seek to ensure positive action in other areas, in particular promoting electric cars, buses and other forms of transport, and battery storage and production? That is important for achieving our climate change aims, but it would also boost the economy. This follows on from the Stern report during the 2000s, and subsequently it has become clear that it is possible to achieve positive growth at the same time as reducing emissions, as the Government have demonstrated. But it is important that we press ahead with the electric transport market and the battery storage market in particular, in which we can be world leaders.
I want to ask the Minister about two issues. He touched on both but I want to push him a little further, if I may. First, when will we receive the carbon budget for discussion in the House, with a view to ensuring that it is put into legislation? Are we still going to get it by the end of June, as originally intended? If not, when can we expect it? Secondly, will Northern Ireland, to which the Minister referred, continue to be treated separately? I was both an Energy Minister and in the Northern Ireland Office, so I know that the Northern Ireland market is separate. Will a separate position for Northern Ireland present any particular challenges regarding the EU ETS system?
In conclusion, I am keen to encourage the Government to take stronger action ahead of COP 26. We are in a strong position but clearly, more needs to be done. Overachieving in this area is certainly not a bad thing. I strongly support the order before us.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
That was a very interesting introduction from the Minister. I would like to explain the whole concept of urging economic growth when we live on a planet with finite resources, but I will have to leave that for another day. I would like to tackle quite a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that making reductions is going to require more effort, which is absolutely true. He also asked whether we can trust other countries’ measurements—that is a perfectly true point—and talked about a stronger, more resilient future. I would argue that this Government do not have a clue how to get us to that future. It is going to take government resolve, the noble Lord said. Resolve is not something this Government are very good at. They are very good at making promises—and at breaking them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, congratulated the Climate Change Committee on its budget and said that the Government had overachieved. They overachieved by cheating, essentially, by not including shipping or aviation. That is how they cut carbon emissions. Of course, they have now included those, so we might actually get some more accurate figures. The noble Lord also mentioned the G7 and said how wonderful the Government were. The most leaderly thing I saw at the G7 was President Macron telling the UK to honour its treaty promises. Let us hope that the Government will do so.
For me, this statutory instrument is nothing more than an accounting trick that takes us further away from tackling the climate emergency and runaway global heating. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for not listening to the Committee on Climate Change, which said that these credits should be set at zero, as the Minister said. However, the Government knew better and instead of listening to what the Minister called “independent, expert advice” from the committee, chose to do their own “robust analysis” of the situation and came up with a different answer. Which part of government did that robust analysis? I would really like to know, so that I can target my comments a little more closely.
So, instead of following the advice, which was to set these limits at zero, the Government have allowed for an additional 55 million tonnes of CO2 to be spewed into the UK atmosphere and then bought back from other countries. Essentially, the Government are like a fire brigade that says, “We’re going to let these 55 houses burn to the ground, but it’s okay because we’ve paid for 55 houses in other countries to be saved—and it’s cheaper anyway”. That is the most appalling way to run a country and an even worse way of trying to deal with runaway climate change, which is what we are facing. It is absurd to try to trade these things when we should all be racing towards net zero across the world.
The Government talk about showing global leadership, but then they create loopholes to avoid doing much of anything. I accept that they have made moves in the right direction, including adding shipping and aviation when counting CO2 emissions, but how are other countries going to look up to this Government on anything to do with climate change when they will not listen to their own Climate Change Committee, which gives them independent expert advice? Quite honestly, the Government are cheating the system, and I think it is appalling. Each time I get a glimmer of hope that this Government understand the real emergency we are facing and the damage it could do to all of us, the rest of the planet and every economy worldwide, my hopes are dashed by statutory instruments such as this.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument, which could not have been clearer. Its clarity is the reason I oppose the order. It is clear that it is unnecessary, ill-advised and sends precisely the wrong messages about what we as a nation will do when the going gets tough on meeting our climate change targets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and other noble Lords have said, and as the Minister pointed out, it is opposed by the Climate Change Committee, the Government of Scotland and the Government of Wales.
The Government have two arguments that they deploy in favour of these 55 million credits. First, they say they are on track to meet the fourth carbon budget, but they need to have flexibility just in case they do not. The Minister told us that 55 million credits were in place for the second and third carbon budgets. While I think there should be zero credits, in line with the views of the Climate Change Committee, the least the Government could have done is to begin to ratchet them down as a proportion of the budget. The Minister said that they represented 2.8% of the budget; he could have brought that down to 1% or 1.5%, but he and the Government have chosen not to do and are sending very worrying signals about what they will do.
The Minister said, as the Explanatory Memorandum points out at paragraph 7.5, that the UK is currently projected to meet the fourth carbon budget. The Climate Change Committee says that the Government are not on track to meet the fourth or the fifth carbon budget, so I wonder whether he can explain that discrepancy and who is advising the Government on their projections to meet the climate change budget.
The second argument that the Government use is:
“The ability to purchase credits could also enable the UK to support mitigation action in developing countries. A purchase of credits would contribute to the development of a global carbon market, which would reduce the global cost of action on climate change.”
This is of course an utterly spurious argument. Nothing would prevent the Government, if they set the credit limit at zero, purchasing credits and contributing to supporting developing countries in this way. This measure is a “get out of jail free” card for the Government when they start finding things difficult, and it is clear that things are going to be much more difficult politically if we are to meet our targets. We all know that. We know that the decarbonisation of our economy to date has been driven largely by the decarbonisation of the power sector. Although that has had impacts on the public, they have been indirect, and they are very different from what will happen as we move forward.
We absolutely need a signal of resolution from the Government and not a signal that they have a way out of this, not least because we are talking here about the fourth carbon budget, which, as I have said, the Climate Change Committee says we are not on track to meet. The fifth and sixth carbon budgets are much more demanding. If the Government are giving themselves wriggle room already on these budgets, it sends a very worrying signal.
There is an Arab proverb which I often quote in the context of climate change, because it is very apposite: commitments are cloud, but implementation is rain. This Government are extremely good at making commitments; they are extremely poor at bringing forward the actions needed to implement them. Not only are they bad at acting to implement them; they often do the opposite. Whether it is air passenger duty, coal mines or in other areas, not only do they not act but they do not signal the action that is needed. I hope that we can retain the cross-party consensus that existed when we set these targets, so that we can act to meet them. But we all need to work together and show absolute commitment to doing that, and we must not give ourselves wriggle room to get out of the commitments we have made.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Once again, the Committee meets to consider important matters concerning climate change. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order before us. It follows the well-worn pathway of setting credit limits for the first three carbon budgets of 55 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent as flexibility insurance in meeting the UK’s legal obligations. As we have seen, there has been no need to utilise these credits for the first two carbon budgets, and the UK is on target to meet the third carbon budget. The Government are to be congratulated on that. They are also to be congratulated on accepting the advice of the Climate Change Committee on setting the carbon budgets. Last week, the committee approved a sixth carbon budget for the years 2032 to 2037. This CCC advice was endorsed also by the devolved Administrations.
However, there, the congratulations must end. It has not been generally accepted, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, queried, that the Government are on course to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets and they have had to have a reset, with additional targets, to get back on track, as we discussed last week. The Government have gathered in the low-hanging fruit from earlier years, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and done the least development possible, paring back the budget and policies from necessary support for climate action.
The Government have now responded on the realisation of the climate emergency by setting net-zero targets for 2050 in accordance with the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, but they continue with self-congratulatory rhetoric, setting targets without clear action plans. As we discussed last week, they must come forward with policies, plans and strategies and engage in meeting these budget commitments.
It must be recognised that this order, which sets the traditional credit limit, goes against the advice of the Climate Change Committee, which was again endorsed by the devolved Administrations. That advice was to set a nil credit limit—that is, not to allow the purchase of carbon credits from overseas. Yes, none has been required in the past, but the CCC is right in its determination that the UK must meet its carbon emissions reductions domestically. It recommended that international emissions credits should not be allowed to be used to meet the fourth carbon budget and, furthermore, that any surplus from the third carbon budget should not be carried forward.
It is recognised that the UK Government intend to meet the new NDC and the 2030 target without the use of international credits. Inventory uncertainty projections and forecast inaccuracies are also recognised —they have always existed—but it is now time for clear actions, real leadership and determined signalling that the UK is meeting its obligations entirely through its own domestic obligations, as well as now taking the lead on international aviation and shipping.
I have just one question on the future development of policy. One necessary priority must be the development of batteries and energy storage; the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, identified this in his appreciation of this order. Can the Minister outline where and in which strategy and plan this priority will be answered by government plans, among the many opportunities they have identified?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call the Minister. Oh—my apologies.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am nearly finished.
The reasons given in the Explanatory Memorandum for continuing with budgetary insurance are no longer convincing. Sufficient flexibility must be managed through domestic commitments; offsetting is not a sustainable way forward. Unforeseen circumstances cannot provide a justification, and the UK has not previously contributed to the development of the global carbon market with any impact. The opportunity to purchase credits will only diminish as the world steps up with commitments to decarbonise. Consider the damage that would ensue should the Government need to go ahead with a carbon credit. They must self-insure and develop robust policies and plans to meet all the carbon budgets with clarity and certainty.
This is a missed opportunity that the Government could have taken as a decisive step, in this decisive decade, toward emissions reductions. This conclusion was also recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in her remarks. The 2030 NDCs submitted at the UNFCCC last December should have set the tone. The sixth carbon budget will require more ambition and the pace of change to accelerate over the coming years. The confidence that could have been set by a zero-credit limit in this order needs to be corrected by the determination and announcement of policy developments before COP 26 later this year. I look forward to seeing the UK outperform and deliver. Labour understands the size of the task. The challenge is set.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank all noble Lords for their extremely valuable contributions to this debate.
This year, we in the UK find ourselves in the privileged position of being the president of the G7 and the host of COP 26. We are determined to use these key international moments, as noble Lords saw at the G7 earlier this week, to promote ambitious action to deliver the transformational change required by the Paris Agreement. In line with this, it is imperative that we continue to be bold and ambitious in not only our commitments but our actions, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, pointed out, to deliver progress against climate change.
To reiterate what I said earlier, our position remains that the Government intend to meet all our targets through domestic abatement. International credits merely afford us a potential flexibility to ensure a cost-effective approach to reducing carbon emissions when managing uncertainty in historic and future emissions.
As usual, we have had a very interesting debate. I will pick up on some of the points raised. We acknowledge the progress pointed to by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bourne, and the success we have had so far in decarbonising the UK economy to date. Many developing countries plan to sell credits in future, but my noble friend is absolutely right that these must be of the very highest quality. We are using our international climate finance to ensure that developing countries have the capacity to meet this bar and access finance through the carbon market.
On the action that the Government are taking to decarbonise transport, which my noble friend Lord Bourne also asked about, we recently announced that the UK is embarking on a comprehensive transport decarbonisation plan. This will be a bold, ambitious programme of the co-ordinated action needed to end the UK’s transport greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and, at the same time, ensure that the transport sector plays its part in delivering our legally binding carbon budgets. The plan will think in terms of not only modes of transport but technology and places. Part 1 of the plan was published in March 2020, with part 2, containing policies and proposals, expected to be published shortly.
We will also commit to communicating our public engagement approach to our net-zero strategy to generate widespread awareness, and, hopefully, acceptance, across the UK, because achieving the net-zero target will be a shared endeavour requiring action from everyone in society—people, businesses and government. Therefore, we are increasing our work on public engagement on net zero, both in communicating the challenge and in giving people a say on shaping future policies.
I have addressed a number of my noble friend Lord Bourne’s questions, but I am sorry to tell him that he missed the debate on the most recent carbon budget. It was debated in this House last week; the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Grantchester, were present, with a couple of other Peers. It still has to go to the House of Commons, but I am afraid that my noble friend has missed his opportunity to contribute to that one.
On Northern Ireland and the emissions trading scheme, Northern Ireland power plants have remained in the ETS under the Northern Ireland protocol, but all other emissions in Northern Ireland remain under the UK Government’s coverage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked why we chose not to set a credit limit at zero tonnes, as was recommended by the Climate Change Committee. I can tell her that the Government intend to meet our net-zero target and our interim carbon budgets through cutting our domestic carbon emissions. As I said earlier, we are simply choosing to maintain the limited tools that we already have under the Climate Change Act to ensure that we can deliver on our carbon targets at the lowest possible cost, including the option of using international credits. Our internal analysis reaffirmed that this level is suitable to account for any potential uncertainties.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, implied that we could have sought to deliver a lower level for the credit limit order. Again, I remind him that our analysis indicates that any lower level might not provide sufficient flexibility to manage the uncertainty associated with the inventory using only credits.
The noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Grantchester, asked whether the Government are on track to meet carbon budgets 4 and 5. We are taking decisive action to ensure that we deliver on both. Ahead of COP 26, we will set out our ambitious plans across key sectors of the economy, such as the energy White Paper and the industrial decarbonisation strategy. These will build on the strong recent progress that we set out in the 10-point plan and will culminate with the net-zero strategy later in the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about future carbon budgets. I remind him that this current legislation only concerns carbon budget 4, of course. We will consider the limit for carbon budgets 5 and 6 at the appropriate times in the future, using analysis that is relevant to the context at the time.
The noble Lord also raised the use of other flexibilities in the Climate Change Act 2008. In response, I want to make it clear that we have no intention of using any other flexibilities afforded to us through the Act and we intend to meet our ambitious targets purely through domestic action.
I conclude by saying that, as I mentioned in my opening speech, this statutory instrument effectively continues the status quo, setting the same credit limit that we have held but not used for carbon budgets 1 to 3. This status quo has allowed the Government to deliver world-leading emissions reductions and encourage similar ambition in other countries across the world. I therefore commend this draft order to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 12 May 2021, be approved.
The statutory instrument we are debating today implements important aspects of international trade agreements within the Government’s trade continuity programme, ensuring continuity for UK businesses. This includes certain mutual recognition agreements that have been signed with the USA, Australia and New Zealand along with a free trade agreement with Korea that contains relevant conformity assessment provisions. The UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement also include protocols on the mutual recognition of conformity assessment. From hereon in, I will refer to the mutual recognition elements of all of these agreements as MRAs.
These MRAs support trade in goods between the UK and its partners by reducing technical barriers to trade. Importantly, they do so in a way that protects the UK’s robust product safety system. The UK’s product safety legislation requires certain products to be assessed to ensure that they meet requirements in that legislation; sometimes, this assessment is required to be done by third parties. MRAs can reduce barriers by allowing this conformity assessment to be undertaken by a body based in the UK for export to the relevant country. We make the same arrangements for our partners under the agreement so that procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs are accepted for our domestic regulations.
This SI also implements one aspect of the UK’s free trade agreements in the broader trade continuity programme. As part of the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, we will give greater flexibility to importers of a traditional Japanese spirit called single-distilled Shōchū. The SI amends specified quantity requirements applying in Great Britain so that bottles of single-distilled Shōchū may be placed on the market in Great Britain in one of the traditional Japanese bottle sizes of 900 millilitres.
Let me now address each of these areas in more detail, starting with the measures we are taking both to recognise overseas bodies and to appoint UK bodies under these MRAs before moving on to the measures we are taking for single-distilled Shōchū bottle sizes.
To begin, let me address provisions for goods in scope of the UK’s MRAs that are assessed by UK conformity assessment bodies for export overseas. This SI provides for the Secretary of State to designate CABs as competent to assess that certain goods comply with the regulatory requirements of our partners under the MRAs as set out in a schedule to the SI.
For example, this means that where a UK-based CAB would like to be recognised by the Australian authorities as capable to assess goods under Australian machinery requirements, the body can apply to UKAS, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, to be accredited as fit to test against those Australian requirements. The Secretary of State may then designate the body under the UK’s MRA with Australia to assess machinery for export to Australia. As a result, a UK manufacturer that uses the services of that UK CAB can now use the same body to do its accreditation for the Australian market and does not need to identify and start contracting with a CAB actually operating in Australia. Therefore, manufacturers are able to place products on the Australian market more cost-effectively, potentially passing those savings on to consumers.
I now move on to consider provisions for goods coming into the UK. Under the MRAs, the UK recognises the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs against domestic regulations. This SI makes it clear that assessments carried out by a recognised body based in one of our partner countries should be treated as equivalent to those carried out by a UK-approved body when relevant products are sold in Great Britain. These regulations do not change the detail of the requirements for third-party assessment, nor do they amend any requirements related to a product’s specifications. This means that the UK will maintain its robust product safety protections while continuing to reduce barriers to trade with our partners. The benefits are potentially significant here: trade with our MRA partners in radio equipment alone amounted to nearly £2 billion in 2019, although, of course, not all of these products will have required conformity assessment by a third party.
The regulations also provide for the Secretary of State to create a register of CABs that the UK recognises under the MRAs, defined as MRA bodies. This is communicated via the UK Market CAB database, a publicly available resource that can be used by businesses and regulators to verify quickly the status of CABs. These regulations also provide for Canadian accreditation bodies recognised by the UK under the UK-Canada Trade Continuity Agreement to be listed on the Government’s website.
This SI also provides that the Secretary of State, or a person authorised to act on their behalf, may disclose information to the other party to an MRA where required by an MRA. For example, we may communicate information regarding goods from the USA which have been suspended by UK enforcement authorities, as part of our co-operation commitments in the MRA with the USA. Disclosure will be made in accordance with data protection legislation.
This SI provides for a product known as single-distilled Shōchū, a spirit which is single distilled, produced by pot still and bottled in Japan, to be placed on the market in Great Britain in an additional bottle size, 900 millilitres. Prior to the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, single-distilled Shōchū bottled in Japan had been permitted in Great Britain, but only in quantities of 720 millilitres or 1,800 millilitres, in addition to the usual specified quantities for prepacked spirits. Providing for sale of this traditional bottle size was very important to Japan during negotiations of the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. This artisanal product is already on sale across the UK in other bottle sizes, so this change should not have a significant impact on consumers in Great Britain.
I shall now speak to the territorial scope of these regulations. For some provisions, the regulations will make amendments for Great Britain only, while others extend to the whole of the UK. Regulations 4 and 5, relating to recognition of conformity assessment by relevant overseas CABs, extend to Great Britain only. Northern Ireland will continue to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures done under the mutual recognition agreements between the EU and the relevant third country. This is in accordance with the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement. Regulation 6, relating to the Secretary of State’s power to designate UK-based bodies under these agreements, will extend to the whole of the UK. CABs across the UK can therefore be designated under the MRAs.
Regulation 7, relating to information sharing, will also extend to the whole of the UK, to enable the Secretary of State to share relevant information required under the MRAs. Regulations 8 and 9, amending the permitted bottle sizes for single-distilled Shōchū, extends to Great Britain only. In accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol, single-distilled Shōchū will continue to be permitted on the Northern Ireland market in 720-millilitre and 1,800-millilitre bottle sizes, in addition to the usual specified quantities for prepacked spirits.
In conclusion, we are introducing these regulations to give effect to provisions which keep our barriers to trade low with some of our significant trading partners. As I have said, we do this while preserving our robust protections for product safety, as a responsible Government. This SI will provide certainty on the UK’s approach to recognising and designating CABs for certain products under the MRAs, as well as making necessary amendments to allow the 900-millilitre bottle size of single-distilled Shōchū to be placed on the market in Great Britain. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend the Minister, who set out the purposes of these regulations fully and clearly. First, I draw attention to the register of interests in that I am the UK co-chairman of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. As that may imply, I wish to speak only to Part 3 of these regulations, which relates to Shōchū.
I raised an issue relating to this towards the conclusion of the passage of the then Trade Bill—now the Trade Act 2021—because of the implications of timing. Before I get to that, my noble friend explained Shōchū, which is a distilled liquor that is stronger than sake but not as strong as whisky. As he said, it is an artisanal product in Japan. The bottles in which it is prepared and sold there are an integral part of its overall presentation, so I completely understand why this was something that our Japanese friends particularly wanted to see made available in this country in the same way as it would be sold and marketed in Japan.
For those who are of a certain turn of mind, I realise that I have 10 minutes but I promise not to take up all the time available. One of the perversities of our Hybrid Sittings is that the less you have to say, the more time you have to say it. Last week, I had to talk about the carbon budget in seven minutes, but by contrast I now have 10 minutes to talk about Shōchū. Such is life.
Those with an interest in the media may recall the 1956 American film “The Teahouse of the August Moon”, with Marlon Brando and Glenn Ford, which looked in a whimsical way at the American occupation of Japan after the war. Of course, the teahouse in fact purveyed not tea but sweet potato Shōchū—and a successful film it was, too.
The question that came up in the Trade Bill debates was that, in the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, the relevant Annexe 2-D—for the benefit of those who want to go and look for it, it is on page 693 of the agreement—makes it clear that the United Kingdom is obligated to make the traditional bottle of five gō available in the United Kingdom; one gō is 180 millilitres, so five gō is the 900-millilitre bottles. The relevant footnote to that obligation says:
“The United Kingdom shall expeditiously take necessary steps to ensure the fulfilment of this obligation and shall notify Japan no later than 90 days after the date of entry into force of this Agreement of the completion of its domestic procedures necessary for the fulfilment of this obligation.”
The point at issue then was that the Trade Bill was going beyond 90 days. In the event, the 90 days were up on 30 March this year, the Trade Bill did not receive Royal Assent until 29 April, these regulations was laid on 12 May and we are approving them on 15 June. I think no harm is done, and our Japanese friends have been entirely understanding at each stage that we have trespassed beyond the 90 days and of why we have done so. For the benefit of those writing trade agreements in future, it would probably be best if they put timetables in and related them to the completion of the parliamentary procedures rather than the entry into force because the entry into force was done under a provisional application prior to parliamentary scrutiny.
The only other point I want to make is that, as my noble friend said, there is a different territorial aspect to this. By virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol, we cannot in this agreement, which is a continuity-plus agreement, vary the rules as they apply in the European Union single market, so the traditional five-gō bottle will be available in Great Britain but will not be available in Northern Ireland. As it happens, this is not strictly consistent with the text of the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, which states:
“Single distilled shochu … produced by pot still and bottled in Japan, shall be allowed to be placed on the market of the United Kingdom in traditional bottles of four go … five go … or one sho.”
One shō is 1,800 millilitres. There is a discontinuity between the text of the agreement, the treaty as such and what we are able to fulfil in our domestic procedures. That is a pity. Given that this is the first time we have had a continuity-plus agreement implemented into legislation, it has in a very modest way illustrated the complexity of the problems that we will have to encounter if the Northern Ireland protocol continues to impose these kinds of distinctions between the Great Britain market and the Northern Ireland market.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their contributions thus far to this debate.
As we have heard, these regulations give effect to mutual recognition agreements between the UK and the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Korea and Japan. The regulations also allow specific products assessed by those bodies in countries recognised under MRAs to be placed on the market in Great Britain and enable the Secretary of State to designate and monitor UK conformity assessment bodies to assess products against the other party’s requirements.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that these regulations are the first use of the power to implement free trade agreements under Sections 2 and 4 of the Trade Act 2021. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, commented, the instrument also implements Annexe 2-D of the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement by allowing single-distilled Shōchū to be placed on the market in the UK in the new quantity of 900 millilitres. I recognise that this an important statutory instrument for both businesses and consumers, with continuity and certainty even more important now as we look ahead to 19 July and our hopes for the beginning of the end of the current restrictions. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on a few areas.
In relation to UK policy on conformity assessment and accreditation of the situation under EU law as it applies in NI, the regulations set out the requirements for the accreditation of market surveillance as it applies in EU law to the Northern Ireland protocol. That continues to be the basis for accreditation policy. If there are any changes to the UK policy in future, will they require an assessment of the implications of any trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and how is that being considered?
In respect of registers of MRA bodies, the statutory instrument states:
“The Secretary of State may … compile and maintain a register of … MRA bodies … their MRA body identification numbers … the activities for which they have been designated; and … any restriction on those activities”.
Can the Minister confirm where he has outlined, or whether he will outline, the activities for which MRA bodies have been designated and what restrictions there are on those activities? The Secretary of State will also be able to designate a conformity assessment body—CAB—to assess products against other countries’ requirements. What criteria will the Minister use to consider whether the body is capable of fulfilling those functions and to ensure that it meets the requirements of a designated body? What parliamentary oversight will that body have?
The statutory instrument states:
“To the extent that these Regulations contain provision in the areas of the protection of human or animal life or health or environmental protection, the provision is consistent with maintaining UK levels of statutory protection in that area.”
However, in Section 2(7) of the Trade Act, UK statutory protection also extends to
“plant life or health … animal welfare … employment and labour”.
Do these regulations not cover those areas?
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The main direct cost to business will be the familiarisation cost associated with these Regulations; these are a one-off cost, estimated at £205,000.”
Does this fall equally on large companies and SMEs?
On divergence, the UK MRAs replicate the previous EU MRAs in substance, with the only substantive divergence from the EU being in the permission to allow the additional bottle size for single-distilled Shōchū. This poses the broader question of whether the UK could take a different approach to conformity assessments in future.
On 1 January 2021, the UK introduced its own product safety mark, which broadly mirrors the EU’s CE mark. According to the law firm Bird & Bird, the UK conformity assessment regime
“follows essentially the same principles as the previous CE marking regime, but with the safety and compliance standards, authorised representative/responsible person and notified body requirements all now being valid for the UK only.”
Despite being a UK ask, the EU-UK deal did not include an agreement on the mutual recognition of conformity assessments. This means that most goods produced in the UK that require certification for sale in the EU will have to go through a secondary conformity assessment in the EU in order to be eligible for export, resulting in extra costs to trade with our main trading partner. A lack of MRAs is unusual for comparable deals such as those between the EU and Japan, Canada and Switzerland, which all have MRAs. Even countries such as Australia and the US, which do not have trade deals with the EU, have MRAs. Does the Minister regret not having an MRA in the TCA? Will the UK continue to share information on CABs with the EU? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate.
It is clear from what I said initially and from the contributions that this SI will maintain our robust product safety framework at the same time as reducing barriers to trade with some of our key trading partners. It does this by providing for the recognition in Great Britain of overseas conformity assessments for certain products under an MRA, while overseas bodies will be recognised in Northern Ireland under their country’s MRA with the EU; providing for the Secretary of State to designate UK CABs to assess against the requirements of our trading partners for certain products under an MRA; and amending rules in Great Britain to allow a traditional Japanese spirit to be imported in a 900-millilitre bottle size. In supporting this SI, we keep our trade restrictions low so that our manufacturers and consumers benefit from arrangements to minimise the duplication of conformity assessments.
My noble friend Lord Lansley noted with regard to Part 3 of the regulations, on Shōchū, that that amendment has been delayed beyond 30 March. As he pointed out, we let the relevant Japanese Ministries know that we were unable to implement the obligation by 31 March. As a fellow parliamentary democracy, Japan understood that it was important that the UK Parliament be able to appropriately debate the Trade Bill before we could introduce that provision. On my noble friend’s question about the distinction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, he is correct that 5 gō bottles of 900 millilitres may be placed on the market only in Great Britain. I can tell my noble friend that there is express provision in the UK-Japan CEPA that applies in the event of inconsistency between the CEPA and the Northern Ireland protocol.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked whether changes in accreditation policy would affect Northern Ireland trade. The Secretary of State will consider the UK body’s competence against the partner country’s legislative, regulatory and administrative requirements. In making this judgment, he will of course consider the expert advice of the UK’s national accreditation body. The Trade Act provides for product safety and labour recognition, et cetera, and are they captured, to answer his other question. He noted that there are specifications in the Trade Act, and this SI maintains UK statutory protection. Where the specified regulations relate to protection of human health, human life, animal health or environmental protection, foreign CABs must assess against our existing domestic requirements. This is in accordance with our previous approach to MRAs.
The noble Lord also asked whether the UK could take a different approach to conformity assessments in future. In relation to MRAs, this SI is all about providing continuity for businesses. The UK is able to make its own policy decisions on conformity assessment and accreditation now that we have left the EU. Any future changes would be based on the UK’s best interests, with due consideration, of course, of any impact on the UK’s internal market. The noble Lord asked about the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. Despite the UK ask, the EU-UK deal did not include an MRA. This is regrettable and will result in an extra cost to trade. As he noted, the UK sought such an agreement, but we were unable to secure it there.
I hope that that answers all noble Lords’ questions on this legislation, and I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations, Tariff Quotas and Wine) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations, Tariff Quotas and Wine) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this instrument applies to retained EU law relating to the common agricultural policy, including the common organisation of the markets, or CMO. It uses powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to correct deficiencies in retained EU law and enable functions to be exercised by UK public authorities.
First, the instrument fixes an error relating to the commencement of Part 4 of the Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. There is doubt as to whether the amendments made by Part 4 of that instrument came into force, as intended, at the end of the transition period due to the error in the commencement provision of the instrument. To put this matter beyond doubt and ensure that the retained EU legislation has been amended as intended, this instrument revokes and remakes the amendments that Part 4 of the Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 purported to make. Those amendments concerned fruit and vegetable producer groups, fruit and vegetable producer organisations and notifications of agricultural market information to domestic authorities. The instrument also revokes and remakes some provisions made by the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 concerning fruit and vegetable producer organisations that may not have taken effect due to the commencement error in Part 4 of Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Additionally, this instrument remakes amendments to EU regulations relating to the fruit and vegetable and processed fruit and vegetable sectors and the fruit and vegetable producer organisation aid scheme, including, among other things, activities that can be funded under the scheme, the amount of aid that can be claimed and the requirements that the producer organisation must meet to be eligible for funding. No policy changes are made through these amendments; they simply minimise any ambiguity in the rules, which will apply to this legacy scheme in the UK until it is switched off in England.
The instrument also amends retained EU legislation to make specific provision for transnational producer organisations implementing an ongoing operational programme to continue to receive aid in respect of all their members based in the UK and the EU until the end of their ongoing operational programmes. These amendments are required to prevent the retained EU legislation being operationally deficient as a result of the application of Article 138 of the withdrawal agreement to ongoing operational programmes.
The instrument also remakes amendments to EU Regulation 2017/1185 to ensure that Defra and the devolved Administrations can continue to obtain certain production and price data from economic operators. The information is used for market management purposes. Defra and the devolved Administrations intend to maintain the collection and use of this information in the UK.
I turn now to the provisions that concern the administration of tariff rate quotas. The specified EU law relevant to this instrument sets out broad provisions on the administration of export tariff quotas that result from international agreements. The instrument seeks to make operability amendments, which are needed to give the Secretary of State the power to make detailed provisions in a future instrument for the administration of export licences for UK goods imported into third countries under tariff rate quotas, such as UK cheese imported into the United States. This in turn will allow UK exporters to continue to benefit from preferential market access, although other powers will be needed to ensure that traders in the Crown dependencies can access such quotas.
These amendments replace references to “EU” with “UK” and remove references to the administration of import tariff rate quotas, as these are covered by regulations made under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. No policy changes are made by these provisions.
I turn now to the provisions concerning wine. We have included a minor change to entry 1 of the table at Annexe 9A of retained Regulation 1308/2013. This change will make it clear that the established wines referred to are those recognised as
“established protected designation of origin”
and “established protected geographical indications” of the type referred to in Article 107(2) of retained Regulation 1308/2013.
I hope I have assured your Lordships that this is a simple instrument needed to correct remaining inoperabilities in retained EU law to create an operable legislative framework to manage and administer many aspects of agricultural policy. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that clear explanation—a fascinating defence of correcting an error. It is in the spirit of recognising that she has clearly done a lot of work on this that I simply want to ask a few questions and draw her attention to a number of issues relevant to the statutory instrument.
I should add that my interests in the wine trade elements of the statutory instrument stretch back to being a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that looked into the wine trade in the UK and Europe, as well as to my membership of the Haberdashers’ Company wine committee. It is in that context that I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister a number of questions. I do so in gratitude to the WSTA, which has provided some very good briefings over recent months, as we have returned to this subject in the space of just two months to correct the error that my noble friend has kindly brought to the attention of the Committee.
The most significant change from leaving the single market has been the introduction of wine export certificates for English and Welsh wine exports to the EU. While the TCA has introduced a simplified certification regime that can be self-certified by producers without the need for costly laboratory analysis, which would have been the default outcome had the TCA not been agreed, the simplified system is still in my view—and in the view of many in the industry—paper-based but unnecessary. No other category of alcoholic drink is required to have an additional import certificate when entering the EU or the UK. I see no reason to maintain the requirement for wine coming into the UK.
The UK and the EU should surely agree on the forms that should now be scrapped completely for movements of wine between the two but, failing that, there is provision in the TCA to develop an electronic system, which we have debated in previous Committees on this subject. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is being developed as a matter of urgency, hopefully by the end of the year.
The second item I want to raise—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, will also raise this when she follows me—is the moving of goods into Northern Ireland. This is still a significant issue, as is well known to the Committee and the House. The Northern Ireland protocol requires goods sold in Northern Ireland to have a Northern Ireland or EU 27 food business operator identified on the label, but UK excise rules require an excise duty stamp as proof of payment of excise duty. This means that English producers must either produce specific labels for Northern Ireland or “oversticker”, which is costly and bureaucratic. Of course, there is a solution: get rid of excise stamps for spirits, since no other category of alcoholic drink requires proof of payment of excise duty.
Attached to the statutory instrument were a number of documents which the Government have published, technical notices which helped people prepare for the end of the transition period. In the spirit of removing ambiguities, I close by gently pointing out that, on the food and drink labelling changes, there is a guidance note on completing the wine exports self-certificate, which everyone now has to complete. It says with regard to box 7:
“Only complete this section if the place of unloading is different from the consignee’s address you entered in Box 2.”
However, box 2 is for the serial number. Perhaps officials could have a little look at that to make sure that the next edition of that form, which is now required, is corrected. But in the spirit of thanking my noble friend for bringing this statutory instrument to the attention of the Committee and removing ambiguities that had otherwise existed, I confirm that I support the statutory instrument and I think that both he and his officials have done some excellent work in clearing up the uncertainty—not necessarily an error, but an uncertainty—that has led to this statutory instrument.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on this issue. I note that this instrument, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, would amend several retained EU regulations relating to the common agricultural policy and the common organisation of agricultural markets for the fruit and vegetable producer organisations aid scheme. Basically, in my humble opinion, they seem to deal with marketing operating measures. I further note that, according to some research, this SI and previous related regulations are essential to prevent significant disruption at the end of the transition period.
The Minister stated that the regulations would not introduce new policy but would preserve the regime for supporting rural development, as well as updating other aspects of retained EU law to reflect amendments made by the EU in 2019 and 2020. In fact, the Minister in the other place, Victoria Prentis, made referrence to that fact and stated it directly as part of her contribution to that debate in the other place. Before moving to the actual SI, which I know is striving to remove those ambiguities as we proceed on the path following our exit from the EU, it is important that economic stability is created within the farming sector. For the landowners, the tenant farmers who are the producers, for the wider rural network and then for the processers, retailers and consumers, it is important that this legislation allows that to happen.
I hope the Minister can provide assurances to the Committee that this will underpin our agricultural and agri-food industry. Maybe she can provide an update on this issue in tandem with the implementation of the Agriculture Act of last year. Only last week, we had a debate in your Lordships’ House on the Hungry for Change report, where we discussed the need for the Government to be working with charitable organisations and other bodies in both the central and local government sectors to ensure greater accessibility to environmentally sustainable food for all at a reasonable cost. I am in no doubt that we all need to work together to develop a food system that becomes resilient to shocks in our system and to safeguard all our communities and people. Will the Minister indicate that this SI will enable us along the road to do just that? Will she provide assurances to that effect?
Moving on to the SI, I note that the regulations contained therein will fix an error relating to the commencement of Part 4 of the Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Will the Minister elaborate on the nature of the error, why it has to be corrected and how this correction will contribute to the marked importance of agricultural products to the rural and wider economy?
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the Northern Ireland protocol, the attendant issues that have arisen out of Brexit and the difficulties for products being imported into Northern Ireland from GB because Northern Ireland will still have to adhere to EU rules. Therefore, with the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, where agri-food products are governed by this instrument, what is the relationship between it and the protocol? I presume that Northern Ireland will continue to be governed under the original EU rules.
We do not want any trading barriers between Northern Ireland and GB and vice versa. Therefore, could the Minister indicate whether, in negotiations with the EU, the Government will pursue a Swiss-style arrangement with it, which would eradicate a large proportion of the problems for SPS?
Furthermore, will this instrument ensure that Defra and the devolved Administrations continue to obtain certain production and price data from economic operators, and how will this manifest itself? What will be the intersection between this statutory instrument and the common frameworks for agricultural support; food labelling and compositional standards; plant health and varieties; and seeds? I indicate my interest as a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. Can the Minister provide an update in relation to this matter as well?
It is worth noting that many of these SIs, which deal with EU exit matters, coincide with many of the issues of divergence that are covered by common frameworks. It is further interesting to note that a large proportion of these frameworks relate to Defra and are at very early stages. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to indicate when we will receive the final frameworks for scrutiny. Why are they being held up? Perhaps she could write to me on those particular issues—I look forward to that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful and delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I commend my noble friend for so eloquently introducing the regulations before us today and correcting, in her inimitable way, the earlier error, which we appreciate greatly. I always hesitate when any noble friend responding to these debates claims that these are technical not policy changes: there is one policy change that I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on when these regulations possibly come before us again.
I have a number of questions for my noble friend. Paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Defra has engaged with the Devolved Administrations on its approach to CAP legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.
My first question is: what has the nature and exact form of that consultation and engagement been? I do not just refer to the devolved Administrations: what representations have been heard by, or consultation had with, the relevant agricultural representatives covered by the regulations?
My noble friend said that the existing regulations will eventually be switched off. What will the timeframe for the regulations be? Is it bound by the new reforms that we are currently looking at in the form of ELMS and replacing the CAP provisions? It would be interesting to have that confirmed.
Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan and indeed as my noble friend the Minister encouraged us to do yesterday, when she so wittingly and carefully looked at this—I have taken a leaf out of her book and am grateful to her for making this suggestion—I have taken the opportunity to look at some of the technical notes. I particularly looked at those on the UK transition —I am not sure whether I am entirely the wiser as a result—and the food and drink labelling changes.
My first question relates to the provision for honey. The guidance states that GB honey is no longer to be called EU honey but a “blend of EU honeys”, a “blend of non-EU honeys” or a
“blend of EU and non-EU honeys”.
Can my noble friend make a guesstimate of the cost of this? I note that paragraph 12.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that no impact assessment has been prepared and that the department is
“confident that the changes … fall below the £5m per annum threshold for net direct costs to business”.
However, if it applies to honey—I will come to the wine industry in a minute—it could be a sizeable cost. It would be interesting to know why no impact assessment has been done.
Assuming that there is a cost to having these labelling provisions, because one label will be prepared for the EU/Northern Ireland market and another prepared for the British market, could these costs not be extinguished if we signed up to the SPS provisions of the EU? If the Government felt unable to do that, could we not sign up to the less onerous provisions agreed under what I call the New Zealand version, as a deal has been done between New Zealand and the EU with what I understand are less onerous provisions than the SPS provisions of the rest of the EU? A lot of producers would like to know why, if they are good enough for New Zealand and the EU, they are not good enough for British exports to Northern Ireland and the EU.
I will briefly come on to wine—and who would not want to? It is interesting to note that the original reason many people were persuaded to join the European Union was to get cheaper wine. Now we are told that we should embrace the UK-Australia free trade agreement because we will get cheaper wine. I hope we will get more exports of Scotch whisky to Australia by the same token. With reference to the requirement for different SKUs for the different markets—which for wine means different labels, provisions and costs—which I am sure my noble friend will recall we discussed when this matter was last debated some weeks ago, a very simple provision could be introduced which would require a UK address on the label, as is currently allowed for food and drink, making one UK label acceptable for both the UK and the EU market.
I respectfully ask my noble friend why we cannot do this for wine. I know that my honourable friend the Minister in the other place, Victoria Prentis, has met the wine industry and warm words were exchanged. While warm words are welcome, we need hard action. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on the suggestion which, I repeat, has been made on a number of occasions by the wine sector and would save it an awful lot of bother and cost. We could simply make that provision in the new label.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this instrument, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, would amend several retained EU regulations relating to the common agricultural policy and the common organisation of agricultural markets, which is a fruit and vegetable producer organisation aid scheme. It fixes an error relating to the commencement of Part 4 of the agriculture payments EU regulations 2020.
This instrument remakes some amendments made by the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products regulations relating to fruit and vegetable producer organisations that did not take effect due to the commencement error outlined previously. It makes amendments relating to transnational producer organisations taking part in the fruit and vegetable producer organisation aid scheme. It amends legislation relating to trade provisions to allow for the administration of tariff quotas for agricultural products.
There was an error in the previous instrument. The error included in the regulations led to doubt as to whether the provisions included in Part 4 took effect on the implementation period’s completion date. If Part 4 did not commence on the implementation period’s completion date as intended, it could have a knock-on effect for some provisions included in the regulations. This instrument puts this matter beyond doubt and ensures that there is legal certainty that the retained EU legislation has been amended as intended.
Finally, the Agriculture Minister has stated that the regulations were essential to prevent significant disruption at the end of the transition period. The Minister also stated that the regulations would not introduce new policy but would preserve the regime and support development. Can the Minister explain who made this error and what it has cost?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful introduction to these regulations. They are, as she says, broadly technical in nature, correcting, in that now familiar phrase, “errors and deficiencies” in previous SIs. While I cannot claim to have reread all the previous SIs that are corrected here, I looked back at the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1446), as the EM suggested in paragraph 7.5 that they should be read in conjunction with each other. Then I discovered that the earlier SI was correcting errors and deficiencies in a previous SI. Now we seem to be correcting errors and deficiencies in previous errors and deficiencies. It makes one wonder how the organisations affected by these changes ever keep abreast of the layers of these amendments. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is far from an ideal situation.
Given where we are, I have a few questions to follow up. Some of them have been raised by other noble Lords in the debate. First, the Explanatory Note states:
“There is doubt as to whether the amendments made by Part 4 of those Regulations came into force, as intended, on IP completion day”.
Further on, it states that part of the earlier SI
“may not have existed due to the error in the commencement provision”.
Again the Minister explained this in her introduction. What has been the impact of these errors? Have businesses or producer organisations been adversely affected by the fact that these regulations have not been watertight and might not have been introduced in a timely way? Is there any recourse to compensation when errors are found to occur in this way? For example, has there been an occasion when the fruit and vegetable aid scheme might have been invoked because of market failure but payments were unable to be made?
Secondly, this SI seems to require the head office of a producer organisation to be sited in the nation where the majority of its marketed production takes place. Does this change the provision for transnational producer organisations that we have previously discussed? Will they still be able to access funds in the UK even if their head office is elsewhere?
Thirdly, I shall pick up an issue raised by other noble Lords about the market for established wine designations and GIs for UK wine, particularly the implications of the trade and co-operation agreement which was signed in December after we had agreed the previous SI. Do we now have an established UK process for approving new designations and retaining the reputation of UK wines, which was envisaged at that time? In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said:
“Our aim is to ensure that imports of third-country wines continues unaffected while continuing to increase domestic wine production.”—[Official Report, 18/11/20; cols. GC 710-11.]
Do UK wines now have the flourishing market in the EU and third countries unhindered by tariffs and red tape that was envisaged at the time by the Minister? Have the Government now reached an agreement with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, which at that time was very unhappy with the certification process for shipments of EU wines into the UK, which it felt to be overburdensome? That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has scratched, so I call the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this short debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this situation is far from ideal. However, to put it in context, since July 2018, Defra has laid 340 SIs subject to parliamentary procedure, 216 of them relating to EU exit. Current estimates are that we have at least as big a programme in mind for the current year. The 340 instruments Defra has laid since July 2018 represent nearly one-quarter of the UK’s entire EU exit and transition period SI programme. I am afraid that some errors were always going to happen given that volume of work.
I was asked specifically by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, what the error was. It was a drafting error in the commencement provisions of the Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. There is some uncertainty as to whether Part 4 of that SI, the amendments that relate to retained EU legislation, came into force as intended on IP completion date as that part of the SI was stated to come into force immediately before IP completion date. That resulted in Part 4 of the SI purporting to amend retained EU legislation that did not exist immediately before IP completion date. I hope that that answers the question.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan asked a number of questions to do with wine, as did my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The Government have met the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. Defra Ministers had useful discussions with Miles Beale and his team at WSTA. The WSTA was keen to press its concerns about VI-1s and raised a few other issues, including labelling and electronic certification, which officials are actively looking into.
On my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s questions, the UK wine sector prepared well for Brexit, with the result that trade has continued largely unaffected by the new arrangements. However, like some other food sectors, wine has encountered ad hoc problems with exports to certain EU member states in terms of customs arrangements and wine certification. We have worked with the companies involved, their agents, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and the member states concerned to resolve immediate issues and to establish what can be done to ensure that the matter does not reoccur on future shipments. Leaving the EU gives the UK Government scope to review and change policies so that they may better suit the needs of our people and businesses, so there may be the opportunity to review the need for VI-1 certification for imports. We keep all these areas of retained EU wine law under review to ensure that they meet the needs of consumers and the trade and are generally fit for purpose. It is possible to transmit wine certification via electronic means. We will consider all aspects of the process and transmission as a matter of urgency.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about stakeholder engagement. The SI was drafted in active consultation with policy officials from all devolved Administrations, who were given the opportunity to comment at each drafting stage. Affected fruit and vegetable producer organisation stakeholders are aware of and engage with Defra’s plans for the sector. Defra has proactively engaged with transnational producer organisations affected by the UK leaving the EU and the operability amendments that that requires.
I think that I have already answered the question about wine importer labelling, but I should add that the Government have introduced an easement that allows an EU importer or bottler to be displayed on wine marketed in the UK until 30 September 2022. Similar arrangements are made for food products and are designed to support the industry’s transition to new rules. In the intervening time, we continue to work with industry to review the current wine labelling arrangements and replace them with something more practical if that is possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked a number of questions about Northern Ireland trade, some of which I will answer in writing if I am unable to do so here. In terms of trade disruption, the UK has always been clear that implementing the protocol had to respect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory. We have protected and respected that important principle. Through the UK trader support scheme we are ensuring maximum continued ability for Northern Ireland businesses to export both to the EU and to GB and therefore keep disruption over the next few years to a minimum. In the long term, the prosperity of Northern Ireland will depend on the whole set of economic measures that the Government implement, of which agriculture and agri-food is only one part. I should add that agriculture is, of course, currently devolved, but we are very keen to work with all the DAs because we all want the same thing: an environmentally sensitive, sustainable food system.
Turning to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the impact on the food and vegetable producer organisations aid scheme, there is actually no impact on this scheme. The UK continues to follow EU legislation as it applies to EU member states for the duration of the current operational programmes implemented by producer organisations. They have continued to implement their approved operational programmes and receive all payments due. The retained legislation, as amended by this SI, will apply to any new operational programmes implemented by UK POs. This is likely to be from 1 January 2022 onwards. We hope to begin negotiations shortly with the EU to agree to switch to retained legislation before the end of the current programmes, but this SI will be in force before that happens. This means there will be no gap between legislation, and therefore no impact on producer organisations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked whether there were occasions when fruit and vegetable producer organisation legislation could have been invoked if the relevant amendments had been in force. The answer is that they could not: EU legislation continues to apply to existing operational programmes. She also asked about requirements about where head offices are sited, whether they change the position for transnational producer organisations and whether they can still access funding. As we are continuing to follow EU legislation for the duration of current operational programmes, transnational producer organisations can continue to receive funding in respect of all actions carried out by their members, no matter where in the UK or the EU they are based. If we switch to retained EU legislation following agreement with the EU, this SI will mean that UK transnational producer organisations will continue to receive aid in respect of all their EU-based members for the remainder of their current programmes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked whether the market for wine has recovered following the transition period. The UK market saw a slowdown at the beginning of the year, as many companies had moved supplies of wine as a contingency for a no-deal Brexit. Similarly, the hospitality sector has been hit at a global level due to Covid, which has also impacted on transport costs. We are seeing the sector recover now, and the opening up of the hospitality sector will help. In answer to the question about whether the UK has a fully functioning GI scheme, the UK has a fully functioning GI scheme covering food and drink, wines, spirits and aromatised wines. We also have a new logo for products protected under the UK scheme to use, which I recall was dealt with in an earlier SI when we met one another. On third-country wine imports and exports, we have taken steps to ensure that wine products can be imported and exported freely. We have recently extended the easement whereby any wines arriving from the EU will not need to have associated wine certification to 1 January 2022. This will provide time for the sector to adjust to the new trading arrangements, including those set out under the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Lastly, I reiterate that we are in continual discussions with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association. I think I have now answered most of the questions, barring those from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, which I will answer in writing. I apologise to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that I am unable to answer her specific questions on honey, which I recall was also covered by a previous SI: I fear that the honey team is not in its hive today. I will look at Hansard in case there are other points I have missed. In the meantime, these regulations are worthy of your Lordships’ support, and I commend this statutory instrument to your Lordships.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Public Procurement (International Trade Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument will ensure domestic public procurement regulations give legal effect to the UK’s international procurement obligations, specifically those covered in the UK third party international trade agreements signed with non-EU countries that had an agreement with the EU before exit day on 31 January 2020. Therefore, when contracting authorities carry out public procurements, this could be covered by an international agreement. If so, suppliers from those countries are required to be treated no less favourably than suppliers in the United Kingdom. It also means that UK businesses will continue to benefit from access to public procurement markets overseas.
We have agreement with the devolved Administrations that this instrument will be laid on behalf of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This will ensure legislative efficiency and consistency across the four nations.
We are implementing this change because the UK Government, following our exit from the EU, have, as far as possible, committed to providing continuity in existing trade and investment relationships with our existing international partners. We have already helped to ensure a continuation of global procurement through the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Government Procurement, following the UK’s accession to the agreement as an independent member, and we have laid separate legislation to implement that.
Without this instrument, the United Kingdom would not be able to implement its international procurement obligations in trade agreements with third countries. This would leave the UK Government open to legal challenge and damage our reputation as an international trading partner.
This instrument will be made using powers set out in Section 2 of the Trade Act. The instrument will create a new schedule within existing procurement regulations, listing the international agreements signed by the United Kingdom. It will be limited to UK trade agreements with countries that had a preceding agreement with the EU before exit day. Of those agreements in effect, those with substantive procurement provisions to be listed in the schedule are Albania, the Andean countries, Canada, the CARIFORUM states, central America, Chile, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kosovo, Mexico, Moldova, North Macedonia, the Republic of Korea, Serbia, Singapore, the Swiss Confederation, Ukraine and Vietnam.
The instrument is, I believe, uncontroversial, each of those agreements having already been scrutinised via the procedure set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Furthermore, parliamentary reports have been voluntarily laid alongside each continuity trade agreement. They explain our approach to delivering continuity with each partner as the United Kingdom left the EU. If we have made any significant changes to the trade-related provisions of our existing agreements through entering into the new ones, we have explained them in those reports.
Moving forward, further affirmative statutory instruments will need to be laid, using the powers in Section 2 of the Trade Act, each time the UK signs a new trade agreement with a third country or any of the agreements mentioned here are updated, to give them legal effect. Future trade agreements with countries where there was no free trade agreement with the EU before exit day—which could include Australia and New Zealand—are not covered in the Trade Act and will require separate legislation.
I commend the regulations to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a difficult time. We are faced with difficult political, social and economic problems, including the pandemic, Brexit, climate change and a sense that the economy is failing many people. We keep hearing from the Government about their ambition to build a better future by building in more resilience so as not to return to the same world as we knew it. They can do this through legislation. I would have thought that this is so pressing that no legislative opportunity would be lost. After all, it is actions that count, not words. In this regard, the Government have a big chasm to cross.
It seems to me that, with these regulations, the Government have an opportunity to act. Admittedly, the regulations deal only with public procurement, but it is a start. They deal with our place in the world of public procurement after Brexit and confirm that we will stick to the same rules as we did when we were members of the European Union regarding transparency, non-discrimination and the equal treatment of all suppliers and contractors in countries that, like us, are members of the Agreement on Government Procurement.
When we were members of the European Union, we did well in winning contracts for public procurement but, as with the rest of our European business, we are being disadvantaged by increased bureaucracy. Could we not use these regulations to help us win public procurement contracts in Europe with the same minimal bureaucracy as we had when we were members? After all, we are agreeing to the same rules as we had before we left. This would be one small step towards cutting bureaucracy when dealing with our European neighbours.
Could we not do better? Could we not introduce an element of sustainability in these public procurement deals? This element is being introduced more and more. It is becoming a feature of financial markets with ESG investment and the Bank of England is monitoring the record of our banks and major companies on sustainability by having them report on responsible investment. This is all part of the developing relationship between business and government to achieve social objectives by arguing for resilience over efficiency. Indeed, this was mentioned at the CBI climate conference yesterday.
In a way, we have set a precedent for this with British Standard 95009, which was introduced in 2019. This standard, which is becoming more and more widely used, specifies how an organisation can demonstrate that it is a suitable provider for the public sector. Could we not extend this standard to the UK’s legal obligations under the Agreement on Government Procurement so as to include sustainability and other social and economic objectives?
I understand from what the Minister said that further regulations are being drafted to give effect to our procurement obligations under WTO rules. If it is too late to include these points in these regulations, can they be considered for those in preparation? The Government have come in for a lot of criticism recently, being accused of bias in the awarding of public contracts. Enlarging these regulations in this way could be a way of deflecting that criticism.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, although, unlike his interesting and wide-ranging remarks, I am afraid that that I am going to be very specific and quite pedantic. This is not in any particular spirit of criticism of these regulations; in introducing them, my noble friend was clear about their purposes. They are indeed entirely noncontroversial and, to a large extent, much anticipated and much welcomed to implement the continuity agreement so far as government procurement and access to public procurement in the United Kingdom is concerned.
I want to make two points. The first is for those who are often prone to saying that it is our Government’s intention to expose the National Health Service to competition pressures. Whether or not they think that is detrimental, I will not argue; the point is that, here, as in other public procurement measures, the Government have taken the opportunity to make specific exemptions for clinical healthcare services, which indeed they did in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. So those who talk about the exposure of the NHS to competition should look at that and recognise that the Government have, if anything, moved in the opposite direction.
The pedantic point I want to make is that, in introducing the instrument, my noble friend reflected what is said at paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which may have been the intention when it was written:
“This instrument will only affect trade agreements that have already been scrutinised via the procedure set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act”—
that is, CRaG. This is almost entirely true, but it is not true in relation to the agreement with Serbia. The Serbia agreement was signed on 16 April using powers under Section 2 of the Trade Act, which was given Royal Assent on 29 April. This statutory instrument was created and laid on 13 May. The Serbia agreement was laid under CRaG on 11 May and, I understand, was provisionally applied on 20 May; the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments looked at it on 25 and 26 May. It might have been anticipated that the CRaG scrutiny period would have ended by now but it has not because the Whit Recess intervened and the CRaG scrutiny period expires on 23 June. The International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, will examine the UK agreement with Serbia tomorrow. So there is an exception to this point.
Does it matter? I think the short answer is that it does not. The provisional application is in place, as one would expect in order to minimise any discontinuity in our trading relationship with Serbia because we have been operating on quasi-WTO rules since the turn of the year and the provisional application was quite right. So it does not matter but there is a point here: if instruments are laid with Explanatory Notes, the timing and sequencing need to be very clear. In this case there is, I think, no controversy, but if there were controversy, and if we were in a position where the House was being asked to put in place implementing legislation in circumstances where the CRaG scrutiny had not concluded, that would be regrettable. I just want to note this because we are all finding our way with all these processes but I hope that care will be taken to understand the sequencing for future occasions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to debate these regulations, which I presume are the first that we are looking at under the Trade Act 2021. I welcome that agreements have been reached with such a wide range of countries—I particularly note Vietnam, Japan and Singapore. Could my noble friend again confirm the limit to the public procurement under the global procurement strategy to which he referred—it was the equivalent of €100,000 or $100,000? Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I welcome the fact that we have not gone down the path of opening up competition to the National Health Service.
As my noble friend Lord True will recall, when we debated these issues earlier, my one regret was I had hoped that, now that we have left the European Union, our farmers and producers in particular would benefit from selling their produce—meat, fruit or vegetables—and being a source of more domestically grown produce for our public institutions, such as hospitals, schools and others. That being the case, and given the fact that the cost of exporting to many of these countries, and the carbon footprint, would be quite large, does my noble friend envisage that there may be opportunities for our agricultural producers and horticulturalists to export to some of the countries covered by this agreement?
Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the instrument specifically does not apply to future trade agreements, as my noble friend set out so eloquently—he specifically mentioned Australia and New Zealand—and that separate legislation will be required. I understand that we are only entering into the finer details of our negotiations with Australia, but when does my noble friend expect that legislation to come before the House in that regard?
I will follow up the point that my noble friend Lord Lansley raised about the CRaG procedure. Obviously, there is an issue that the Select Committee should have the earliest possible opportunity to consider the detail of future trade agreements. I add to that my concern: my understanding is that the Trade and Agriculture Commission has not yet been appointed as a new body —it has no chairman or members—yet we are proceeding apace with existing rollover continuity agreements and proceeding to negotiate new ones. Does my noble friend have an idea of, and timetable for the appointment of its new chairman and members?
I reiterate the point made by the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s outgoing chairman, Tim Smith, in the report that it submitted: he specifically states that the timing is absolutely key and that, in exactly the same way as the Select Committees on international agreements of both Houses, the Trade and Agriculture Commission should have the earliest possible opportunity to look at these agreements. Will my noble friend confirm that the new Trade and Agriculture Commission will not be presented with a fait accompli in the case of a trade agreement with Australia, New Zealand or the United States, but rather that it will be able to do the work that we are asking it to do and will—if it will not be consulted on the negotiating mandate, which I would prefer—have the earliest possible notice or sight of it?
My noble friend will be all too familiar with the fact that, in part 1 of the National Food Strategy report, the government adviser Henry Dimbleby and all those who served in producing it made these points very eloquently and forcefully. I understand that, regrettably, the Government have responded privately to part 1, and it would be helpful if we could all see the contents of that reply. With those few remarks, I welcome the opportunity to have debated these agreements, and I look forward to reviewing further ones.
I have one final question. Paragraph 6.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The section 2 power is in place for five years from IP completion day, and can be extended for a further five-year period by Parliament, subject to the agreement of both Houses.”
If it were to be extended, would we have the opportunity to look at these regulations again, or is this a one-off? I also note that paragraph 10.1 states:
“There has been no consultation on this instrument.”
From what my noble friend Lord True said at the outset in so ably moving these regulations, I understood that the Government have the authority to work on behalf of the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. What was the forum giving that consent?
With those few remarks, I am delighted to support these regulations.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his introduction, but I am afraid the main question I would like to put to him—to which I fear I cannot expect a reply—is whether all those arch- Brexiteers really did all that campaigning just to spend time on a sunny summer afternoon on SIs which simply put in place exactly the same rules that we had before exit day? I do not expect him to answer that.
However, that is what this looks like, as a result of rolling over EU agreements, some large, some small, as the Minister mentioned, with Chile, Switzerland, Israel, the CARIFORUM states, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, central America, Singapore, Korea, Georgia, Kosovo, Ukraine, Japan, North Macedonia, Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Albania and Serbia—I look forward to the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that one, given that it does not appear to have gone through CRaG. These regulations simply seem to retain our public procurement rules, in line with those the EU already has with these countries and which therefore applied to us before we left. We are going through all this just to maintain what was there beforehand.
As the Minister said, the Trade Act 2021, which authorises these regulations, covers deals with countries which have trade agreements with the EU—in other words, the ones they are rolling over—so we just continue as before. As he rightly says, we have to agree this to honour the existing deals we have chosen to continue to operate, and to ensure that any UK relevant public authority treats the suppliers of services or economic operators in the countries listed no less favourably than home competitors.
We are where we are, and we are just continuing it. But the interesting question—to which I would prefer an answer over my tease at the start—is that posed by my noble friend Lord Haskel: if, as we keep hearing, the whole point of Brexit was to give us the freedom to sign our own deals, why not add into these a requirement that all public procurement from domestic or overseas suppliers includes sustainability clauses, fairness to SMEs, worker protection and consumer rights?
I do not want the Minister to have given up his nice sunny afternoon in vain, so some thoughts on how the Brexit freedom can be translated into our public procurement would be enlightening. Even as I absolutely signify our acceptance of these uncontroversial regulations, as he called them, it would be interesting to know whether the Government will be a little more ambitious than it appears from this.
Lord True (Con)
I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken for their general welcome for this measure. Some of it was slightly tempered, but in the docile environment of a statutory instrument Grand Committee upstairs, I shall not let my temper be provoked by it. I simply say that, having been called an arch Brexiteer, I would rather describe myself as an arch musketeer now on behalf of the British interest. That operates come rain or shine. Part of the context which has not been referred to—it was referred to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering but not by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—is that the sun was certainly shining in Downing Street earlier today, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Mr Scott Morrison announced exactly the kind of way forward to a better future which both the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the noble Baroness were asking for. This Government are ambitious on behalf of the national interest and of all those who work and produce in our country. We remain unashamedly of the opinion that free trade is an enormous boon to mankind. Over the decades and centuries, it has contributed to the raising of the condition of the people in nations across the world. That is as far as I will go on the political element of the discussion.
On the specific points on which I was asked, my noble friend Lord Lansley raised an important issue in relation to Serbia. These are not minor points; parliamentary scrutiny is obviously of fundamental importance—I think that we all agree on that. I do not think that there has been any attempt to do anything untoward, but I shall undertake to write to my noble friend on the detailed point that he has raised, if he will accept that as a response.
On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the WTO—which I referred to— perhaps my remarks were slightly infelicitously set, because I gave the impression that there was a forward-looking element here. As for the WTO, a separate statutory instrument, the Public Procurement (Agreement on Government Procurement) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, was made and laid under the negative procedure on 12 May 2021 using powers in Section 1 of the Trade Act. That has given effect to the UK’s independent membership of the Agreement on Government Procurement, which is a WTO function and institution.
My noble friend Lord Lansley, with his immense experience in this area, reminded us that the Government are not involving the National Health Service. These continuity agreements will ensure that the transition of existing FTAs will not impact on how the UK currently delivers healthcare services or standards of care in the NHS. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public, nor has one ever forced us to open up the NHS to private providers. We have always protected our right to choose how we deliver public services in trade agreements and we will continue to do so. I came armed to give longer reassurances on that point and could expand further, but I think my noble friend picked that out accurately from the documents before us.
I agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh that there are opportunities for agricultural producers, our own producers, as free trade is extended. I do not think we should always see issues as incoming; there are opportunities outgoing as well. I believe that that will be widely seen and acknowledged in the years ahead. My noble friend asked when specific legislation will come forward in relation to the Australia provision announced today by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, Liz Truss, who I believe deserves enormous credit for the extraordinary effort she is making on behalf of the country. I cannot advise specifically on timescales for that, but I can assure my noble friend that there will be full scope for the kind of parliamentary scrutiny she is seeking.
My noble friend also asked about the timing of appointments. I cannot at this point advise her on that, but I will try to give her some better guidance outside this discussion.
I am grateful for what has been said. It is a warm afternoon but the musketeering never stops, and I pay full credit to noble Lords who have taken the trouble to take part in this debate to secure the future of British trade and, yes, steps towards the kind of better future that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, challenged us to work for in his opening remarks. I must tell him that I have slightly more confidence than he has about the prospects for the future, and we will work to disabuse him of any doubts he has. I was very grateful for his input into the debate and that of all noble Lords.
The Government have committed to providing continuity as far as possible in existing trade—we make no apology for that—and in investment relationships with non-EU countries now we have left the EU. I repeat that, for this reason, we think that, as others have said, the instrument is uncontroversial, allowing for the continuation of current procurement practice. That has been the sense of your Lordships’ committee. I hope I have answered noble Lords’ questions. I have undertaken to respond to a couple which are very detailed. I hope I have clarified the implications of the amended legislation and I trust that noble Lords will, as they said, support the statutory instrument. I am grateful to them for that.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now commence. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings while in the Chamber except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Children with Genetic Conditions: Specialist Support
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to ensure that children with (1) 22q11 deletion syndrome, and (2) other genetic conditions, receive specialist support to address and prevent any loss of (a) learning, or (b) social skills, due to the disruption of their education during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to help all children, including those with genetic disorders, to recover from the impact of lost learning during the pandemic. Following the most recent announcement on education recovery on 2 June, we have now allocated over £3 billion to children and young people. We are targeting those resources to support those in greatest need; for example, special and alternative provision schools will receive additional funding to ensure one-on-one tutoring for their pupils.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
I commend the Government on their growing support for family hubs. The original Breakthrough Britain report recommended these, high- lighting their role as a one-stop shop for families with disabled children, which would greatly help those with often very debilitating genetic conditions. Can my noble friend the Minister advise the House of what plans there are to expand the remit of family hubs to include this?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, a number of family hubs are already in operation but the department has just finished procurement for a national centre for family hubs as part of the £14 million allocated to this. Part of that role will be to ensure that best practice is spread across England. The noble Baroness is correct that these centres should be a hub of voluntary, statutory and other services for families, including those with special educational needs and disabilities.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the head of Ofsted has highlighted that children with special educational needs and disabilities have incurred some of the biggest learning losses from schools closing, noting:
“Many have genuinely gone backwards in basic skills, language, numbers”.
This is because too many seriously ill children did not receive—and in some cases are still not receiving—adequate support for their disability or medical condition through health services or school, despite having education, health and care plans. What consideration have the Government given to the need for a therapies catch-up plan for children who have regressed or plateaued in their speech, communication, physical development or social skills due to the pandemic, as called for by the Disabled Children’s Partnership?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is indeed correct that some of the learning lost has been greatest for those with special educational needs and disabilities. That was one of the reasons why, during both of the lockdowns when schools were closed, places were still available for many of those young people. They should now be accessing all the therapies and additional support that the plan says they should receive. The recovery package has the flexibility that some of the money is per-pupil and, therefore, schools can buy in the additional specialist support that the noble Lord outlines.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, the absence of a diagnosis or late diagnosis of 22q11 deletion syndrome means an inevitable impact on children’s educational support and outcomes during their school years. Can my noble friend the Minister shed some light on work that she may be doing with the Department of Health on the Government’s plans to increase the number of conditions included in newborn screening for specialist support, in line with other countries, and what consideration has been given to the inclusion of 22q11?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I understand it, this is the second most prevalent genetic disorder after Down’s syndrome. I will take back to colleagues at the Department of Health the request as to whether it is included in screening. This disorder apparently has a wide spectrum of effects, so some of those children are never identified during their school career, but the education, health and care plan should support them if they do exhibit a need for extra support. Diagnosis is not a precursor to having an EHCP; many are diagnosed, some within mainstream provision in schools and some in specialist provision.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will the Minister hold a meeting to listen to representatives from the National Society for Phenylketonuria and young people with the genetic condition PKU so that the Government can learn more about the impact this has on children, their health and education, and consider what more the Government could do to help them? Would she be good enough to invite her counterpart from the Department of Health to join such a meeting as well?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords are wanting to put me in touch with my colleagues at the Department of Health today. I will take back that request, but I repeat that one of the key visions behind the 2014 reforms was that when a child exhibits a need for support they do not wait for diagnosis or any of that: schools or the family can get an EHCP and get the support in place that the child or young person needs.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
Over the last year, children with genetic conditions that give them severe physical and/or learning disabilities and who are extremely vulnerable to Covid have often had no school, no carers coming into their homes and no short breaks or respite. Education, health and care plans are designed for the whole child, so does the Minister agree that short breaks and respite are vital for children in order to address high levels of family exhaustion? Has the department made an assessment of whether local authorities and CCGs are able to sustainably fund them?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct that during the periods of lockdown the pressure on these families was immense. Parliament has passed legislation—in 2011, I believe—putting a statutory requirement on local authorities to look at the provision of short breaks for children with those needs and their families. We have given support during this period, particularly to families of those with special educational needs, and through Family Fund for those families on low incomes, amounting to around £27 million. Obviously, part of recovery and catch-up for schools is helping precisely the children the local Baroness outlines.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, catching up with lost learning will require the support of not just professionals but volunteer organisations and families. Will the Minister therefore make sure, together with her colleagues at the Department of Health, that organisations such as Max Appeal, which care particularly for children with 22q11, get the support that is tailored to their very specific needs?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the department funds a range of voluntary organisations through the £42 million that helps, for example, to deliver whole-school SEND, as well as providing support through the Family Fund, but I will ensure that the noble Baroness’s request is taken back to the department to ensure that we are aware of the full range of voluntary organisations. Of course, during this time local authorities have also had £6 billion of unring-fenced money to support the kind of organisations that the noble Baroness outlines.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to add to the list that the Minister is going to take to the Department of Health and Social Care. This is about CAMH services. Clearly, the last 12 months have been very difficult in terms of providing CAMH services, but there is evidence that for some of the children involved this has now become a very urgent need. I wonder if she could discuss that matter with her colleagues.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we work closely with them because of the nature of the work involved in EHCPs, and we cannot underestimate the effects of this period. During Mental Health Awareness Week, we announced £17 million that should allow 7,800 schools to have a lead mental health practitioner within the school to provide the kind of support needed. By making school places available during lockdown, we allowed school leaders to identify vulnerable children who needed to come into school for all kinds of reasons, including mental health issues.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered links with Mencap. The Disabled Children’s Partnership, which has been mentioned, has estimated that almost half of disabled children have lost confidence in communicating because of a disruption or delay to speech and language therapy during Covid, a factor not adequately addressed in the Government’s education recovery plan. Will the Government, as a matter of urgency, please adjust the plan to meet the complex needs of such children and their families?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that early years and language development were greatly affected during the lockdowns. That is one reason why early-years settings were kept open—because of the nature of that education provision. We have allocated £18 million to early-years language development, including £8 million to the Nuffield Early Language Intervention, and I believe that the majority of primary schools have signed up for that. We are funding the initiatives that we help believe can help those children to catch up.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Private Landlords: Tenants with Pets
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage more private landlords to allow responsible tenants to keep pets in their rented properties.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I draw attention to my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. The Government want to improve life for tenants and recognise the importance of pets in people’s lives. Earlier this year we published the revised national model tenancy agreement, the Government’s suggested contract for assured shorthold tenancy in the private rented sector. We revised it to encourage landlords to allow responsible tenants to keep well-behaved pets in their home.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, during the difficult and often lonely days of lockdown, pets have been a vital source of companionship, well-being and love for many people across the UK, especially the vulnerable. However, is my noble friend aware that, according to Cats Protection, 1 million households that would like to have a cat cannot do so because they live in a rental property? I welcome the changes made to the Government’s model tenancy agreement, which my noble friend mentioned, meaning that consent for pets will be the default position for any landlord using it, but not all landlords use the agreement as it is voluntary. What action will the Government take to encourage landlords to use the model tenancy agreement to allow all those who want to have a pet in their rented property the chance to do so?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the issue that my noble friend raises. The model tenancy agreement is the Government’s suggested contract with which to agree a tenancy and is freely available online. We will continue to work with landlords and other stakeholders to ensure its wider adoption for use in the private rented sector.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I understand from the excellent briefing from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home that tenants’ housing problems resulting from people moving to a property that does not allow pets are the second most common reason why dogs are given to Battersea for rehoming. Battersea helped to develop the model tenancy agreement but key areas, such as defining what constitutes a reasonable excuse for landlords to turn down a pet request or how any appeals process might work, are still to be addressed. How do the Government plan to take these issues forward?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is fair to say that Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has been involved in the development of this agreement. Indeed Peter Laurie, the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home interim chief executive, welcomed the announcement that demonstrated the clear continued commitment to improving access to pet ownership for renters as well as helping to support and promote responsible pet ownership. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure that there is no blanket ban on pets and to consider each pet on a case-by-case basis, and to accept a pet where they are satisfied that the tenant is a responsible owner and the pet suitable for the premises.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend recall the importance that Winston Churchill attached to his pets, which included budgerigars that flew around his bedroom, to the discomfort of visiting Ministers? Would not the great man have been distressed that so many landlords are denying their tenants the affection and companionship that loving pets provide? Perhaps my noble friend can hear a famous voice muttering those words, “Action this day”, to get those new tenancy agreements widely applied, so important in this context, and to bear down on the landlords who are not using them at the moment.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the views of the great man. We recognise that domestic pets bring joy, happiness and comfort to people’s lives. We have seen that particularly in the pandemic. We also recognise that the model tenancy agreement is a step forward. We need to see its wider adoption, which is why we will work hard to ensure that landlords adopt it as often as possible.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I endorse the purpose of this Question. I declare my interests as set out in the register, which inform these comments that I hope are constructive. Is the Minister aware that it is possible to have conditions such as that if pets become a problem, the offer is rescinded—and also that it is possible to put in a clause stating that money must be charged for cleaning, especially where hairs become a problem. So there are ways that could help landlords give permission if they were encouraged to do so.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that measures are in place to facilitate wider pet ownership in the private rented sector, and I encourage landlords to work with tenants to ensure that there is a solution that works for both parties.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my interests as set out in the register. The Government recognised the importance of pets and made changes to the model tenancy agreement. However, not all landlords use that model agreement and it is voluntary, so some landlords can still say no to pets. Animal welfare charities, including Cats Protection, have helped tenants find lots of properties and use a cat’s CV—a template that outlines details about pets and shows responsibility of ownership. Will the Government encourage wider use of pet CVs to allow more responsible pet owners to keep their pets in rented accommodation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are happy to look at any ideas that encourage wider pet ownership, and I will certainly take that back to the department to consider.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The Minister keeps talking about encouraging flat owners to do the right thing and allow pets, but he did not answer the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler: what are you actually doing to encourage this?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have set out a model tenancy agreement that encourages wider pet ownership. It also ensures that the landlord must give a clear reason why they will not accept a pet. This agreement strikes a balance between making it easier for responsible tenants to keep pets and ensuring that landlords are not forced to accept them.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, last week the Public Services Committee took evidence from a rough sleeper in Birmingham who was full of praise for the Everyone In campaign, which helped him and other rough sleepers into safe accommodation last year. However, he told us that rough sleepers with dogs were now at risk because hostels would not accept them. Is my noble friend aware of this problem and does he have a solution?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am aware of the issue that my noble friend raises. We know how important pets are to many people, particularly rough sleepers. That is why we have supported a number of local schemes enabling people to find accommodation that will also accept pets. Housing authorities need to be sensitive to the importance of pets to some applicants, particularly rough sleepers, and I thank my noble friend for raising this.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, depression and loneliness have an adverse impact on health and cost the country millions. Having someone or a pet to look after takes us out of ourselves, and pets have undoubtedly helped mitigate the enforced isolation of the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that a more collaborative approach between landlords and tenants in keeping tenants happy and keeping property in good condition would benefit both?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we agree that it is precisely that which has required a collaborative approach that landlords and tenants can work through to find practical solutions and ensure wider pet ownership in the private rented sector.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and the noble Lord, Lord Singh. It is very important, particularly for single older people, to be able to have a pet. Some ideas to perhaps consider are that, if landlords could render a modest additional rental for pets, it might be more attractive to them, and it might be worthwhile requiring insurance policies to be taken out by tenants. It might also be an idea to have a system of interviewing tenants and choosing tenants who seem to be responsible with regard to pets.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for coming up with practical suggestions for how tenants and landlords could work together to ensure wider pet ownership. It is of course for the landlord to consider each case on its merits.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, pets have done much to help those recovering from medical incidents. This cannot be overestimated. Following the updating of the Government’s model agreement for shorthold assured tenancies in January, to encourage landlords to allow pets, what will the Government do to help allay landlords’ concerns over the inadequacy of a five-week deposit to address any pet damage at the end of the tenancy? Are there plans to allow for a larger deposit to be taken at the outset or, alternatively, a monthly sum to be added to the rent to pay for damage that is refundable at the end of the tenancy to the extent that it is not required? I declare my interest in rental property as in the register, but I have no tenants who have asked to have a pet—although some have them quietly without mentioning it.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend is right to point out the impact of the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The Government recommend that the rental deposit of five weeks is a maximum rather than a default. Charging a deposit of four weeks’ rent would provide leeway to expand it to five weeks for such things as pet ownership and also to take up some of the suggestions that we have heard today around insurance or potentially looking at rent levels to accommodate wider pet ownership.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for the Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Armed Forces: Transition to Civilian Life
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the support provided by the Department for Work and Pensions to members of the Armed Forces in their transition to civilian life.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, the vast majority of veterans are able to make a successful transition to life outside the Armed Forces; 84% of veterans are employed within six months of discharge, and these rates compare very favourably with the wider population, where 76% are in employment. The DWP provides support to veterans in a number of ways, including through the early voluntary entry to the work and health programme, and support from its network of Armed Forces champions.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in 2019 the Government committed up to £6 million to fund more than 100 Armed Forces champions. They are there to provide personnel, veterans and families with specialist support to find work and transition to civilian life, and they are a key part of the Government’s commitment to the Armed Forces covenant. The Minister has now told me in a Written Answer that they now aim to hire only 50 champions and have a record low of just 34 in post. So why have the Government abandoned this commitment to our Armed Forces, and how much of that £6 million has actually been spent?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The department’s top priority during the pandemic has been to focus on processing claims and paying people quickly. As a result, the planned recruitment for the Armed Forces champion in April 2020 was paused. During that period, there was a lot of liaison with stakeholders and various interested parties and a new model was devised and got real support from all stakeholders. We now have, for the first time, middle-management lead roles and direct customer support for the 50 Armed Forces champions, and this combined support is well supported. In addition to these people, of course the veterans got the full service of all the work coaches in the DWP network.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, in the UK it is estimated that former Armed Forces personnel are eight times more likely to develop gambling problems than civilians. They suffer from higher rates of mental health issues and alcohol problems, factors which may feed into the higher rate of problem gambling. Will Her Majesty’s Government commit to surveying the gambling habits of serving personnel so that we can better provide for our military as they transition to civilian life?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises a serious issue that people are well aware of. I would like to offer a meeting with him just to get some more detail from him, and then I will of course take that back to the department.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I will not disguise my anger and frustration at the recent refusal of the Government to restore war widows’ pensions to those few ladies who lost it on remarriage. Can my noble friend use her considerable powers of persuasion to find a way forward other than by using the name “pension”, which I understand frightens the life out of the Treasury? Could the widows not receive some form of compensation, hardship payment or the like?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
To be asked not to frighten the Treasury is quite a challenge—I will think about that one for now. Of course, the Government recognise the unique commitment that service families make to our country and remain sympathetic to the circumstances of those who remarried and cohabited before 1 April. I understand my noble friend’s points, and I will do my best.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister please tell the House whether the Department for Work and Pensions has carried out any assessment of the usefulness of Armed Forces employment to civilian employers?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
An important point is that when people leave the Armed Forces, they have really good skills that are very attractive to employers in both the public and private sectors, and work is done to make sure that all opportunities are made available to those leaving the service.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
Can the noble Baroness say what specific support is provided for families—particularly children—of members of our Armed Forces to enable their transition, given that many of them will have spent time in different schools and different locations and may find it difficult to transition after their families leave the services?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The effect on children living in different parts of the country and the world, and the number of schools they have attended, is well known. It is for the MoD to carry out this activity in its resettlement programme. I will ask my friends in the Ministry of Defence to write to the noble Baroness with more detail.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, it was an enormous honour to serve as the Minister for Veterans, probably the most rewarding job in government. While that is the only ministerial job to have the word “veterans” in its title, it is important to remember that all Ministers have responsibility for veterans. One of the challenges they face is access to information, which is why we created the Veterans’ Gateway. Can my noble friend simply reassure me that her department engages with that portal?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that the department engages with the portal. We put veterans and their families in touch with the organisations best placed to help them, and the portal, through the national provision tool, is an absolutely vital part of the service.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I recognise the many challenges faced by the members of the Armed Forces in the transition to civilian life, whether it be need for housing or professional care because of physical or mental incapacity through conflict. Can the Minister assure me that all former members of the Armed Forces are equally provided for across the United Kingdom, including those in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am pleased to be able to respond to the noble Lord to say that the Armed Forces covenant legislation is specifically designed to cover equality of service. It covers health, education and housing, and the MoD has worked with closely with the devolved authorities in implementing that.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Government have a duty of care to look after those who have served and a moral responsibility to pick up the tab. That said, will the Minister say what combat-related trauma support is available to women veterans who are actively seeking employment?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I would need to write to the noble Baroness about trauma support because I will need to get the information from the MoD. However, I can give comfort to her and to the whole House: women do very well when it comes to employment after their service. They have good specialist skills such as transport, logistics and medicine, and the support that the DWP gives takes account of individual circumstances and is individually tailored.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Dr Hugh Milroy, the CEO of the exemplary military charity Veterans Aid, tells me that the current resettlement system is out of touch with the cost of living today and that he has seen this cause genuine hardship for people with otherwise good prospects. I was surprised to find that the individual resettlement training costs grant available to all leavers with six or more years’ service and all medical discharges is set at £534. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is time to modernise the system by providing access to an innovative financial empowerment model, perhaps like the student loan system?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am happy to tell my noble friend that while the grant is set at just over £500, the training that it can purchase can be worth thousands of pounds. The Career Transition Partnership contract-funded courses are prepaid by the MoD and it offers other courses as well. Other financial support schemes, such as the enhanced learning credits scheme, can provide up to £3,000. Further financial support of up to £175 per year can be made available through the standard learning credit scheme and the publicly funded further education/higher education scheme provides service leavers with all sorts of support for up to 10 years to a value of up to £9,000. If we need to repackage that, I will be happy to take it back to the department.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the integrated review envisages cuts to the regular forces of around 10,000. What work has the DWP done, alongside the MoD, to assess the possible implications for service personnel and their families who will be leaving the forces perhaps rather more unexpectedly than envisaged?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The services offered by the DWP through the plan for jobs and other activities with the Department for Education on skills are wide-ranging, and I know that the Ministry of Defence and the DWP will work in partnership to provide the most relevant services to the people who the noble Baroness rightly says will need help.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
BA and Ryanair: Customer Refunds
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with representatives of the international travel industry about the impact of the action being taken by the Competition and Markets Authority against BA and Ryanair regarding refunds for customers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority into British Airways and Ryanair is ongoing. It would be inappropriate for the Government to comment on an ongoing investigation by an independent regulator, but we have been clear that the rights of consumers and the obligations of businesses remain unchanged. It should not be unduly difficult for customers to receive a refund when they are entitled to it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
One struggles to think of another product where customers pay such a high price so far in advance of receiving a service. Yet some airlines have, as the Minister has indicated, avoided making refunds when they could not deliver that service. This has left not only passengers out of pocket but has had a disastrous impact on travel agents who often have to refund their customers without receiving the fare money back from the airlines. Have the Government investigated any of the proposals from Which? that passengers who have paid in advance for their flights should have their payments held safely in trust and disbursed to airlines at the time of the flight? Does the Minister agree that a resolution to this problem is long overdue and that the actions of a small number of airlines are damaging the industry as a whole?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are taking a keen interest in this issue, but it should be noted that refund issues between airlines and travel agents are a contractual matter between those two businesses. The Civil Aviation Authority does not have a role in enforcing such contracts. On the action we are taking on behalf of consumers, the CAA has reviewed airlines’ compliance on refunds. The authority did this last summer and it has since worked collaboratively with airlines to improve their performance. I am pleased to say that most airlines are now paying refunds within seven days.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who is owed money by both British Airways and Ryanair. I ask the Minister whether this system could be changed because there is a legal liability which is clearly not being followed. Indeed, these companies are using every trick in the book not to pay customers back. Will the Minister at least agree that this will be borne in mind when they queue up for loans and money from the Government?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I cannot comment on my noble friend’s circumstances, but the regulations already set out that if a consumer’s flight or holiday has been cancelled by an operator, that customer is entitled to a refund within a reasonable timescale. We are also asking businesses to make sure that they interact with their customers on a fair and responsible basis because that is important for the future of the travel industry. I hope that my noble friend will get his refunds, if they are due, as soon as possible.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this issue of refunds applies to holiday lets as well as airlines and other travel providers. Does the Minister agree that if members of the public book a service in good faith and the Government subsequently change the law so that using the service becomes illegal, surely the Government should compensate those who are out of pocket—or is it only for those who have shouted loudest?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think we can all agree that the travel industry has been fundamentally changed by the Covid pandemic. There is no doubt that travelling now is very different from what it was a year ago. We are encouraging all consumers to be as flexible as possible. They must read the terms and conditions because in certain circumstances, guidance from the Government may change and a refund may not be due. However, as I said previously, if something is cancelled, a refund should be given.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the aviation sector has spent the past year trying to second-guess government policy, with route cancellations being announced at the drop of a hat causing mayhem, as outlined by my right honourable friend Theresa May last week. As a key architect of Regulation 261/2004 on passenger rights, I would normally take a hard line, but not today. Will my noble friend remind those in BEIS and the DfT that force majeure includes a pandemic, and that perhaps the Competition and Markets Authority might better focus its attention on reminding Ministers and civil servants of their responsibilities across departments before resorting to possible legal action?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As noble Lords will know, the Government are not taking this legal action themselves. The CMA is a non-ministerial department. It believes it has found some evidence that businesses are failing to comply with the law and it is taking reasonable steps to take appropriate enforcement action. It could be that this does not go to court and that the CMA reaches an appropriate agreement with British Airways and Ryanair, if there has been any wrongdoing. But I agree with my noble friend that we have to do everything that we can to get the travel industry back on its feet. That is our focus: we want British consumers to be able to travel once again and with certainty.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, following the Minister’s last response, while this is important, clearly it is only the tip of the iceberg for the aviation industry and its customers, as she acknowledges. Does she accept that a lengthy continuation of the green/amber/red system will have a devastating impact on the industry and its customers? Will she confirm that, when restrictions are fully lifted, barriers to flights will be removed, thereby removing this issue? Will she also confirm that it is not the Government’s policy, as some fear, to stop people travelling abroad, so as to boost the UK economy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I point out to the noble Lord that the Government are taking a cautious approach to international travel. We realise that circumstances will change in different countries, at different times. The traffic light system in place works as well as it can, in the circumstances; it looks at case rates, positivity, genomic surveillance and the risk from variants of concern. I also make the noble Lord aware that lifting restrictions domestically does not necessarily mean changes to international travel.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
It was not clear from the Minister’s response whether the Government were supportive of the suggestion put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which came from Which?, about payments for fares being held in a trust. Perhaps we could have a direct response to that. On this whole issue of refunds, the rights of the consumer seem to be protected somewhat tardily. I am not clear, but are the Government satisfied with the speed at which consumer rights to refunded fares during lockdown were fully addressed and, where applicable, enforced? Surely all are equal under the law and all are bound by the law, whether a financially strong airline not offering a refund or a financially stretched passenger in need of a refund.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I have said numerous times, consumers are getting their refunds back and this is happening more quickly than it was earlier in the pandemic, as policies and practices have been put in place at the behest of the CAA and the work that it has done with UK airlines. I did not respond to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because we are considering it among many other suggestions about how to get our international travel industry back on its feet. The Government also have ongoing work on airline insolvency following the Thomas Cook insolvency in the year before last.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I welcome the action taken by the CAA. I completely understand the difficulties set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others; airlines and airports are suffering at the moment. But surely it is in the interests of airlines to ensure that they give passengers the best care and attention that they can. Like my noble friend Lord Balfe, I am due a voucher from Ryanair. Could the Minister address the issue of vouchers, which seem to disappear into the ether? Is there not a policy to remind passengers that they have a voucher and that it has to be used before its expiry date?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The same policy applies to vouchers as to cash payments if a flight is cancelled, but of course I cannot go into the detail of my noble friend’s circumstances. It is worth pointing out that, on 17 May, the Government published the Passenger COVID-19 Charter. It sets out what customers can expect, and what their rights and responsibilities are, when booking and travelling internationally. On the other side, we set out the reasonable expectations on the industry to be flexible. We did this to give both customers and the industry a firm footing, as we try to reopen international travel.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I would like to make a short statement about a change to our business tomorrow. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement that there is to be a four-week pause at step 3 of the Covid road map, new health protection regulations have been made and laid before Parliament today. To give the House the opportunity to debate these new regulations before they come into force, and following discussions through the usual channels, we will take that debate as our last business tomorrow, after the Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. A speakers’ list is open now and noble Lords will have until 6 pm this evening to add their names. We will also arrange for a copy of this information to be sent to Peers by email.
Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL]
Tuesday 15th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Modern Slavery (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 15th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Modern Slavery (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Modern Slavery (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a trustee of the charity Arise Foundation, which combats modern-day slavery and human trafficking.
Ethiopia
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the new data from the World Food Programme has shown that a total of 350,000 people are suffering from catastrophic levels of hunger in Tigray. WFP is mounting emergency food assistance, but some areas are difficult to reach. What steps are the Government taking to support humanitarian access? On the peace process itself, last week the US representative to the UN called for the Security Council to meet publicly to discuss the crisis. What steps is the UK taking within the Security Council to help bring the conflict to an end?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first I welcome my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble, the Senior Deputy Speaker, to the Woolsack. It is testimony to his punctuality that today we saw him arrive a tad early. It is great to see him on the Woolsack—it is certainly the first occasion on which I have done so—and we all wish him well.
I will come on to the substance of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins. On the second point he raised, about the UN Security Council, we have certainly been among a few countries calling for an open debate. I am sure that he acknowledges that we made a specific statement on this during our presidency. We have made sure that we keep tabling the issue under any other business, to keep the focus of the Security Council. On his earlier question, we are working with UN agencies on the ground, including supporting additional funding to ensure that the likes of OCHA have access. We are also working with key organisations such as UNICEF on the ground.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, Ethiopia has made huge strides as a developing nation, in which relationships with the UK have played a significant part. Today I am wearing the tie presented to me when at the African Union in Addis Ababa by the chairperson of the African Union Commission, Dr Dlamini-Zuma. We are all shocked to see the images of starving people, and reports of civilians being murdered or displaced—reminiscent of the appalling war and famine in the 1980s. We have donated £16.7 million in response to this crisis, but how does this relate to the huge cuts in UK aid? Will Ethiopia’s elections next week offer a solution? They will not be held in Tigray, the EU has withdrawn its observation mission, and the team of American senators has called for elections to be postponed. What is the Government’s view?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s first question about support from the UK, we have actually given £47.7 million since the start of the crisis. My honourable friend the Minister for Africa announced an additional £16.7 million yesterday. On the political crisis, the noble Lord is right of course—there is an election due. The challenge remains that many parties from within the region impacted are not participating. We continue to use all diplomatic levers to ensure access for full-party participation during the elections. I think there will be little movement on the political settlement until the election has been held.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I last visited the beautiful country of Ethiopia about 18 months ago, just before the pandemic. Now we find a third of a million people at risk of famine. Billions have been given in aid by the UK taxpayer, including some money via the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. How much influence has our huge aid programme had in encouraging peace and stability in the region? Did our aid allow any money from the Ethiopian Government to be diverted into armaments from health and education?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s second point, of course there are stringent measures in place to ensure that development aid support is for the purposes intended. I believe it has had an impact on the ground, as 1.2 million children have gained a quality education. Of course we continue to have a positive impact; we support aid programmes in-country but, equally, the political situation is dire and we need to reassess what level of support we can give over the longer term to ensure opportunities for the people of Ethiopia.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is clearly a manmade crisis that can be solved only by political negotiation and compromise, rather than a military solution. What is the African Union doing to foster a rapprochement between the TPLF and the Ethiopian Federal Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are working with all key partners, including key players in Africa. The Minister for Africa has discussed the situation in Tigray with the AU’s peace and security commissioner. The Foreign Secretary has also discussed the situation with President Kenyatta of Kenya and PM Hamdok of Sudan, and will continue to work with African partners as well as others to bring about a resolution of this conflict peacefully.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I wonder if the Minister would comment on whether Her Majesty’s Government have been able to validate allegations that white phosphorus was used against civilians in Tigray, despite the categorical denial of the Ethiopian Government.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. We are awaiting, and certainly support, the full investigation. Various UN agencies, including OCHA and the UNHCR, are working to establish the facts of that very incident.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we know the effect that malnutrition has on babies and children—from a baby’s gestation right through to the child turning three. It affects their lungs and it affects their life for the future, and it will affect the livelihood of that country. What are we doing to ensure that the food on the ground is the correct food, particularly for babies, toddlers and pregnant mothers?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Our UK aid is focused on that very issue, among various priorities, and 5.6 million children under five, women and girls continue to be reached through nutrition-related interventions on the ground in-country.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I see from the UN report that the special rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea has been unable to get into the country. What are the Government doing to try to get things sorted out on the ground? Seventy-five years of independence in Ethiopia seems to have left just a tragic mess, and we appear to be on the point of a failed country and continent. What do HMG think they can do to help?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will not agree with my noble friend on the fact that it is a failed continent. I think there are many successes across Africa but, as I alluded to earlier, we are working with key partners and through UN agencies both on the ground and through political engagement to ensure that we bring about a peaceful resolution of this conflict.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eritrea, which will be addressed this afternoon by the United Nations special rapporteur on Eritrea and will focus on Tigray. How do the Government intend to respond to his findings of appalling human rights violations by Eritrean militias in Tigray? Did the Minister discuss it when he met the Secretary-General of the United Nations last week? Are we working with Ireland, which is proposing to raise this in the Security Council this week? Are we considering joining Belgium, which is using universal jurisdiction to bring prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, yes, I did discuss this with the UN Secretary-General António Guterres last week when I met him. We are awaiting a full report of that joint investigation by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, which is currently under way. We will continue to work with key partners on the UN Security Council, including Ireland, to find further resolutions and we continue to lobby for a full debate at the UNSC.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, looking longer term, in the view of the Government, which of the outside bodies is best placed to play a peacebuilding role—the UN or the EU? Does the Minister agree that the causes of instability in conflict must be tackled and that these include the insupportable population explosion from 18 million in 1950 to about 110 million now, and projected by the UN to be 190 million by 2050 and 250 million by the end of the century? Does our aid include family planning?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the issue of population growth must be addressed, not just in the region we are currently talking about but across the world. We believe that prioritising girls’ education for 12 years is part and parcel of finding that long-term resolution. We are working with all agencies to find a resolution and the African Union, as well as the UN, has an important role to play.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, yesterday in the other place the Minister for Africa stated:
“a high level of sexual violence is being directed at children”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/6/21; col. 41.]
in Tigray. This comes on top of the report about barbaric gender-based violence unleashed against the Tigrayan population as a whole. Can my noble friend tell the House, eight months later, how many of the UK team of experts set up to collect evidence of sexual violence, in precisely these kinds of situations, have been deployed to Ethiopia or to neighbouring countries to ensure that evidence is collected and perpetrators are eventually brought to account?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I apologise as I did not catch the whole of my noble friend’s question because of the connection, but I picked up the main gist. As the Prime Minister’s special representative on PSVI—preventing sexual violence in conflict—I can assure her that we have prioritised this. On identifying personnel from our team, we are currently looking to formally deploy directly on the ground in the coming weeks. We have been working with agencies on the ground, including UNICEF, Red Crescent and the Ethiopian Red Cross Society. Thus far, although the situation is dire, we are currently supporting 545 survivors— 542 women and 3 men— directly with case management services. The proportion of people impacted internally and through allegations of sexual violence is far greater, so there is further work to do and this is a key priority for me as the Prime Minister’s special representative.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this Statement. These Benches agree with Mr Speaker; in the statement he made prior to the Secretary of State’s Statement last night, he expressed a deep frustration on behalf of all parliamentarians about the Government’s conduct. The announcement yesterday was both predictable and, sadly, predicted. I sigh, because the Prime Minister is now referring to 19 July as “terminus” day instead of freedom day, which has probably brought eye-rolls everywhere. When will the Prime Minister learn that caution and the use of data means also being cautious about how you express these matters?
The Minister will know that on these Benches we support the Government’s decision to delay the move to the next stage of the road map, but do so with a deep sense of anger, if not despair, that this should be necessary. Since the delta variant of coronavirus, first discovered in India, was detected in the UK in April, cases have surged across the country, with the variant now making up 96% of new infections. Experts confirmed last week that the variant is 60% more transmissible than the alpha variant, first discovered in Kent in 2020. Scientists at the Wellcome Sanger Institute have used genomic sequencing to produce maps which show how rapidly the delta variant has taken over in England, and I commend them to noble Lords. They are alarming in that they show the rapid spread to almost the whole country by the end of last week. It is doubling week by week—still with small numbers now, but that will change if this doubling continues.
There were warnings of a new variant in India on 25 March. It is reported that Ministers first learned that the delta variant was in the UK on 1 April. I must ask the Minister: is that true? The Government red-listed Pakistan and Bangladesh on 9 April, but did not red- list India until 23 April, by which point 20,000 people had arrived from India. As my right honourable friend Jon Ashworth said yesterday in the Commons,
“Our borders were as secure as a sieve, and all because the Prime Minister wanted a photo call with Prime Minister Modi.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/6/21; col. 77.]
On 20 April I said to the Minister:
“With regard to protecting our borders, this week Hong Kong identified 47 Covid cases on a single flight from Delhi.”
We were closing our borders on 23 April, and I asked him:
“there will be hundreds of people arriving on flights from India. Is this not very risky?”—[Official Report, 20/4/21; col. 1769.]
I now return to that question. How many people arrived from India carrying the virus during the period from when the Government were aware of the variant at the beginning of April to 23 April, when India joined Pakistan and Bangladesh?
It is unforgiveable that Ministers have consistently promised to take control of our borders and conspicuously failed to do so, particularly at the very moment when it mattered most: when we were succeeding in the vaccination rollout and the gradual loosening up. The Prime Minister not only opened the back door to this variant; he failed to take measures to suppress it when he could.
There has been growing prevalence of this variant among school-age children, yet mandatory mask-wearing has been abandoned in secondary schools. I have raised this with the Minister at least once before. He has to explain why this has happened, despite being repeatedly asked in both Houses. We also know that isolation is key to breaking transmission yet, 16 months on, people are still not paid adequate financial compensation to isolate themselves. When asked about this at the Select Committee last week, the Secretary of State claimed that people would game the system. Does the Minister believe that this is true? After all the sacrifices and rule-following of the public, does the Minister have the same low opinion of our fellow citizens as his boss?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State supported extending restrictions by pointing to plans to go further on vaccination. But even after extending the doses as outlined in the Statement, large proportions of the population will still be left unprotected —having had one dose or none—and exposed to a variant that, if left unchecked, will accelerate and double every week. That would mean more hospitalisations, more long Covid, more disruption to schools and more opportunities for variants to emerge. What will happen under these circumstances? Will the Prime Minister still lift the restrictions?
My reading of this announcement and the terms in which is it couched is that the science points to us being in a very dangerous position. We could lose the battle that is going on between the vaccine and the virus. Will there be vaccine surges to counter this in areas where the virus is most prevalent? What is the plan to bring down infections and extend vaccination rates in hotspot areas? We have learned that in some places—Leicester, Chorley, Tameside, Salford and Wigan —the dose numbers have gone down. Has vaccination surging been abandoned in those hotspot areas? Will the Government bring forward accelerated second doses, and how are they working further to overcome vaccine hesitancy?
The Chief Medical Officer said last night that we would be lifting restrictions were it not for the delta variant. The Prime Minister should have moved at lightning speed to prevent the delta variant reaching our shores. Instead he dithered, and today he is responsible.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, we on these Benches echo the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for the Commons Speaker’s statement yesterday on the Government’s continued abuse of Parliament.
We repeatedly warned the Government that sending out mixed messages about lifting restrictions on 21 June would cause problems. Even in March, the Prime Minister made it evident that he wanted us out of restrictions “irreversibly”—his word—by next Monday. What is worse is that we are now in a fourth Covid wave because of his desire to visit President Modi in India in mid-April. The resultant dangerous dithering about putting India on the red list contrasted sharply with the TV news. Every evening, we saw that the then delta variant was scything through India. Even then, Indian epidemiologists were talking about a much faster transmission. We on these Benches have repeatedly asked why India was not added to the red list on 2 April.
At yesterday’s press conference we were warned that the current delta variant wave will likely peak in mid-July, as cases, hospital admissions and patients needing ICU increase steadily. Even if vaccines mean that hospitals are not being overwhelmed, there is an increase. The UK now faces continuing restrictions entirely because of the Prime Minister’s delay.
The academic paper Estimating the Failure Risk of Hotel-based Quarantine for Preventing COVID-19 Outbreaks in Australia and New Zealand, published in February this year, calculated the risks and likely seeding of variants in the light of infection control and surveillance used locally. It now provides an essential baseline to assess seeding of cases coming from abroad. Devan Sinha of Oxford University and other UK scientists have used this to look at the seeding of the delta variant in the UK. He noted that 96% of the seeding of the delta variant occurred after 2 April—that is, after Pakistan and Bangladesh were added to the red list but India was not. He estimates that putting India on the red list on 2 April would have delayed the current wave by a further four to seven weeks. That four to seven weeks would have meant that all over-40s had had access to a second dose and, at seven weeks, most over-30s. He said that the wave would have been
“much smaller and mostly neutered”.
What have the Government learned from this delay? Why did it take so long for the delta variant to be moved from a variant of interest to a variant of concern? Despite MPs, Peers and scientists all asking in early April, Matt Hancock told the Commons that it would be listed as a variant of concern on 20 April. In fact, it was not listed until 7 May. Even worse, surge testing did not start until May either. If it was serious enough for India to be added to the red list by 23 May, why was it made a variant of concern only on 7 May? Was the delay with PHE or with Ministers?
The necessary continuation of restrictions at the current level means that a number of support schemes are now out of kilter with the restriction levels. These include lifting the embargo on evictions, the reduction in furlough support while people are still being asked to work from home if possible, and other business support mechanisms. Please can the Minister say whether they will be extended until we know that we are lifting restrictions completely? When, oh when, will any of these Statements or communications make it clear to the clinically extremely vulnerable and their families and friends what they are expected to do?
The Statement lists the areas where restrictions are to be lifted, many of which will be welcome, especially the 30-person limit on attending weddings, receptions and commemorative events, and out-of-school residential visits in bubbles of up to 30. But I ask again about mask wearing in schools, given the continuing increase in delta variant cases among children. Will there be specific guidance for these events, including lateral flow testing before and after, so that any outbreaks at a wedding could be tracked and managed? What level of new Covid cases per day would change the pilots on large events with higher capacities, especially the ones planned at full capacity?
It is good to see the removal of enforced quarantine for care home residents after trips out of homes. I never did understand that one, given that staff and visitors did not have to self-isolate.
It was good to hear the emphasis in the statement from Professor Whitty and Sir Patrick Valance on the importance of the second dose. I repeat my regular plea that all Ministers use this as a reference point. Far too many only ever use the number of people having had the first dose. With the delta variant, it is even clearer now that two doses are essential.
Why on earth did the Prime Minister say yesterday that 19 July is definitely the terminal day for restrictions? We all hope that he is right, but if he and Ministers are led by data, how can he say that?
Finally, the Statement refers to surge testing in areas where the variant is also surging, but maps show such a steady rise in cases across the country. Can the Minister confirm that there are enough test, trace and isolate staff to manage effectively this fourth wave of Covid?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, for such thoughtful and searching questions.
Lord Bethell (Con)
As ever, I am also grateful to my own Benches for their support in these difficult times.
This Statement from the House of Commons has been reflected on very thoughtfully and accurately, as shown by some of the questions. I remind noble Lords that the rollout of the vaccine is happening at pace, but it deserves to have a breath and the space to be seen through, all the way, before we make categoric steps towards opening up. I emphasise in reply to these questions that the supply of the vaccine has stepped up. Pfizer’s forecasted supply in June will be 30% more than in May; in July, it will be 80% more than in June; and we hope to have that sustained level in August. By the week commencing 19 July, we will have offered all adults a first dose, as well as a second dose to those aged over 40 who have had their first dose by mid-May.
This rollout will be absolutely transformative. It will mean that we overtake an important inflection point: the numbers of those who have had their second dose, and who are therefore, as statistics show more and more clearly, highly resistant to this virus, and certainly to severe disease and death. This variant is undoubtedly much more transmissible, by between 50% and 80%. It is therefore completely proportionate and reasonable that we take this moment to delay step 4 and give the vaccine rollout the space that it needs.
I will build on the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the work done by the Sanger Institute on genomic sequencing. It is only because of enormous investment, and the skills and expertise of those in genomic sequencing in the UK, that we understand as much as we do about the variant. In her comments on India, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke about the process of analysing VOIs and VOCs. She is entirely right to allude to the fact that this is an extremely complicated matter. This analysis is down to the scientific judgment of those who have a copy of the variant. It took a very long time to get a physical copy of the variant from India, or even to have a digital sequence of it. That is why these things can take some time.
This demonstrates why we need to tidy up and invest in international systems for surveillance. An enormous amount of energy went into the G7, and I can report to noble Lords that, during the health track, we made great progress in the pandemic preparedness work stream in setting up an international scheme for exactly this kind of surveillance. It is imperative that we know what is happening in communities all the way around the world, because we are all touched by the mutations of this virus, wherever they happen. We continue to invest in the national variant assessment platform, which is our offer to the world to genomically sequence any variant sent to the Sanger, so that we can share that data with countries around the world.
We have also invested enormously in the control of our borders. Through both its red list and its amber list, the managed quarantine service has done an enormous amount to stop the transmission of new variants into this country. I pay a huge amount of tribute to Border Force and those in MQS, who have done a terrific job of bringing in this completely new infrastructure and this service that has done a huge amount to keep out variants—including the Manaus variant, the South Africa variant and others—through the red-listing process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about school-age children and mask wearing. It is important that we keep a balance. Even though the infection rate is creeping up among school-age children, we need to protect the life they have in schools. In areas of enhanced response, the wearing of masks is now a recommended option for those who seek to take it up. That is a proportionate response in areas of rising infection. But across the estate, we think it is proportionate to step away from that at the moment.
On isolation payments, I can share with the noble Baroness that we are putting £2 million of funding into an agreed pilot across the Greater Manchester area, testing ways to encourage people to comply with self-isolation rules. The pilot will include support and engagement teams who will work with households within 24 hours of a positive test. The pilot is expected to reach 13,000 people over 12 weeks, and I am hopeful that it will guide the way forward in this area.
The vaccination surge is absolutely working. We saw a dramatic change in the vaccination uptake among the community in Bolton in particular. That is one area of Britain where the infection rate is coming down, which demonstrates the effectiveness of both the vaccination surge and the testing surge. We are now focused very much on accelerating second doses, particularly for over-40s. Millions of over-40s have had their first dose; some have an appointment for their second dose and some do not. It is very much the focus of our efforts to ensure that we get those people over the line and finish the job, to protect them and the ones they love.
This is an important development in our steps programme. It is frustrating, but there is an enormous amount to be optimistic about and it is in that spirit that we have made this decision.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, what is the point of this Statement? It was briefed to the newspapers over the weekend and the contents were given to members of the press for scrutiny. So Laura Kuenssberg has done the job and there seems to be little for us to do—which may account for the grumpiness I see around the Chamber. Has my noble friend seen the excellent report of the Constitution Committee of this House published on 10 June, entitled COVID-19 and the Use and Scrutiny of Emergency Powers? It is damning of the Government’s use of secondary legislation without proper consultation—of which today we have yet another example. Will the Government mend their ways and accept the recommendations in this excellent report?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely pay tribute to the Constitution Committee. It was generous enough to have me appear in front of it, and I gave several hours of evidence. I am glad to see that my noble friend read the report; I hope he enjoyed my evidence in it as well. In that evidence I made it absolutely crystal clear that the Government work with the laws at our disposal; that is what we have to hand. There may be a time when Parliament chooses to review those laws. Now is not the time, but when it is we will do it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people would like to know whether, having had two vaccinations, they have antibodies? Is this possible? Also, there has been a shortage of the Pfizer vaccine. How can this be increased worldwide?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that many are curious about whether they have antibodies, but I warn her that the presence of antibodies does not necessarily correlate with immunity. Some people have strong immunity and no antibodies, and some have antibodies but not immunity. This is one of the mysteries of the body’s response to the disease and one of the reasons why it has been such a confounding disease to fight. But if anyone does want an antibody test, they should ask their GP and it can be arranged.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, very bluntly, we are facing this unpalatable Statement today because of the Prime Minister’s inability to take decisions. The Government learned of the arrival of the Indian variant as early as 25 March, yet took no action for 30 days, allowing 20,000 people to enter the UK. The result is that they put the public’s health at risk. As a consequence, we now face a further four weeks of restrictions, with accompanying hardships. Have the Government learned their lesson?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I accept the characterisation presented by the noble Lord. We have worked incredibly hard to bring in a managed quarantine system that is a novel, new introduction into the UK. We have done extremely well in fighting off many of the variants that have come to our shores, including the Manaus variant, the South African variant and others. We have strong links with Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, which means there is a lot of traffic between our countries. I am not sure whether it would ever have been possible to prevent this variant making landfall in the UK at some point. But we have done an enormous amount in the UK to delay and prevent the arrival of these variants, and for that I am enormously grateful to those involved.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, following the data is the Government’s mantra. Using the Government’s own test and trace data, for the two weeks prior to Bangladesh going on the red list it had a positivity rate of 3.7%; India’s was 5.1%. Of all variants entering the UK, including the delta variant, more than 50% of cases came from India and fewer than 5% from Bangladesh. So if the Government were following the data on 2 April, why was Bangladesh put on the red list and not India?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is enjoying the benefit of hindsight very much indeed; we can all use the retrospectoscope. The data he refers to was not available to us at the time. We did not know that the variant now known as India 2 was a variant of concern. We did not know that it was going to be the most transmissible one. There were three variants in India; we did not know at that point which of them would present the most problems. It is extremely easy to sit here, look back and say that one person should have done this and another should have done that. I ask the noble Lord to try to sit in the seat of those who made the decisions at the time.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, regardless of matters of hindsight, does the Minister agree that prolonging the restrictions might be justified for certain reasons? I do not demur from that, but the prolonging of inconsistencies is a serious impediment to public adherence to the rules. You do not have to look very far to see where the discipline broke down a long time ago. For example—this is not special pleading; it is just at the forefront of my mind—you can sing in a pub but not in a church. This is what brings the rules into disrepute, and therefore people do not agree with them.
Secondly, can the Minister say something in response to Michael Gove’s reported comments about acceptable death rates? We have learned to live with acceptable death rates from flu and other seasonal diseases. Will the Government do some work on what might be an acceptable death rate from Covid in future and be up-front with the country as to what that might be? I think we can take it.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I hear loud and clear the frustration of many noble Lords on the question of singing in churches; it is enormously frustrating to those who have a passion for singing. But I would be pretending to be other than I am if I did not level with the right reverend Prelate and say that this is an airborne, aerosol disease. It is breathed into buildings at huge risk to those inside, and there is a direct correlation between infection rates, that aerosol and that kind of singing. The decision has been made with huge regret and not without a huge amount of scientific analysis, and those who have made their case have been heard loud and clear—but we have to fight this virus and prevent people getting sick.
I do not accept the right reverend Prelate’s view that discipline has broken down. Quite the opposite: I am astounded by the British public and their adherence to voluntary guidelines and arrangements. I pay tribute to the British public, and I do not think that the right reverend Prelate does any favours when he suggests that discipline has broken down.
Lastly, I really do not accept the concept of an acceptable death rate. That is not how we play the health system in this country. We are here to save lives; that is our priority. There is a balance between the economy, freedom and lives, but as a Health Minister my starting point is to save lives.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, it is great to see the data on the efficacy of vaccines against the delta variant, but we know that that might not always be the case in the future. The announcement from the Prime Minister that we will share 100 million of our excess vaccines is a welcome first step, but the G7 failed to achieve its 1 billion target, let alone the 11 billion that the WHO says is needed. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that variants present one of the greatest threats to the unlockdown here in the UK and that the pandemic is not over here unless it is over everywhere? What are the next steps to ensure that low-income countries are vaccinated as soon as possible? Given the success of our vaccine programme, will the UK take a leadership role in this, as we continue our G7 presidency?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Yes, I entirely agree with my noble friend on this matter: we are of course only safe when we are all safe. As chair of the G7, we have done an enormous amount to try to show leadership in this area. The G7 committed to share at least 870 million doses directly over the next year and to make these doses available as soon as possible. But the numbers involved are absolutely enormous: 870 million is an astonishing figure, but it is not near to the 8 billion that we ultimately need. At the end of the day, we need manufacturing in all the regions of the world. That is why, as the supporter of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is made on a profit-free basis and on extremely generous terms to manufacturers of the world, Britain has given an enormous benefit to the world. I very much hope that the manufacturing can ramp up to meet that need.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the small but vitally important concession to care home residents in the Statement. However, the Prime Minister has left in place the cruel and unnecessary controls over care home visits. Even visitors who have had two vaccinations and a negative test before visiting must wear PPE and maintain social distancing—no hugging, for example. This is inhuman, particularly for people with dementia, and the risk must be close to zero. Will the Minister plead for immediate changes to those really unnecessary rules? They are well overdue.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes the case extremely well, and I agree with her sentiment that the rules are extremely tough. I have heard loud and clear the many noble Lords who have made this case, and we look at it very carefully and thoroughly. At the beginning of the pandemic, one of the most alarming images—and one that has always stuck in my mind—was that of care homes in Spain in Italy, where so many of the residents had died. What we know for sure is that, even with the vaccine, the virus can spread through a care home at great pace—typically half of residents will be infected the moment the virus arrives in a care home. Even with the vaccine, we still have to step carefully, and that is why these measures are still in place. I very much hope that they will be lifted, and I will celebrate that along with all noble Lords who have made this case to me in the past.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, when Gordon Brown called the G7 summit an “unforgivable moral failure”, was he not right? With potentially billions to vaccinate, the West has miserably abandoned the moral high ground on vaccine supply, leaving it to the Chinese and Russians to win new friends and secure influence worldwide. Has not Prime Minister Johnson, with his short-sighted, unimaginative approach, damaged our credibility across the world? We should have been a major worldwide vaccine distributor-producer; we failed, and we failed miserably.
Lord Bethell (Con)
No, I am afraid the noble Lord completely overstates the case; I do not accept the characterisation he has made at all. The challenge is enormous, and he is right to feel that this is one of the most important tasks for humanity in the round—I cannot emphasise that enough. But the practicalities are that, in Britain, we make hardly any vaccine at all. It is not for us as a nation to manufacture the vaccine. Where we have contributed is, first, through the science—particularly the AstraZeneca vaccine—and, secondly, through global leadership. The Prime Minister, through the G7, has sought to use that post as much as he can, in order to promote the vaccine. I do not accept that China and Russia have in any way contributed anything like the West has done; the numbers simply do not support that. We are working extremely closely with the regions of the world—with Africa, South America and beyond—in order to set up the kind of manufacturing that those countries need to provide their people with the safety from the virus that they deserve.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, urgent decisions on Covid restrictions are needed elsewhere in the United Kingdom as well. Does the Government accept, however, that decisions that are for a devolved Government to make must be that devolved Government’s responsibility, and their responsibility alone? For Westminster to impose its will on the Assembly on devolved matters would be totally unacceptable and would lead inevitably and inexorably to a collapse of confidence in devolved institutions.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to all the devolved authorities for the work that they have done with the vaccine and in healthcare. Generally, it has been a very close collaboration, and one that I hope continues.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, in early April, when the Government put Pakistan, along with Kenya and the Philippines, on the red list, they gave us reasons which many people believe did not add up—but I am not going to argue with that. What we did not know, and still do not know, are the criteria for those countries to be taken out of the red list, as there are millions of people affected by that. In April, in Pakistan, new cases were running at over 6,000 a day. That has now been reduced to just over 1,000 a day. Pakistan has made a huge improvement in reducing the number of Covid cases. Will the Minister tell the 1.4 million British people of Pakistani origin living in this country when the Government plan to take Pakistan off the red list, and what are the criteria?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right to ask about the route out. That is exactly what we hope to be thinking about very soon. The criteria will include how much vaccination we have here in the UK and the efficacy of that vaccine against all the variants present in the world. They will also include the presence of variants in the other countries; there is a stepped process for analysing that. Lastly, they will include the infection rates in those countries. We hope to be able to take concrete steps on that shortly. The treaties necessary to have mutual vaccine recognition are being discussed at a high level as we speak.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised if I ask him whether he can guarantee that, by 19 July, all care home workers will have been vaccinated. But could he also answer this question? Why is he allowed to go down to his local pub and sing “Roll Out the Barrel” but he cannot go into his local church and sing “Guide Me, O Thou Great Redeemer”?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely accept the challenge. These anomalies exist and he is entirely right to beat up the Minister for this kind of stuff. It is unbelievably difficult to write guidelines that touch so many different parts of life, and I would not pretend for a moment that there is 100% consistency in everything that is done. But I have made the point emphatically: these things are done to save lives and protect people from infection. They are done with a heavy heart, having looked at the scientific evidence, with a sense of regret that we are letting down those with a passion for singing and religious worship, and in the hope that we can get rid of them very soon. We are taking concrete steps as quickly as we can to deliver the vaccines. In terms of care homes, as he knows, there is a consultation in process and that consultation is working its way through.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
The Prime Minister rightly says that we have to learn to live with Covid. Therefore, does the Minister agree that, while vaccinations provide protection and effective test and trace is essential, it will continue to be necessary to take sensible precautions for self-protection if we have to learn to live with this virus and its variants? Does he also agree that there is a need for continuous public education and clear, consistent guidance to explain why these precautions are necessary? If so, apart from the effective rollout of vaccinations and test and trace, what plans do the Government have in the longer run for promoting a public education health programme?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful for the question from the noble Baroness. She gives me an opportunity to lift my head for a moment and think about a brighter future, because she is entirely right. One of the possible benefits from this awful virus is a different approach to public health that is much more effective in fighting contagious diseases, where we have much more effective tests for everything from flu to RSV to things like Covid as well, and where we can get therapeutic drugs to people the moment they test positive so that they do not fall sick. We can use this investment in public health to help level up some of the health inequalities that have beset this country so heavily.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, is there not a problem in looking for a different approach in the future? The precedent set by the Government’s attitude to Parliament fills one with a great deal of concern about the way our parliamentary democracy is going to work. Can he simply tell me why the Prime Minister did not make a Statement to the Commons last night?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Secretary of State was there. I thought he presented the steps regulations extremely clearly and did a great job.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
Can I ask the Minister what we have learned from the treating of this pandemic to help us face the future? We have learned very clearly how much countries depend upon one another. Our first vaccines came from Belgium. Can we make sure we do not build walls, but build bridges, as we look forward to the future?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely touched by the noble Lord’s words, and I completely endorse his meaning. It was awful last year when we saw multilateralism and global co-operation fracture and decay. We had to look to our friends and resources within our own borders to answer the pandemic. That did not work and will not work. The noble Lord is absolutely right. From a pragmatic point of view, we depend upon global supply chains for the benefit of global science. From a personal and human point of view, we depend upon the solidarity of humankind to get us through these awful moments. I completely endorse the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for all his work helping fight this dreadful pandemic; I know his dedication is second to none. I hope he will forgive me for asking: what is the endgame? He has said today that we must prevent people getting sick, but that seems to mean just getting sick with one illness: Covid. What about the suicides, heart attacks and cancers that are being missed because of lockdown? Covid is responsible for less than 1% of deaths right now. Can we not trust the British people to be sensible and choose the risks they are willing to take, along the lines the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, using the example of the Government banning hugging for care home residents? I find this intrusion in our private everyday lives deeply frightening.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely forgive my noble friend because that is an extremely sensible question. I take it on board completely. The endgame is to end a contagious disease that has exponential growth. As she knows, R is currently between 1.2 and 1.4. If it goes unchecked, this disease will spread pretty much through the whole population. The vaccine is excellent at keeping people out of hospital, but not everyone. It is excellent at preventing deaths, but not for everyone. It is good at stopping the disease, but only half of the disease. We must get enough vaccine out there so that the disease will not run through the entire population and lead to the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands, or more. That is the endgame of this project.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Covid cases reported daily in the media are not clinical cases? They are not sick people but positive results of the PCR test. Given that the PCR test is incredibly sensitive and can detect tiny numbers of virus particles, what proportion of positive tests is likely to develop clinical disease?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the PCR test is very sensitive. Most people who take the test are presenting a symptom, so a very high proportion of those positives are people who have the disease when they take it. Of course, there are many who have the disease and do not take a test at all, so there is more disease in the population than accounted for in the positive tests. There is a very small proportion of people who might have shreds of the virus from a previous infection who then test positive, but it is thought that that proportion is very small.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the Prime Minister said that this extension of restrictions will
“save many thousands of lives”
and he was backed up by the Health Secretary. Since 18 May, the weekly average number of deaths per day from Covid has been in single figures—almost all of whom will have had underlying health conditions—while each day about 450 people die from cancer. Will the Government publish, or will my noble friend give Parliament the opportunity to see, the evidence and research behind the “many thousands of lives” saved?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely understand the point. There is a lag to the deaths. At the moment, we are seeing the infection rate go up, which is leading to a small increase in hospitalisations. As my noble friend quite rightly points out, that increase has not been seen in deaths yet, and thank goodness for that. We do not know for sure what proportion of infections will lead to severe disease or death. We know it is a percentage; we do not know exactly what percentage. But should the disease spread through millions in the population, which is entirely possible without the NPIs we have in place, then the number of deaths will be very significant—possibly as many as we have seen already.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I do not think the Minister should dismiss so lightly the questions about inconsistencies in the regulations. This really does get home to whether the public are going to believe in and carry out those regulations. Can I give him one example? Wimbledon is going to be full to capacity with singing, clapping and cheering—yes, outside—but how on earth then can weddings and outside receptions not be allowed to sing, cheer and do all the things that happen at weddings? These inconsistencies do not make common sense. The Minister needs to understand that.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my apology if I have in any way suggested that I am flippant about inconsistency—I am not. What I have in my mind is the huge amount of work that is done by policy officials in order to try to be as consistent as possible. I pay tribute to the colossal human effort that goes into trying to make sure that everything we do is aligned. It is a monumental and very difficult task.
The noble Baroness is right to say that Wimbledon is a big event pilot, quite different in its ambition and its tone to some of the other events—for instance, the care homes that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to. What we are trying to do is to take fairy footsteps out of the pandemic. Wimbledon, for instance, will account for many hundreds of thousands of tests as we use very rigorous testing procedures to try to protect the rate of infection in that big event. If it is successful, it will help us lead our way out of this horrible arrangement.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
At a personal level, I feel very sorry for the Minister. He must realise that there are considerable doubts across both Houses about the Prime Minister’s sincerity and truthfulness. Have we been told the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the delay over dealing with India?
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in this pandemic, as always, the difficult judgment that has to be made is between lives and livelihoods. Decisions have been taken to protect lives by retaining the existing measures for a further month. The Minister will no doubt appreciate that I and other noble Lords have been extensively lobbied by musicians, independent workers in the hospitality and entertainment sectors, who have fallen through the cracks with no support. Does he not agree that it is reasonable to argue that an equitable balance now would be to provide targeted financial support to those self-employed and freelance workers who have not had a fair deal throughout this crisis?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, having worked in the music industry for 15 years, I absolutely identify with the challenge he describes. However, I remind him that we have been emphatically forthcoming in trying to support workers through this difficult pandemic. We have provided £70 billion for the furlough scheme and £33 billion for the self-employment income support scheme, which would touch many of the musicians to whom he refers. We have stepped forward financially in a very big way and will continue to do so until the end of this awful situation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The Minister has said several times that there are grounds for optimism. Does he not realise that this delay has caused despair? The Minister urged opponents to sit in the seats of decision-makers. Can I urge him to sit in the seats of the trashed events industry today and those likely to lose their jobs in hospitality, sport, theatre and so on? I appreciate that many people and the public remain nervous of living with the virus, despite the wonders of the vaccine. However, is it not the job of the Government to lead with courage, to reassure people not to be unduly frightened or succumb to fatalism, and to protect the unquantifiable non-Covid-related social fabric of society, which they are tearing up?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I sympathise with those in the events and hospitality industry. As I said a moment ago, it is an industry I have a huge affection for. I worked in it for many years and I know through my friends and family who work in it how hard hit it has been, in particular for those who work on a casual basis and enjoy it from an aesthetic point of view as well as needing work of a casual nature. But these decisions are tough and hard. It would have been easier, perhaps, to have given ground in areas where we have been pressed and lobbied, but we have, where necessary, made the tough decisions based on the science and the advice that we have from clinicians in order to protect both life and the economy. At the end of the day, we do not have an economy if we have a pandemic running through our society. We do not have trust and we do not have people going out and about and enjoying normal lives if there is disease. That is one important reason why we have backed the decisions we have made.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]
Tuesday 15th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank those who contributed to the debate following Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, when we first discussed this Bill. I also thank noble Lords who attended the recent briefing with departmental Ministers. For the benefit of noble Lords contributing remotely, I note that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Apprenticeships and Skills is physically present with us in the Chamber today. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, and it is wonderful to see the priority given to the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who is speaking today on her birthday. I am glad to see a common desire to look at skills reform and further education. I look forward to the debate that we will share, and I welcome the scrutiny that the Bill will be placed under.
We can all agree that skills and post-16 education needs its moment in the spotlight, both in Parliament and in communities across the country. We talk about the forgotten 50% of people who do not go to university; today, we are giving this policy and the people it affects the attention they deserve. We can see today the vast challenges facing the nation. Covid-19 has significantly impacted the economy and shown us how urgently we need a resilient, highly skilled workforce. We all see the clock ticking towards 2050, when we have committed to reaching net-zero carbon emissions, and we are all aware of our need to succeed as an independent trading nation, following our departure from the European Union.
This is also the perfect opportunity to think about what constitutes our nation. Is it one big city, or a couple of big cities? No, it is a diverse set of communities, families and individuals, with different ambitions and potential. This means that we need to match opportunities with the talent that we know can be found across the country. We need to ensure that people can succeed without feeling that they have to move to one of the big cities. This past year’s extraordinary transition to flexible working for many has only proved this further. We have a duty to make sure that the skills provision offered in people’s home towns meets their needs and ambitions and that of employers, so that everyone has the opportunity to realise their full potential and find success, wherever they live and whatever their background.
The evidence is clear: we have a problem in the balance of education. Only 4% of young people achieve a qualification at higher technical level by the age of 25, compared to a third who get a degree or above, yet 34% of working-age graduates are not in high-skilled employment. No wonder more parents would now prefer that their child gain a vocational qualification than a degree. University is a great option for some but not the best option for everyone, and it should not be seen to be the only pathway to success. My honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Apprenticeships and Skills often tells me how inspired she is by the learners she meets on visits to colleges and further education institutions—people who have found their vocation and their way of success through technical education.
Philip Augar’s 2018 Post-18 Review of Education and Funding made the call for parity of esteem between further and higher education. I take this moment to offer my congratulations on his recent knighthood in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List. The review set out the case very clearly for a genuine choice, for everyone, beyond the fantastic opportunities offered through our world-class university system. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who served on the review’s panel. The Government have listened to this call; the Skills for Jobs White Paper, published earlier this year, set out our vision to reform post-16 education and training. We will prioritise flexibility, accountability and quality, and we will put employers at the heart of the system, building on what we have done with apprenticeships and T-levels, so that individuals can know what their qualification leads to, and employers can have confidence in them. Given that 80% of the workforce of 2030 are already in work today, it is essential that we have a flexible system for adult retraining which supports people to progress in their careers.
We want our reforms to work for everyone, which is why we are working with noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to ensure that we support those with special educational needs to access the improved skills training and education that our reforms aim to deliver. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for his dedication, challenge and advocacy on this issue, as well as our other FE ambassadors, who have brought a breadth of knowledge and enthusiasm to our discussions.
The chair of the Education Select Committee, the right honourable Robert Halfon, called the White Paper a “sea change”. The Association of Colleges noted that it
“recognises the vital role that colleges and further education will play in levelling up for people and places whilst tackling long standing concerns about stagnating productivity”.
Employers such as the Co-op welcomed our reforms.
We know that to deliver the reforms successfully requires funding. That is why we have backed up the White Paper with £2.5 billion towards the national skills fund, £1.5 billion to improve the college estate, and £650 million extra into further education for 16 to 19 year-olds. The White Paper sets out our comprehensive programme for reform, and the Bill before us will provide the necessary statutory underpinning for change.
The Bill is divided into three sections that support the principles of the White Paper. First, it aims to provide a framework for ensuring that skills and post-16 education leads people towards a great job. That is why we are creating a statutory underpinning for local skills improvement plans, which we will shortly be trailblazing in some local areas. By putting employers and their representative bodies at the heart of the post-16 skills system, we are focusing on meeting local skills gaps and prioritising training in growth sectors. This will ensure that employers have the skills they need to drive growth in local areas; it will support opportunities for learners to get good jobs and help the existing workforce to retrain. This will help us get rid of the idea that career success can be found only in a big city.
Relevant providers will need to have regard to these plans when considering their technical education and training offer. These changes will also be supported by a new duty on further education institutions to review their provision to ensure that it meets local needs. In addition, the Bill supports the provision of the advanced technical and higher education skills the country needs by creating a strong link to employer-led standards. The Bill will reform the technical education system so that it is high-quality, stable and coherent. It does this by giving the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education powers to approve new categories of technical qualifications, simplifying a system in which there are currently over 12,000 qualifications. The Bill also gives a statutory footing to the collaborative relationship between the institute and Ofqual.
Perhaps the major plank of the Bill is that it supports the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement, as part of a flexible lifetime skills guarantee. This measure will be rolled out from 2025 and will give all adults access to the equivalent of four years of student loans for higher-level study at levels 4 to 6. The loans will be able to be used flexibly, full time or part time, for modules or full qualifications and for provision in colleges or universities. At the moment, maximum amounts for funding are set in relation to an academic year. The Bill will make it clear that maximum loan amounts can be set in other ways. The Government will consult on the details of the lifelong loan entitlement, including on how best to support students with the living costs of study, and whether equivalent and lower qualifications restrictions should be amended to support retraining and stimulate provision.
The ambition is to replace the two existing systems that offer government-financed loans to learners studying at levels 4 to 6 with the single LLE system. These two existing systems of higher education student finance and advanced learner loans provide funding support for different types of courses. The lifelong loan entitlement aims to create a simpler and clearer system, but it will require extensive operational changes to the student finance system and the types of course available, which is why it will be rolled out from 2025. It is the step change in the system that will give people the opportunity to upskill, retrain and reskill, providing the alternative to the notion that a standard three-year degree is the only route to success and giving people the flexibility to change their future.
Of course, it is important to ensure that there is sufficient provision for lower-level qualifications. That is why, separate from the Bill, the Government’s adult education budget will continue to fully fund courses in English and maths up to and including level 2 for adults who have not previously attained a GCSE grade C or, in new currency, grade 4. The national skills fund funds adults to complete their first level 3 qualification alongside the new skills boot camps.
These reforms mean very little if education or training provision is not of the highest quality. That is why the second part of the Bill proposes powers to make regulations to improve and secure the quality of FE initial teacher training by shaping the market for that provision. This power will be used only if these improvements cannot be achieved through working collaboratively with the sector. The Bill will also make it clear that the Office for Students has the ability to make assessments by reference to absolute student outcomes. This will give confidence that the same standard can be applied across all higher education providers and for all students, while continuing to take into account context and individual circumstances.
The third part of the Bill aims to ensure there are sufficient protections in place for learners. It will allow the Government to introduce a list of post-16 education or training providers. To be on this list, providers will need to meet conditions aimed at protecting learners against the negative impacts of potential provider failure. This issue, which relates particularly to independent training providers, was raised in this House during the passage of the Technical and Further Education Bill in 2017. I am glad to bring a solution to this issue back to the House today. This section of the Bill also gives powers to the Secretary of State, who took his place on the steps of the Throne as I began, to intervene in the statutory further education sector where local needs are not being met, or to direct mergers or structural change where that is the best way to secure improvement. Alongside the final part of the Bill, it will improve the efficiency of the FE insolvency regime. One of the strengths of the FE market is the flexibility of its provider base. These measures will give the impetus for this flexibility to be used to protect learners and provide education and training that has this clear path towards the labour market.
I am delighted that this Bill is before us today. We have an opportunity to begin the process of transforming opportunities for young people and adults. Events of the past year have shown us how important skills and further education will be to our recovery as both an economy and as a nation. As noble Lords have often said, this has been the Cinderella of the sector for too long. This reform is long overdue, but is only one step on a longer journey. We will work to ensure that the 50% of people who do not go to university will no longer be called “forgotten” and stuck in what are wrongly called “forgotten towns”. Instead, we will make skills and jobs available to everyone, wherever they are. This Bill will help provide those learners with high-quality provision, protection and the skills and education that can transform their lives. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her kind wishes—a year older and, hopefully, a year wiser in the company of your Lordships.
I am opening this debate from the Opposition Front Bench, and I am able to do so after a lifetime of working with young people, developing their skills and encouraging lifelong learning. In recent years I was able to use that experience as the local government education spokesperson for Wales, specifically with a skills agenda as the lead portfolio holder in the Cardiff capital region, which covers 52% of the Welsh population. The regional skills partnership showed me that, by working together with all interested parties, real progress could be made to promote strategic and collaborative decision-making. Representatives from business, further and higher education training providers and national and local government joined together to share their knowledge and understanding of the sectors they represented, to ensure the region was able to respond to a demand-led approach to developing skills and talent. The lack of that level of shared collaboration across all sectors is a significant area of concern on the face of the Bill as it stands.
While wholesale changes to the way we support FE skills, adult learning and part-time HE are long overdue, this Bill remains inadequate to tackle the scale of the skills challenges that have resulted from years of neglect and austerity, exacerbated by the pandemic. As furlough ends, no community will be untouched by unemployment. It is vital, therefore, that a joined-up, place-based employment, skills and careers system offers adults and young people the recovery they deserve, by providing access to quality education and training opportunities. A range of choices and opportunities should be central to any reform, and changes to the post-16 education system should allow for progression and pathways between technical education, apprenticeships and existing further and higher education qualifications.
Among others, local government has an important role. Councils have direct functions to plan post-16 skills, support young people with specific needs and deliver adult and community learning and other related functions. Mayoral combined authorities have devolved responsibility for the adult education budget, which they have used to reshape the local further education offer, working with employers, FE providers and constituent local authorities.
There is, however, an overt emphasis in the Bill on an employer-led approach to develop local skills improvement plans alongside training providers. We offer that MCAs and local authorities should be strategic partners—and on the face of the Bill. Their wide-ranging knowledge and expertise on this agenda are currently missing, and we will be seeking amendments to develop collaboration, away from the overarching employer-led approach that currently dominates.
Therefore, can the Minister explain why metro mayors and combined authorities, many of which have democratic accountability for local skills and economic regeneration, have been excluded? How do the Government envisage LSIPs relating to existing local and regional economic strategies, especially where funding may be directly linked to delivery against them? And why are local enterprise partnerships not covered in the Bill?
Furthermore, the Bill does not provide support for any qualifications below level 3, despite lower-level qualifications offering many adult learners key progression routes. Nor does it support subjects outside a narrow band of technical disciplines. Labour is concerned that nearly 1 million priority jobs will be excluded from the LSG in sectors facing a skills shortage.
The Bill also appears to omit reskilling and second level 3 qualifications. So can the Minister confirm that the LSG does not cover subsequent level 3 courses? Does she agree that all adults should be eligible for retraining, given the impact of the pandemic and changing market needs? Is it not now time that the Government put the LSG on a statutory footing?
We are concerned that the detail of the lifetime loan entitlement is yet to be confirmed. It appears that it will only cover tuition costs for higher-tuition courses. Labour believes the system of loans, and in particular means-tested grants, should be extended to support adult learners’ living costs, and that universal credit conditions should be reformed so that the people who would benefit from attending college or accessing training while unemployed or in part-time employment do not lose out.
The planned introduction of the LSG in 2024 and the LLE in 2025 should also be brought forward by several years. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will introduce these LLE amendments in Committee and ensure that they are not tabled at the 11th hour?
There is concern that many adults will be unable to take advantage of the opportunity to gain level 3 qualifications if they lack a level 2 qualification. The Bill omits the value of qualifications below level 3 in creating progression pathways for students. Recent Department for Education data has shown the return on investment of these qualifications and concluded that the present net value of qualifications below level 2 is higher than for level 3.
Another clear omission is funding for adult learners to take a second level 3 qualification. Many adult learners will have achieved their first level 3 many years ago and may have used it to pursue a career that is no longer viable. With the economic turmoil that has come from this pandemic, many adults will want and need to reskill rather than upskill—to switch sectors and enter new careers. Support for second level 3 qualifications could facilitate this.
Every area in the UK needs a mix of provision specific to their local context—to their community and sub-economy. However, the Bill is not explicit in certain features of the LSIP, including what constitutes “local”. Is it a specified area, or is the scope of further education provision included? Does the Minister believe that the definition of “local need” should incorporate a broad range of outcomes related to health and well-being, community participation and other social and economic outcomes that can be linked to community adult learning?
The Bill does provide for a statutory basis for LSIPs, with the Secretary of State gaining powers to designate employer representative bodies. I am pleased to see that he is here to hear it directly from me. But we are concerned that the Government’s desire for employers to take the lead in skill reform lacks clear structure and transparency and will render providers passive recipients of LSIPs. We will seek to amend the Bill to empower metro mayors and combined authorities to coproduce the plans, in recognition of the crucial they have to play.
We will seek to extend LSIP consultation to student representatives, trade unions, local and devolved government and other relevant agencies. We also intend to probe further how ERBs will be held to democratic accountability and the degree to which providers meet local needs. We are concerned that the Secretary of State has the power to select or sack ERBs, sign off on all LSIPs, dictate whether colleges fulfil these requirements, and to merge or replace colleges without recourse to local circumstances. The first port of call for approving local plans and remedying poor local performance should be local and not the centralisation of taking back control to Westminster. The Secretary of State’s powers must be narrowed to apply only in clearly defined, exceptional circumstances.
The Bill gives the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—a non-departmental public body directly accountable to Ministers—the ultimate sign-off power for the approval and regulation of technical qualifications. We are concerned that this handing back, day to day, of political control of technical qualification regulation would undermine the independent status of Ofqual and risk a cumbersome new dual regulatory approval system. We will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that Ofqual remains the sole body.
We further believe that the failure to link this Bill to the apprenticeship levy is a missed opportunity, given that the underspend could be used to provide quality training, education or employment opportunities. It is especially disappointing that supported internships, which can play a huge role in supporting learners with learning difficulties to prepare for and enter the world of work, are missing from the Bill.
We urge the Government, in tandem with the introduction of the Bill, to prepare and publish a cross-departmental 10-year national strategy for education and skills to deliver on a wide policy agenda. Consultation must be wide so that the strategy and oversight of meaningful collaboration, as I outlined at the beginning, can be carried forward towards a better tomorrow for the people who have done so much during this past year to demonstrate the dependence we have on their skills and their hard work in running our services and industries.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I too wish the noble Baroness a happy birthday. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Black.
We are finally getting there, are we not? There is the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has done and now she has been promoted to advising the Prime Minister on this area. There is Philip Augar’s report, which was so important. There is the Technical and Further Education Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, was part of; it is good to see him taking part in this debate. There seems to be a sort of sea-change taking place, which I very much welcome. I suspect that many of us will repeat the same issues.
I consider this the most important education Bill that your Lordships have considered in certainly the last 20 years. The skills and vocational education Bill arrives when we face huge skills shortages, high rates of youth unemployment and the uncertainties of the post-Brexit, post-pandemic world. Yet opportunities are there, not least the green revolution. The Bill must be about the education system that we want for our children and young people.
Many young people are being denied the opportunities that their academic peers have always received. We have an educational ethos in our country that celebrates and rewards the academically minded and treats the rest as second best. For most parents and, indeed, society, the hallmark of a successful education is passing the required number of GCSEs to progress into the sixth form and then getting good A-level grades to secure a university place. However, research tells us that an academic and knowledge-based curriculum is not suitable or worth while for 50% or so of our school pupils, yet we persist in putting these pupils in an academic straitjacket. Instead, we should provide a vocational education as good, respected and celebrated as the academic one. Would it not be uplifting to see banners outside school gates praising not only the A-level pass rate but the vocational success of our students?
The other key ingredient must be first-rate careers guidance and education. Every pupil should be given regular face-to-face support by a qualified careers teacher or officer to understand the pupil’s abilities, interests and passions, and to clearly let the pupil see the opportunities available and not try to push them into the sixth form. It might be more appropriate for them to go to a further education college or a UTC or to undergo an apprenticeship. By doing this, we will gradually change the mindset not just of pupils and parents but of society itself, so that vocational education is regarded as the right route for a large number of our students.
The Bill is an important beacon for changing attitudes and perceptions. It gives us the opportunity to realise that education should be an opportunity for life, so whether you are a mum who is now ready to go back and study or someone who wants to retrain so that they can improve their job prospects, that opportunity is freely available. There should be no barriers to learning. Everyone, no matter their circumstances, should be encouraged to have lifelong learning opportunities. Indeed, as our Prime Minister said:
“These new laws are the rocket fuel that we need to level up this country and ensure equal opportunities for all … I’m revolutionising the system so we can move past the outdated notion that there is only one route up the career ladder, and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to retrain or upskill at any point in their lives.”
They are passionate words from the Prime Minister. We must ensure that the Bill captures his rhetoric. I am sure there will be a large number of amendments that enable this to happen.
If we really mean lifelong learning opportunities for all, a number of areas need clarification and probably amendments. The lifetime loan entitlement would open up tuition fee loans for people taking level 4 and level 5 qualifications, which are especially important for unlocking higher technical skills. Many adults will be unable to take up these opportunities because there is no support for living costs while they are taking a course. Thus these people will be prevented from transforming their life chances and being part of the skilled workforce that the country and the economy need. We also need to look at the entitlement rules for those people who are unemployed and on universal credit and would benefit from attending college. The 16-hour rule is a barrier to those NEETs who could be upskilled or retrained.
As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the Bill offers no support for those students below level 3. Surely it is important that we recognise that this is part of the educational landscape. Many adults achieved their level 3 many years ago and maybe want to pursue a new career or reskill. Support could facilitate this. Should we not be making funding available for these learners?
I want to raise two other considerations, perhaps minor ones but important ones. Some people of faith, including Muslims, do not feel able to take on an interest-bearing loan. The Government identified this as a barrier to participation. What progress has been made on a sharia-compliant loan system? Students from disadvantaged backgrounds or those on universal credit struggle to get the technology they need. Will the Government consider making IT support available for these students? While we are talking about barriers, what progress has been made on the issue of 16 year- olds who are denied the opportunity to take part in the Kickstart programme because they are on universal credit?
Apprenticeships were one of the flagship policies and achievements of the coalition Government, but sadly we have seen the number fall 18% year on year, so that in 2019-20 it was down by 319,000. We know that any business with a payroll of more than £3 million has to pay 0.5% in a levy, but businesses are often unable to use all their levy, so it gets clawed back by the Treasury. A recent survey by Energy & Utility Skills received responses from 22 companies which employ 100,000 people, with over 4,000 apprenticeships, and found that half the levy they paid was going back to the Treasury. Could we not be imaginative and start using that levy in different ways? Some businesses are already being imaginative and using the levy to provide courses for their existing staff. At the Youth Unemployment Select Committee today, we heard one of the witnesses say that the apprenticeship scheme was in danger of becoming an adult learning scheme. That is a sad indictment of our high hopes for apprenticeships.
I reflect that a significant number of employers are concerned that young people entering apprenticeships and vocational training programmes do not have a sufficient foundation in practical skills and work readiness to enable them to progress as quickly as they might; often the shortcomings are not academic. Would it not be imaginative to use some of that levy which has to be returned to the Treasury to fund local employment engagement, perhaps with local schools?
If the Minister has time, perhaps she would be kind enough to write to me about regulation. The Bill will transfer powers from the independent regulator, Ofqual, to the less independent, non-government body, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. It is responsible for introducing its own T-levels while also regulating the broader qualification market. Is there not a risk of a real conflict of interest? The Bill would allow it to charge fees for the approval and accreditation of new qualifications already regulated by Ofqual. There is no information about how these fees will be regulated. The relationship between Ofqual and the IfATE needs detailing. The current proposals have the potential to cause overlap and confusion.
We have seen how other European countries, notably Germany and Switzerland, have valued the importance of vocational education and, as a result, have done far better than the UK in providing the skills that their economies need. Let this Bill, wisely amended, give every person the opportunity they need, as well as what the country and the economy need, to be successful.
Lord Bichard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Bill because it acknowledges the importance of skills and vocational learning to the economy, productivity and, let us not forget, the capacity of people to fulfil their personal potential. I hope it will be a significant step towards reversing the huge decline in adult learning we have experienced in recent years which, as some of us believe, is overdue. But whether it is successful in doing that will depend not on bold ambitions and warm words but on the detailed delivery. In particular, it will depend on some issues which are either not covered at all in the Bill or referred to only in outline. I want to touch on one or two of those today.
The first is advice and guidance. The White Paper for skills and jobs rightly says that we need:
“Clear and outcomes-focused careers information”
and that it is
“fundamental to the success of our reforms.”
The White Paper says:
“We need impartial, lifelong careers advice and guidance available to people when they need it, regardless of age, circumstance, or background.”
I would also say that we need a system in which the Careers and Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service are working more effectively together to create an all-age careers system better able to support learners seeking to navigate what will be a much more complex system following the implementation of this legislation. I would also like to see us providing more face-to-face coaching, not just a better digital information bank. I think that will be especially important as we exit the pandemic. I know that Sir John Holman has been appointed to advise on all of this, but we still await his recommendations, and it is unfortunate that it has not been possible to incorporate them in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can update us about where these recommendations are, when they will be published and how they will sit alongside the Bill.
The second issue is the lifelong learning entitlement. The Open University has pointed out that this is presented in the Bill as a bolt-on, creating a separate funding system for modular study. A more ambitious reform would have been to create a unified credit-based system for learning that does not distinguish between different modes of study. But leaving that to one side for the moment, Clauses 14 and 15 leave some very important questions unanswered—questions which I have raised before in the House in debates on lifelong learning. For example, will people be able to use their entitlement to study at an equivalent or lower level to their previous studies? The local skills improvement plans might well encourage them to do so. I know that this is subject to consultation, but could we not take action on this earlier? What will the repayment terms be for any loan? Will we continue—perversely, I think—to penalise students who choose to study at a distance? How exactly will the credit transfer arrangements work between providers?
Then there is the cost of study itself, including living costs. This is not addressed in the Bill; it is another matter for consultation, but it is key to the successful implementation of these reforms. The Welsh Government recently introduced reforms to tackle this by extending maintenance support, including means-tested grants, to all students, regardless of the mode of study. Importantly, they also introduced lower tuition fees for part-time study. As a result, they have been rewarded with a huge increase in participation, which is what we all want. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are thinking along similar lines?
I agree with the principle of having the employer’s voice heard clearly in the skills system and for skills providers to be responsive to, and accountable to, local employers for their provision. Actually, some older Members will remember that this was one of the reasons why we once had a department for education and employment. Some colleges and independent training providers have too often focused on offering courses and programmes which generated much-needed funding but were not necessarily relevant to local employment needs. What I struggle with, though, is why this is being piloted with chambers of commerce and other representative bodies when they are not resourced for the task and sometimes do not have very strong membership bases. We already have skills advisory panels that bring together employers, providers and funding agencies and are supported by learning and enterprise councils, so do we really need to introduce additional complexity? Why not build on the existing skills advisory approach and make a more inclusive way of providing advice on employers’ needs?
Finally, as I suspect others may not raise it, I shall say a word about independent training providers. The Bill rightly focuses on supporting colleges and further education, but independent training providers at their best can be more fleet of foot and more responsive to employer and local skill needs. In my local area here in Gloucestershire, many providers feel that the skills Bill could make their existence more perilous. They recognise the importance of offering high-quality provision and being sustainable businesses, but many feel that they will be disadvantaged by, for example, not being able to bid into the skills accelerated development fund and being seen as second-tier providers for various contracts. During the passage of the Bill, we need to ensure that it is possible for independent training providers to continue to provide their best and to strengthen in the future.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill. I begin by declaring my interests as chancellor of the University of Leicester, a visiting professor at King’s College London and a member of the boards of Thames Holdings Ltd and UKRI.
The principles and objectives of the Bill are very welcome. It is absolutely right to want to do more for further education colleges, to focus on technical and vocational skills, and to try to do more on lifelong learning, but there is a lot to do to flesh out those principles in practical legislation. The Government have several important consultation exercises under way at the moment, which will help them see how they intend to apply those principles. I hope the Minister can assure the House that we will have ample opportunity to review and revise this legislation as it goes through both Houses of Parliament in the light of the outcomes of their consultations.
While I welcome the principles, the really important matter is what they mean in practice. Here, I have to say that I am concerned about a deep confusion—an artificial conflict, perhaps—between “vocational” and “academic”. In her opening speech, the Minister herself referred to parents preferring that their child should have a vocational qualification rather than a degree. I am familiar with the research, published by the Social Market Foundation, on which that statement rests. I find it very hard to make sense of the question that was put to people in that opinion survey. I talk to universities, which tell me that 70% of their students are studying on a course accredited by an employer or an employer organisation; they are doing courses that are a licence to practise. The White Paper rightly refers to the need for nurses and engineers. These courses are also delivered by universities—are they academic or vocational? It is a false distinction, which should not be used to create conflict between higher and further education when both have an important role to play. You can do academic courses in further education colleges and vocational courses in universities. If distinctions are used to create conflict between these two parts of our education system—both very important—the cause that the Minister rightly supports will be put back rather than advancing.
I have met a young man at a workbench making a bit of kit to be launched on to a satellite as part of his doctoral training. It is an old Oxbridge mindset, the belief that universities are for the liberal arts—for gentlemen—while vocational courses are for training colleges, and that if a university dares to provide vocational training it must mean that it is a bad university. That model is one of the reasons we have the skills crisis that we worry about now; it is the wrong mindset for trying to tackle this problem. I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to assure us that she fully understands that universities—especially some of the less prestigious universities, whose origins are often as colleges of advanced technology and which have not lost sight of their original mission—are one of the instruments that she can use to fulfil her objectives.
This is also very important, and will be tested, in the Minister’s admirable objective of tackling the anomalies of level 4 and 5 funding—a peculiar feature of the system, going back to provisions in the 1992 Act. Augar was right to say in his report that we need a more flexible regime for levels 4 and 5. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for her campaign on this. We do need a better funding arrangement for levels 4 and 5. At the moment they are niche, essentially nursing diplomas for women and engineering courses for men; I do not say that with any endorsement of the stereotypes but it seems to be the origin of the widely cited figure for earnings for some at levels 4 and 5. We need to make it easier and more flexible, but can the Minister assure the House that funding for levels 4 and 5 should be institution-blind? It should be delivered by FE colleges but could also be delivered by higher education institutions.
The new loan scheme is an exciting initiative. I confess to this House that, looking back on my record in government, one of the things I most regret is the decline in adult learning during my time as Minister. There are many complicated reasons for that. One was that we tried to apply the same funding model to adult learning as to 18 year-olds going to university. For an 18 year-old, taking on a loan when they are at a big fork in the road does not, thank heavens, put them off going to university. For adult learners, however, taking out a loan may be a very different decision and far more worrying. So, one lesson I learned from what we went through was that a single funding model may not work as well for adult learners as for younger people en route to university. I hope the Minister will reflect on that as the Government design this new single scheme.
I wished to comment further on the role of employers and the importance of individuals, but I see that time has passed. I just say to the Minister that while, of course, employers have an important voice, we should not forget the individual learner. He or she may be inspired to shape their life around a course or an occupation, and it might not be for a big industry in the area where they live; it might be in something exciting on the horizon for which there is not currently an employer. I very much hope that, in the course of our debate, the Minister will say that the individual shaping his or her destiny matters as much as the employer and the education institution.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I strongly endorse the previous speech, particularly as it notes the crazy distinction between vocational and academic study. On these Benches, we welcome the commitment from the Government to the further education and skills sector as set out in the Bill. It is particularly pleasing to see that the Bill builds on the practical reforms outlined in the Skills for Jobs White Paper. In this context, I also strongly commend to the House the Church of England’s new vision for further education report, published at the end of April, which also recognises the key role that FE plays in driving individual, community and societal transformation.
I wish to make three points. First, how might learners be enabled or incentivised to upskill or reskill, particularly those such as the long-term furloughed or people heavily reliant on welfare payments, who have been particularly impacted by the pandemic? The Bill outlines structures and organisations required for delivering training but does not suggest how such people actually get to the training in the first place. Clearly, the welcome commitment to a reintroduction of maintenance grants is a significant part of this, yet the need, already referred to by other speakers, to cover basic living expenses while studying is an immediate and powerful potential barrier to learning. This could be an opportune time to reconsider the 16 hours-a-week work rule for those in receipt of universal credit, with proper safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the system. Great training is pointless if the people who need it are not incentivised to access it.
Secondly, how do the Government plan to ensure that local SME voices are heard and not overpowered by larger employers, which typically find it easier to meet expectations from Government? Over 80% of the UK economy is driven by the service sector, which is dominated by small and medium-sized employers. SMEs play a central role in levelling up, as they are typically more likely to employ those from disadvantaged groups with lower employment chances. This lies behind Wakefield Council’s launch, in March, of its new strategy to become a “Learning City and District”, one of the four pillars of which is to:
“Provide an inclusive jobs market for residents to find and sustain well paid employment, by ensuring access to learning is available for all levels and to all ages with increased participation from hard to reach/disadvantaged communities.”
An employer-centred focus is crucial to the success of the skills reforms. However, equally crucial is the development of longer-term thinking about the future skills needs of society. This means that meeting present perceived needs locally must be balanced by an appreciation of longer-term changes in future skills demand, particularly if we are to join up local and national provision.
Thirdly, colleges play a vital role in providing for students with specific learning difficulties and disabilities. According to the Association of Colleges, such students make up 17% of the overall intake, a figure which rises to 23% of 16 to 18 year-old learners. In 2019-20, local authorities placed over 64,000 students with education, health and care plans in colleges—90% of them in general FE colleges and the rest in specialist institutions. The funding regime does not provide support for students in FE who do not have EHCPs to anything like the degree required, yet the Bill makes no specific reference to such students, although we welcome the promised Green Paper due in the summer. It would be helpful if the Minister could consider how the appropriate degree of priority could be given to this diverse cohort of learners in policy and funding terms, and how that might best be reflected in the Bill, as it passes through the House.
Lord Puttnam (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward a Bill to address an area which, for more years than I care to remember, has resisted every attempt to implement a coherent long-term employment policy. I am no fan of Dominic Cummings but, during his recent evidence to the Select Committee, he was precisely on the money in pointing out the lamentable record of successive British Governments to learn lessons from countries such as Norway, Finland and New Zealand —the noble Lord, Lord Storey, added Germany and Switzerland—which have successfully created well-thought-through skills and apprenticeship programmes. These policies have allowed many of them to race past us in offering appropriate pathways and opportunities for skilling and reskilling those for whom higher education was either unavailable or simply not all that attractive.
I have never been able to establish whether this is as a result of arrogance or ignorance but, either way, many sectors of our economy have been allowed to atrophy as a result of inattention and neglect. This has not been for lack of announcements, speeches or data; it is more to do with an inexplicable failure to follow through, fund and deliver. This Bill, if enacted with imagination and commitment, could prove a watershed. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they can be credited for at least giving themselves the legislative opportunity to prove it.
The Bill has the potential to become a vehicle for broadening and deepening apprenticeship schemes, for example by taking account of the mobility of freelance employment, but that should be the beginning of its ambition, not the end of it. While I broadly agree with the employer-led concept, a potential Catch-22 situation needs to be considered, whereby established incumbents find themselves favoured over those wishing to take advantage of new business opportunities, most especially in areas with diminishing growth prospects. I am sure the extension of things such as maintenance provision, as a counterbalance to embedded regional inequalities, is something the Minister will want to touch on in her response.
While well-intentioned, I am concerned that this Bill and the White Paper on which it is based are nowhere near imaginative enough in their interpretation of what future employment patterns might look like. Regrettably, when it comes to implementation, we invariably seem to find ourselves working from a 10 year-old playbook. I cannot have been the only person dumbfounded that “creativity”, having featured in the Secretary of State’s introduction, failed to reappear in either the Bill or the Skills for Jobs White Paper that preceded it. When she responds, could the Minister please explain this omission or possibly tell me that I need my glasses tested?
Creativity is an entirely sustainable asset—one the UK has proved to have in abundance. In my judgment, it will prove the great differentiator among ambitious, competitive nations in the digital world. Surely it needs to be incorporated into every aspect of the way that we think about skills and training for the future. For example, far too little thought has been given to how we cultivate greater agility in the workforce by encouraging transferrable skills across sectors. The White Paper described the need to develop
“higher-level technical skills in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths”.
Of course, STEM and digital skills should be at the forefront of how we plan for the future, but they have to walk hand in hand with creativity if we are serious about developing a truly successful economy.
A good example of this thinking comes from Demis Hassabis, the founder of the AI company DeepMind. He put it this way:
“Some of the most interesting areas of science are in the gaps between … subjects… What I’ve tried to do in building DeepMind is to find ‘glue people’, those who are world class in multiple domains, who possess the creativity to find analogies and points of contact between different subjects. Generally speaking, when that happens, the magic happens.”
The successful growth of companies such as DeepMind should serve as a warning regarding the dangers of a purely employer-led focus, because history suggests that incumbents are a lot less likely to spot where the next big opportunity will come from.
I find it unsurprising to learn that, in 2018, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommended that education in these subjects should include the humanities, arts, crafts and design. That recommendation has now been rolled out right across North American universities. For example, 100% of undergraduates at MIT, one of the world’s leading technical institutes, study the arts, humanities and social sciences. In fact, those subjects now account for 25% of their overall class time.
Collaboration between a variety of talents and skills has to be the right way, possibly the only way, to ensure the success of a balanced competitive workforce—the kind of workforce that the Bill seeks to create. There will also be an overwhelming need for departmental collaboration. Can the Minister assure the House that the transition of support from the DWP into this new skills framework will be made as uncomplicated as possible? It will need to be if the Government’s levelling-up ambitions are to be fully realised.
Finally, on this vital issue of collaboration, the idea that improved provision for further education can be resourced only at the expense of higher education is to totally misunderstand the challenges of the global economy. Far from being in competition for resources, these two sectors should be encouraged to move in lock-step, as never before. This point was powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and I completely support what he said. In my view, ensuring a successful partnership between further and higher education represents exactly the type of approach that is needed to make this legislation a success. I do not see this as a political Bill so, given a thoughtful Committee stage and a listening Government, we have the opportunity to send a valuable and uncontentious piece of legislation for ratification in another place.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the Bill which, in many respects, I welcome very strongly. It has a sense of direction; the Government have clearly been listening to the advice of employers and the education sector. I very much look forward to hearing shortly the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome.
I cannot recall a time when there has not been a skills shortage or a skills crisis. This is inevitable because the needs of our economy are constantly changing. However, there is a substantial difference today: the needs of our labour market, post Brexit and post Covid, are changing quickly. As an example, we do not have enough technicians or engineers, and there is a need to develop greater strength in digital skills at all levels. As a further example, the pandemic has resulted in a reduction in the number of apprenticeships available. There are not enough generally, nor at degree level.
The lifelong loan entitlement could be a boost to both individuals and employers, but I hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, the Government will not try to bolt it on to the current system of funding and will instead make it part of a reformed system of financial support. The Government’s forthcoming consultation should reflect the fact that loans by themselves may not be an attractive proposition to some adults, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, pointed out a few minutes ago.
Recent government policy towards the FE sector and part-time higher education has led to both being treated as the poor relation of traditional academic learning. Funding per student has been lower in FE for too long. There has been a very worrying drop in participation rates in part-time higher education in recent years, caused by funding cuts and the HE loans system. It is vital that the silos between higher, further and adult education and apprenticeships are reduced. Further education and higher education should not have to compete against each other for resources. The ambition should be a unified skills system with expansion of the FE sector, apprenticeships and part-time higher education, with parity of esteem between these and traditional full-time, non-vocational academic routes.
I would like to make a point about progression routes. I welcome national skills funding to help adults have free access to level 3 qualifications through some 400 courses, but there is no mention of any qualifications below level 3, yet it is these which promote progression to higher levels. Six million adults were identified in the Augur review as not having qualifications at level 2, yet the total number of adult learners has been falling in recent years. If we want people to reach level 3 and above, more of them need to achieve level 2. I wonder if the Government have a plan.
The Government’s ambition to put employers at the centre of skills development is welcome. But the test of the new approach will come in how effective the forecasting of future requirements is for industries that are in the early stages of development. Long-term investment in the green economy, for example, will require new skills sets at all levels. As the Bill progresses through the House, I hope we can examine whether the Government are putting in place structures that will effectively identify skills needs five years and 10 years ahead and how our education system as a whole should adapt to deliver them.
I spoke earlier of the lifelong loan entitlement, and I understand that a consultation will start this summer, but secondary legislation can be expected only in 2024, with implementation in 2025. Given the impact of the pandemic, what is happening over the next four years to ensure that all those who need to access training can get it, in addition to meeting the needs of employers post Brexit? Does it have to take so long—four years—to effect this change?
The lifelong loan entitlement may be a crucial part of future plans, but a lot more detail is needed on the extent of entitlements, on the funding of modular systems, on repayment terms, on whether modular study will be permitted for all subject areas or just those defined by the Government, on whether students can get the same support for their costs irrespective of their method of study, and on whether existing graduates can use it to retrain.
Finally, I hope that we will take a close look at how local skills improvement plans will work in practice. It will not be the first time that such planning has been localised. That said, I wonder if the Government have a plan for bringing together the information from all the local skills improvement plans to shape national workforce planning? It will be extremely important to do so.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome.
Baroness Black of Strome (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to have been appointed to your Lordships’ House and to speak here today for the first time. I draw the attention of the House to my current employment in higher education. I am sure that most noble Lords will remember only too clearly how they felt in those first few days and how grateful they were for the generosity of spirit shown to them by others. That paying forward of grace is a testament to the strength of community in this House and its all- embracing welcome, and I am both grateful and humbled to be a beneficiary.
There are so many who deserve my unreserved thanks for their kindness, from the justifiably legendary doorkeepers to the police officers and Black Rod, and indeed all staff and departments—including those in digital services, who have been unbelievably patient with the shortcomings of this technological dinosaur. I also wish to extend my thanks to Garter, who was somewhat relieved when I chose the simple “Strome” as my territorial designation, rather than the more complex Gaelic, “Tomnahurich”. I am so very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for their support and guidance when introducing me to the workings of the House, and to my noble friend and mentor Lord Patel, who has always held my deepest respect and gratitude for the kindness shown to me in the 15 years that we have known each other. I recognise that I still have much to learn from his vast experience in this House, but I hope that I may contribute on matters within my domain, which might include science, justice, education, death and dying, anthropology, child protection and forensic investigation.
Many of our skills are transferred and learned from those closest to us, whether they are family, friends, teachers or mentors, and we cannot predict which will stand us in the best stead. Arguably, my most practical life skill was acquired at the age of 15, when I studied for an O-grade in secretarial studies. It was a class comprised exclusively of girls, who were all taught to touch type. I could never have predicted the benefits that an average of 95 words a minute would bring in the digital world that now dominates our lives.
A second skills set was taught by my father when preparing the rabbits, deer and pigeons that he would bring home for my mother to cook. It led me comfortably to my first job as a teenager, working in a butcher’s shop, and then to honing the dissection skills required by a human anatomist and to the practical skills and strong stomach required by a forensic anthropologist, whether working to identify the deceased in the aftermath of the war crimes in Kosovo or processing the mass fatalities of the Asian tsunami.
A third skills set was developed in the meeting rooms of the Women’s Institute, the Rotary and the Round Table, learning how to convey science to the public in a manner that was concise yet understandable. This served me well in the UK and at the International Criminal Court, where I have given evidence as an expert witness to assist juries in their deliberations.
My current role as Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Engagement at Lancaster University affords me the great pleasure of working closely with our further education colleges, universities and civic partners, to embed the value of education in our local and regional communities. Operating as we do in an area of multiple deprivation, the partners are acutely aware that the lifelong acquisition of skills is critical to the development and future workforce placement of our young people.
I am supportive of this Bill in raising and promoting the quality and place-based relevance of post-16 skills provision, although I inwardly flinch at the partitioning of education into traditional age and sector-based silos. In my experience, education can be an effective route out of poverty, but it requires all parts of the ecosystem to work in progressive collaboration. We sometimes forget that our life habits and ambitions may be hard-wired long before we even enter secondary school, yet the discussions about “workplace” and “skills set” still come towards the end of that educational pipeline. Perhaps that is too late to have any realistic hope of breaking the educational poverty cycle that has become a generational and geographical norm for many.
Perhaps I may share a brief example. The Morecambe Bay Curriculum is a 25-year, educational, place-based community commitment. It is a civic collaboration between local residents, pre-school, every primary and secondary school in the region, Lancaster & Morecambe College, the universities, the local city authority, the NHS, the LEP, the chamber of commerce, businesses, employers and the Eden Project North. Many young people from this region come from homes with no prior experience of formal post-16 education and no experience of regular paid employment that leads to skilled jobs. If we wish to break that cycle, we need to sow the seeds of change much earlier.
Children as young as five will undertake little work experience placements with local businesses, developing a sense of pride in both belonging, and contributing, to their “place” while learning that each aspect of their own educational journey can evolve seamlessly into the next. We aim through that programme to make post-16 education and the concept of a “skilled job” the norm.
The role of early intervention in the success of the uptake of skills-based learning, its translation into the local workforce and then into regional economic growth and regeneration requires sustained commitment from all component parts. It will take the combined will of a joined-up community ecosystem to break the current cycle and educate those young people into skilled jobs.
I would simply request that, as we progress this Bill and focus, as we inevitably will, on a particular sector of our education system, we are mindful of changes that may need to be effected elsewhere if we are to maximise success. We will all benefit from a holistic approach, because strength and success lie with all our educational components working together seamlessly as an ecosystem—not just the colleges in isolation, but in genuine partnership with the schools and the universities.
In conclusion, it is an honour and a privilege to be a Member of this House and to be permitted to participate in its work.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, it is a huge pleasure to follow such an outstanding maiden speech by my noble friend Lady Black of Strome. I am sure that all noble Lords will, like me, be in awe of her distinguished career and achievements. As a forensic anthropologist she has pioneered techniques of human identification both in the UK and worldwide which have helped bring people to justice. In the UK, her work on the sexual abuse of children marked a step change in the ability of the criminal justice system to identify paedophilia, and internationally, her work in Kosovo after the atrocities there, in Thailand after the tsunami and in Iraq have brought her work worldwide renown.
Glancing through her illustrious career, I have to say that I was pleased to discover one small thing we had in common: we both took Saturday jobs at the age of 12. I was a humble shelf stacker but, as we have heard, my noble friend had the foresight to get a job in a butcher’s shop, where she clearly learned things that would be useful in her later career in forensic anatomy. I know that my noble friend will bring her insight, knowledge and experience to this House and that we will all benefit from hearing from her. She is most welcome in your Lordships’ House and I congratulate her once more on her excellent maiden speech.
On the Bill, I declare my interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, and I hope that the Government and employers will take advantage of the opportunities this Bill offers to act on what they know about the importance of language skills—namely, that the UK’s deficit in foreign language skills damages the economy and inhibits recruitment and employability across all sectors and at all levels. Languages are not just an academic discipline but a vital technical skill that can boost export growth and social mobility. Foreign language skills are in particularly high demand in finance, IT, transport, fashion and hospitality.
There are marked regional disparities in the UK’s skills base. Regional weaknesses in the take-up of foreign languages correlate with regions of poor productivity and low skill levels. In the north-east in 2016, for example, only 43% of pupils sat a GCSE in a language, compared with 65% in inner London, and this gap has been widening year on year. Employers say that they are unhappy with the foreign language skills of school leavers and graduates in the UK and are increasingly forced to recruit from overseas to meet their needs. If the Government are serious about social mobility and levelling up, a boost to language skills would be a jolly good place to start.
We need the business community to step up and be very clear when it comes to its input in shaping the new local skills improvement plans to insist that language skills are needed and must be included. Research suggests that the UK economy is losing out on well over £50 billion a year in lost contracts because of a lack of language skills in the workforce. Viridian Solar, an SME based in Cambridgeshire that makes solar roofs, told me:
“Foreign language skills are important”
for “global export growth.”
Another Cambridge company, i-Teams, helps the next generation of science-based entrepreneurs develop business skills and has so far helped 90 start-ups. Its founder told me that
“language skills are a key advantage”
and said that innovators
“need to be able to communicate both through language and across cultures. It cannot be assumed that all the people with whom they must work … can speak English.”
And Alchemie, a large company specialising in sustainable technology for dyeing fabrics, has found:
“Language and cultural knowledge is very important to Alchemie in its expansion into China. A basic knowledge of Chinese for business purposes would be really useful for staff members. Further training or coaching in that is really important.”
New research released only last month by Aston Business School confirmed that language skills are a key driver for SME export success, revealing that firms making use of language capabilities are 30% more successful in exporting than those that do not. Export sales, growth and profits are all significantly increased by hiring people with language skills and cultural intelligence, language training for existing staff and investing in professional translation services.
Employers’ organisations and sector groups are also on board. The CBI’s chief UK policy director has said that better foreign language skills are
“critical to increasing the UK’s global competitiveness and to ensuring young people have the high level of cultural awareness that supports a successful career.”
The tourism sector trade association UKinbound asked its members what barriers they faced when recruiting a British national and 60% responded
“insufficient skills for the role”,
including foreign language skills. Some 23% of respondents to a British Chambers of Commerce survey said that German and Mandarin will be important to their business in the next five years, and 20% said French and Spanish. The BCC says the extent of our languages deficit is sobering, with the biggest language barriers in the fastest-growing markets. It wants to see commercial export skills at the heart of business education in both further and higher education, with fully integrated foreign language skills as part of that, as well as in schools and workplace training.
Finally, the Bill refers to FE colleges, but local skills improvement plans should also seek to build links with university-based training opportunities, and university language centres rather than modern language faculties are the best place to make connections with community colleges. So will the Minister ensure that no regional language skills gaps remain as a result of the new improvement plans and say what, if any, oversight or indeed override the DfE will have to correct any such gaps? Are the Government prepared to provide leadership and encouragement to local business communities to follow through on all the surveys, research and sector examples I have quoted today, perhaps by using the power the Bill will give the Government to issue guidance to support the development of the plans in order to ensure a place for language skills? Will the Minister also spell out how the DfE will be working with BEIS on this, given that department’s international remit and extensive networks, and experience of language skills? I very much look forward to her reply to this and my other questions.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, on her extraordinarily fine maiden speech. I am looking forward to learning a lot from her in a lot of different areas.
I too welcome this Bill. It is an important bit of legislation, possibly the most important for the levelling-up agenda in this Parliament. I have a few reservations and would appreciate reassurance on a couple of points from the Minister. I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King’s College London, a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School and chair of two private education companies Tes, and Access Creative College, a provider of further education training for the creative industries.
There is a huge amount to welcome in this Bill, but for me there are two features in particular: the lifelong loan allowance, which is being put on a statutory footing; and the introduction of modular funding, which a long-overdue reform that will bring valuable flexibility into our student funding system. However, I have some concern that the Treasury may water down the rocket fuel of the promised skills revolution. A number of noble Lords have already hinted at where this might arise. One of my concerns is around the rigidity of the current system that prevents people from studying at an equivalent or lower level than an award that they already have, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said in his excellent speech. To my mind, that makes a nonsense of the lifelong loan entitlement. I appreciate that the Government are consulting on it. I hope that the results of that consultation come out the right way, because if we stick to it, it will prevent people from reskilling effectively.
My other area of concern is around what I see as the Treasury’s persistently flawed conception of how to measure value for money in post-16 education. The idea that you can measure the worth of a course by the proportion of the student loan that ends up being repaid is far too reductive. If we stick with it, it will stop us from properly funding what are socially useful and valuable but lower-earning professions and paths in life. We already see hints that this is the prevailing view and that it will continue to be the prevailing view in the list of some 400 qualifications that are eligible for funding in the lifetime skills guarantee. That list of 400 qualifications is still too restrictive. As far as I can see, it does not include any creative arts courses, for example.
My concern, as this Bill makes its way through this place and the other place, is that when the section lands on the new student finance system, the Treasury uses this legislation’s fine print to further defund those areas of provision that have lower rates of repayment associated with them, through a mix of potential policy tools, including student number controls by subject, higher minimum entry requirements by subject and a variety of others, most notably the potential for much lower fee levels for those courses.
Those are all big risks as this Bill makes its way through this place. I would appreciate any reassurance that the Minister can give on that front. I am particularly concerned about what it would do for the provision of creative education courses. It is highly likely that, if we go down that path and defund courses on that basis, it will starve the supply of talent into some of our most promising industries as an economy—performing arts, creative design, creative computing, music technology, music performance and so on. That would be a sad outcome for us as a society and it would also be an economic nonsense. These were industries that were growing at five times the rate of GDP before the crisis, and we should not do them the disservice of starving them of talent as we come out of it.
My sense is that if the Treasury wants to save money, and I understand that it wants to invest money in other areas or education systems to support catch-up elsewhere, which is entirely understandable, I recommend that it looks at lowering the repayment threshold on the student loan as a far more sensible source of much larger sums of money. The Higher Education Policy Institute, for example, has calculated that lowering the repayment threshold to just below £20,000 from the current level of £27,295 would save £3.8 billion and reduce the proportion of the student loan that is not repaid to one-third, from current levels of over one-half. That seems a very sensible and more fruitful area of reform for the Treasury to look at.
Time is running out, but I welcome this Bill. It is a really important Bill. I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State for bringing it to Parliament. I will certainly be supporting it. However, it is clearly something of a down payment on a much bigger set of changes that, ultimately, we will need if we are going to have a joined-up system of post-16 education and skills. We have a rather bewildering array of regulatory and funding bodies out there in the landscape: the OfS, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, and so on. The time is surely coming, now that through this Bill we are introducing much more flexible systems of funding, for us to move to a joined-up system of regulation and funding for all post-16 education.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this Bill and endorse the Government’s decision to give technical education the profile and priority that it deserves.
Unlike other noble Lords contributing to today’s debate, this is not an area on which I am a policy expert, but I hope to make a relevant contribution as someone who chose a technical education at the local FE college after leaving school at 16, and who, armed with that technical training, professional pride in my skills and an aptitude and enthusiasm to keep learning on the job as I progressed in my career, became Leader of your Lordships’ House. I have had the great privilege of working for and alongside, and of being supported by, some brilliant people with high academic credentials, and together we have been an effective team. I endorse the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, not to create new divisions or false distinctions between people who are talented and gifted. I feel I must put on record that I love highly educated people. I am not looking to do anybody down here, least of all the noble Lord, Lord Willetts.
However, one of my concerns about the consequences of successive Governments prioritising university and getting a degree as pretty much the only route to an increasingly narrow definition of success is the lack of diversity in leadership roles across politics, Whitehall, the public sector more broadly, business and the media. In other words, we have the rather conflicted situation now where those in positions of real power or influence, regardless of where they may have started in life, have all followed the same university path and therefore tend to define success in their own image. Therefore, while I welcome this Bill and applaud all that the Government are doing in this area to promote skills and further education colleges, those of us who make decisions which affect everyone else still have work to do in how we think about technical education or those who do not go to university.
As we consider this legislation and look beyond it, I will highlight three big traps that we must avoid falling into. The first is seeing technical education as a consolation prize for those who, in the minds of graduates, do not have the potential to be like them. Some people learn to know; some of us learn to do. Some of us learn best by observing and absorbing rather than by studying theories. Non-graduates are often more strategic in their thinking because they rely on what they can see to understand and identify the problem that needs fixing for things to work better. Therefore, it is important that we recognise the value from this difference to achieving our collective goals if we are to see results which benefit all of us.
The second trap we need to avoid is assuming that anyone who follows a technical route is not ambitious, or to dismiss as unimportant what some people might see as modest ambition because it does not involve holding power over other people’s lives. We are all different. What is important in my mind is encouraging pride and professionalism in doing a job well, whatever it is, and showing respect for that when we see it.
The final trap is assuming that people who follow a technical route, or indeed anyone who does not have a degree, cannot become senior leaders in business, politics, the public sector or anywhere else. We have to get out of this mindset that somehow leadership is all about knowledge—it is not. It is about being able to understand and see the bigger picture and to communicate in bold strokes. That does not come from having a degree; it comes from experience, and a desire to engage and understand the world through the eyes of people who see it differently from us.
As one of your colleagues who is technically trained, who started out with modest ambitions and who has grown in confidence and ability as I have gone from job to job, I offer that perspective, with all due respect to those who have followed a different path and those who will be charged with implementing the results of this legislation. In addition to what the legislation seeks to achieve in improving technical education, I hope that through our scrutiny and debates we as parliamentarians change our perception of the potential of those for whom not going to university is the best route to their own definition of success, and that we aim to achieve much greater diversity in positions of power.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black. In this House, we always enthusiastically congratulate those who have made their maiden speech. On this occasion I thought hers was absolutely excellent, and I would like her to develop the origins of why she and I are technical dinosaurs—because I am, and she declared her objection to technology as well.
I strongly welcome the Bill, and the fact that the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary have joined us. I welcome it because it shows a genuine commitment to further education, adult learning and the development of the technical education and learning process for the future. I fear, however, in the very short time I have, that I am going to have to concentrate on the things that worry me, rather than the things I am enthusiastic about such as the lifelong guarantee, the commitment to professional development in further education and private providers.
The reason I am concerned is that the opening speech by the Minister highlighted divisions. She was clearly following the script, if I might put it that way, because she is not like that at all. The divisions that grew up five years ago on the back of the referendum are almost embedded in our politics. The divide described this afternoon between town and city does not really exist. The divide between further and higher education does not really exist. The divide between the academic and technical does not really exist. I am very self-assured, as you all know, so there are rarely times in my life when I hear a speech and think I could not do better than that. This afternoon, however, the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, was much better than the one I am making. It made many of the points I would have wished to have made.
Let me very quickly touch on my journey, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, touched on hers. I got my qualifications at evening class and day release and eventually, after six years, went to university. I did a vocational qualification on day release, and my A-levels in the evening. I saw no difference between those; I saw no reason why we should divide them. I see no reason why we should not be in favour of T-levels but strongly in favour of retaining BTEC national diplomas, which got my eldest son to Liverpool University and later to a master’s degree.
I see no reason why we should not learn from our own history. In metallurgy in Sheffield, it was the factory worker and the researcher who put their heads together. Now we have advanced apprenticeships with the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre at Sheffield University; I should have declared my interest in it. We have the commitment of Sheffield Hallam University with the Sheffield College and other colleges in South Yorkshire, and Huddersfield University with Barnsley college of technology—where I once taught in further education, and where many people, like my elder sons, got their education through FE. There is no divide: it is an artificial concept which I think is extremely dangerous. Please do not let us go down that route.
T-levels are one thing, and organising for people will not go down one route for life is another. This is why the appeal by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in relation to what is happening with artificial intelligence and robotics is so important. These are not qualifications for life any more. There are no jobs for life. We need to return to learn on a continuing basis. I tried to instil this in the learning-age policy paper over 20 years ago when I was Secretary of State, when we set up learning and skills councils at local level that were designed to engage employers, colleges and individuals. Unfortunately, my own Government then centralised that and eventually killed it off. We have been around this road before. Some areas have very strong chambers and employer engagement. Some lack the capacity to do it. That is why what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said at the beginning of this debate is so important—that we draw people together to be able to do the job well.
In the meantime, do not defund courses that are valuable to learners, do not claw back money from further education as is happening at the moment, and do not defund or claw back money from residential colleges such as Northern College in South Yorkshire. Instead, let us join together—because we can on the Bill—to make this a really exemplary piece of legislation. Let us go forward in unity to offer people the education that they need at the time that they need it, and do so on the basis that they will progress through life in very different ways from where they started.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debate where I feel a degree of sympathy for the Minister, not only because she was nice about me when she started speaking, but because she may acquire a sore neck from having to turn around to answer people on her own Back Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts—he has clearly had enough now and is running away; I could not resist that, sorry—set a very high bar for us. He also made many of the points that I would have started with before my main point here, which is about special educational needs. The primary one is that we are going through part of a continuum, and that we are putting in place artificial barriers for further and higher education. That does not really work. Secondary school education cannot be seen as removed from this as well; it is part of a continuum. Where people start and how they go through is affected. The original block of their educational experience is going to affect the way they come through this. As my noble friend Lord Storey started by saying, if they do not get better career guidance, they will carry on with the same types of intervention, powers, hierarchies and activities they have always had, because that is the way you do it—that is the way you carry on. No doubt that is an important factor.
If we are to build up T-levels at levels 3, 4 and 5, replacing the status this sort of thing had a few years ago—or a few decades ago; I forget how old I am getting—we have to make sure that parents know they are career choices that will get people employed and make them a valid and interesting career, and we have to guide them through it. That will require real investment in those giving that advice. They have to be in the secondary schools, or in the initial phase that connection has to be made. It does not matter what is being given; if something becomes a secondary option, it is downplayed —end of.
To declare my interests, I am chairman of the company Microlink, which deals with assistive technology. I am president of the British Dyslexia Association. I am dyslexic and a user of assistive technology. I have not misspelled a word in years, but I have occasionally put the wrong one into many a message via voice technology and then not checking it. Many here will have suffered hearing that, I am afraid.
If we are to get the best out of all our students, we have to start dealing more coherently with special educational needs. At the moment we have a savage fight to get identification. Quite a while back, councils stopped putting £100 million a year into contesting people who wanted to get education, health and care plans. They lost 85% to 90% of those cases. We have a ridiculous system where the graduated approach we are supposed to be bringing in with the plans is not working. People are not getting identified because of the system.
What the Bill can do for the majority of those with special educational needs is make sure that those with moderate needs or those who are not identified are being picked up and offered the support that is easily available to them. Everybody’s phone, effectively, does voice recognition, so why do we not use voice recognition as a perfectly valid way of getting through an English test for those with dyslexia, dyspraxia or one of the other conditions? It is established in our lives. But no: someone who cannot do this has to take a spelling test.
I refer back to the hours I have inflicted on this House on the English test for apprenticeships. If you want to read all of it, then masochism is probably a part of your life, but this is something we should be adapting. There is a clause in the Bill on teacher training; we need to ensure that teachers can spot these conditions. Dyslexia is only one of the ones available: ADHD, dyspraxia, higher-functioning autism—they are all there, and that is just neurodiversity. How are we going to spot these conditions for people where it is not an absolute and who do not have the tiger parent to get it identified? Are we going to make sure that we can do this to get these people through the system?
We have a model to support this for level 4 and 5 qualifications requiring independent skill. It is called the disabled students’ allowance, and it has all the institutions that go with higher education, such as information capture—the sort of stuff we are doing now, which is being recorded by people using this for Hansard—which is now a given in higher education. Most of the colleges that run higher education courses will run through levels 4 and 5. Can we make sure they are all integrated—it is not that big an ask—so that somebody who cannot take notes from a lecture given as part of a course is presented with the information they need to study? If it is in an electronic format, they can get it into a verbal format. Voice to text and text to voice are very old hat now: how many people read books in the form of audiobooks?
We are not asking for the world here. These sorts of changes help, and they also help those who do not have these problems or are not on these spectrums. Can we make sure that this is integrated into our approach? If it is not, we will make life needlessly difficult. Please let us not get sucked into the idea that only higher needs need to be paid attention to, because that is a small group. It is those who are just failing and continue to fail that we should be giving some thought to.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It is an enormous pleasure to add my congratulations to my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, on her brilliant maiden speech. She is undoubtedly a world leader in forensic science and its use in the criminal justice system, and in forensic anthropology. I have known her for many years. “Tenacious” and “determined” are words I associate with her. She tried to recruit me once to help raise funds for a new mortuary in her department. I declined, so she set up a competition between 10 crime writers: the first one to raise £1 million from their readers would have the mortuary named after her or him. She raised over £2 million. Her newly unveiled portrait in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh will, I wager, become the most talked about portrait among viewers for three reasons: its size—it is big—it’s title, “Unknown Man”, and the various images within it. I have little doubt that the noble Baroness will make a huge contribution to the House, and I wish her well.
I declare my interests as Professor Emeritus at the University of Dundee and as a former Chancellor there. I support the principle of the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing the legislation. I am also pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, is taking the Bill through your Lordships’ House. I say this because I witnessed her passion for and commitment to improving the lives of disadvantaged young people through creating opportunities for education and skills training when she was a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility.
My comments mainly relate to the need for education in STEM subjects. The Bill sets out government plans to produce a skills revolution and to introduce flexible loans, and a promise to strengthen jobs. The intention is to drive up opportunities, reduce ethnic disparities and narrow pay gaps, all of which is welcome.
Simply offering more further education and training courses alone will not deliver on the levelling-up agenda. Young people need clear advice and guidance on how to access courses, what it will cost them and what is on offer. They will need to be able to see at first hand what kind of jobs are available. Key to all this is the need for high-quality careers advice for young people and adults—an area where the Bill has very little to say, despite the acknowledgement in the Skills for Jobs White Paper that careers provision is an important element of the overall education system.
EngineeringUK, together with seven other STEM and careers organisations, highlights this in its recent report, Securing the Future: STEM Careers Provision in Schools and Colleges in England. It finds that schools and colleges struggle to deliver STEM careers provision to many of their young people. Time and funding are cited as key barriers by careers leaders surveyed for the report, with 70% saying that staff time was an issue and 46% saying lack of funding was a barrier.
The report also finds that the digital divide that has affected young people’s learning throughout the United Kingdom since the start of the pandemic has also affected STEM careers activities in schools and colleges. The report found that 68% of schools with above average free school meals eligibility said that a lack of access to technology and the internet was a barrier, compared with 36% of schools with below average FSM. I hope that my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox might say more regarding the digital divide following her committee’s fantastic report on the subject.
Going back to a lack of careers advice, will the Government commit to publishing a fully funded careers strategy alongside the Bill to help unlock the skills reforms in the Bill and build on the Skills for Jobs White Paper? It sets out the Government’s blueprint for reshaping the technical skills system to better support the needs of the local labour market and the wider economy, with local skills improvement plans being the key component. Clause 1 encapsulates the Government’s plans to deliver on the above. With a fast-evolving labour market, effective local skills planning is important to identify specific skill needs across the country, including demand for skill needs in the engineering sector, the wider STEM-based industry and the economy.
Real-time labour market data is important for ensuring policy reforms to education and skills and emerging sector needs. I would welcome more clarity about how the local skills improvement plans proposed in the Bill will feed into national workforce planning, as has already been mentioned. How will DfE and BEIS work together to ensure a strategic approach to addressing the skills gap? How will information within local skills improvement plans help shape and inform national industrial policy and workforce planning? How will the Government use the reforms in the Bill to identify and respond to low-density regional skills needs important to the overall strategic direction of the UK, such as specialised engineering skills?
I realise that the Minister may not be able to answer all my questions today; she may agree to write. I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I had a good education; what I have made of it is perhaps a different matter. Sixty years ago, I was taking my A-levels and S-levels. At 17, I left school and went to work. I have said that I have no regrets about that, but I would not recommend it.
It is perhaps relevant to agree with the delightful maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, regarding the great advantage my wife had—along with my noble friend Lady Stowell—in getting secretarial skills. How I miss the ability to take shorthand and to type. How I miss the digital tools that many noble Lords feel embarrassed by not having to hand and that the current generation has. But it will please the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that I did go and work in Holland and learn Dutch.
I am a fan of this Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing it and for us to be able to talk about it. It obviously derives from the Skills for Jobs White Paper, and we all know that there is—and I am not given to hyperbole—a real crisis in skills in this country. It is having an effect on productivity in our industries and service industries, and at every level.
In my view, localism is the key, and the Bill draws on that. We know that resources for further and technical education vary enormously at local level. I believe that the employer-led LSIPs are an important factor in addressing this problem, and I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport—I am sorry to see that she is leaving the Chamber at this moment, as I disagree with her. I believe that employers will guarantee that the resources, the buildings and the trainers and teachers are in the right place. This whole strategy will have a huge benefit from employer participation in deliberating on the employment of assets.
Perhaps I can deal with practical aspects of the Bill; I will concentrate on my own experience as an employer. It will not surprise noble Lords—knowing that I am a horticulturalist and a farmer in intensive horticultural production—to learn that many people working in that industry, in both the field and the packhouse, are seasonal workers. The whole business of Brexit has revealed the flaw in this strategy and the need for a skills base in horticulture and intensive agriculture. We need skills training and skilled workers, and we need automation in the field and the packhouse because we can no longer rely on this skilled workforce. Who speaks for these people? Who speaks for seasonal workers in getting skills? That is why this Bill is important in giving employers the opportunity to make sure that they have these opportunities.
I also have another interest in that I am the group leader on the visitor economy section for the Midlands Engine APPG. This is another area in which seasonal work is very much the rule. Take the seaside strip of Lincolnshire—Skegness, Mablethorpe, Cleethorpes and that area—where as many as 40% of people are, in some way or another, employed in the seasonal economy based on recreation and leisure. There is no harm in that—there is nothing wrong in it—but we ought to realise that they too need opportunities to train and to find alternative out-of-season employment, which might well be to their advantage. Who speaks for them? I like to think that at least I do so, here today.
If we are to build back better, we need bricklayers, plumbers and engineers—all the practical people whose absence from our daily lives has only to be witnessed by anybody trying to get any construction work done in their home or factory. The need for training in these basic skills, which have largely been forgotten, is essential.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I first join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her maiden speech. Not only was it an excellent speech but she gave us a glimpse of her background, which is so fascinating that, had I been in charge, I could have let her go on for ages and listened to more of it. I know it will be a very good background for the contributions she will make to our debates in future, and I wish her well.
I also join others in generally welcoming this Bill. A lot of people have said that we have not done enough about skills before; that is why we welcome the Bill. We need to be really careful about this. We have tried to do a lot about skills, but we have never got it right—there is a big difference. Over the last 30 years, 70 pieces of legislation or government interventions have tried to make our skills provision and training better than they are. Anyone here who was a Minister would possibly say, as I do when I look back on my time in office, that they are not satisfied with what was able to be done on the skills agenda. Doing something for the first time is good but it is different from trying to get it right this time. That is how I will approach my contributions to this issue as we go through.
Two things have been done wrong in the past, and they were referred to by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. One is a lack of persistence: Governments have started along this track, then dropped it. Secondly, it has never been a priority for money; they have given some money but never enough, and lessons can be learned there as well.
I want to say briefly—this has been touched on by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—that the division between creative and technical is a false one. If ever in our history there was a time when we could separate creative subjects and the humanities from technical subjects and the sciences, it is not now. We need to drop that language and those thoughts, because success will lie with the people who can bring those things together. That goes to the argument about the lifelong loan entitlement, which I broadly welcome. I have two questions on that. The first is that I am not sure for which subjects the grant will be available. I hope it will not exclude creative subjects, because that would not be good for the agenda before us.
I welcome modular learning with some caution: it is not as easy to organise or do as linear learning. Something we have done wrong in the past with vocational studies is to make it modular but not give students and learners the opportunity to link one module with the other. The joins are where it goes wrong, so my advice to the Minister is: watch the joins and mind the gap. We have to make sure that people can move from one module to the other.
I want to spend my time on the local skills improvement plans, which I gather are going to be called LSIPs, so that is how I will refer to them. The Government have said that employers and businesses are at the centre of the creation of local skills improvement plans. I cannot disagree with that; I cannot say that they should not be at the centre or not be listened to. They are important, but I am worried about how much emphasis the Government are placing upon the leadership of employers and businesses at the centre, at the heart, or in the driving seat of these LSIPs, depending on which words you choose to use. Although they are important to this plan, so are others.
Learners are at the centre of what we want to do, as are providers and our locality and its needs. The local economy in that area is also at the centre, and whoever can guess what the skills of the future will be also needs to be at the centre of these LSIPs. It is a more complicated Bill than just being about putting employers and businesses in the driving seat. At the moment, I am not sure that the Bill really recognises that complexity or gives some indication of which route the Government will wish to take. That is what the Committee and Report stages will be about. I hope that we will have the opportunity to flesh it out then.
We are asking employers to become partners in the education process, and that is a big ask; it is not their core job. It is not what they worry about in the middle of the night or get up in the morning thinking about. We are asking them to become educationalists while they have other worries, especially now; they have other things to prioritise. I am not sure what happens and what powers the Government will have when it goes wrong: when the businesses do not lead us in the right direction or take a back rather than a front seat.
The challenge here is to get the partnership right between the providers and employers. I worry that the Bill is written almost as a customer/provider relationship. There is an invitation to employers to lead the show and a legal obligation on the providers to provide the learning courses. The Government will be taking a power to sack colleges or hit them over the head if they do not deliver on the local plans. It is not imaginative or creative, or the sound basis for a meaningful partnership, so I want to look at that as we go through the Bill.
I know that having too many people in the driving seat can lead us nowhere; I understand that, and that leadership is important. But we want partnership with a purpose in which everyone has a role and a responsibility, and everybody needs to be held accountable in that. How we write that into the detail of the Bill will be vital in making sure that the wish across this House for the Bill to be a success comes to fruition.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
I too offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her impressive and extremely entertaining maiden speech. I am sure that we are all looking forward to her contributions to our work.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome many of the proposals in the Bill, particularly to make it easier for adults and young people to study more flexibly, allowing them to space out their studies, transfer credits between institutions and take up more part-time study. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has just said, the principle of colleges and employers working together underpins much of the Bill. It rests, too, on the leadership of employers. My experience leads me to agree very much with the issues she identified. Yet it is important that this is a co-operative and fully accountable partnership. Will the Bill create a duty on schools and universities to collaborate with colleges and employers in the development of skills plans, so that the training on offer meets the needs of local areas and of the national economic strategy?
As a former council leader, I have seen that the actual experience can be very patchy: stronger in some areas than others. In sectors where there are many SMEs the employers’ input can be limited, for a variety of reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, sometimes employers are not well represented by particular employer organisations which vary in strength in different areas. There needs to be better accountability and understanding of the difficulties involved. The present system gives no incentive for proper co-ordination. Instead, it focuses on delivery of qualifications rather than on the long-term strategic priorities.
I would welcome a better understanding from the Minister as to how she sees this working. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, also said, I am sure that we will want to explore this area during the passage of the Bill. I also emphasise that local authorities should be key players in any future collaboration. Many people face great difficulties in accessing education, whether part-time or full-time. They may be care leavers or have special educational needs, as my noble friend Lord Addington mentioned, or not in education or training. They may be long-term unemployed people. They face difficult barriers and would need access to a whole range of local services to help them to be ready for work or training.
Local authorities are of course essential in providing these sorts of services. They link with adult education provision and other support, such as mental health, housing, debt management, support for parents and childcare. Their involvement will be essential to prevent those most in need of support and training being left behind. As a former adult learning tutor, I know that the role of local authorities in adult and community provision has been a bedrock, providing many adults with opportunities to train and upskill. For many adult learners, adult education is the first step that they take. It gives them confidence and so often inspires people to take up further learning opportunities. The current budget has been halved; I very much support the LGA proposal to reinstate this budget as a fundamental building block in the provisions of the Bill.
It is also important that financial support is considered essential if poorer students are not to be penalised. Flexible and part-time learning is essential for potential learners. My own experience is that, although I went into higher education when I left school, I subsequently took a degree with the Open University. I experienced for myself the great difficulties that one has in trying to keep up the commitment to learning while either bringing up a family or working and needing to prioritise earning a living. These can really undermine the motivation of people who are trying and gain qualifications or skills or, indeed, add a new dimension to their lives through study. I underline here the need to revisit the benefits system so that those acquiring new skills will have their needs fully taken into account and not be excluded from benefits.
I also emphasise the importance of longer-term strategic goals. Anyone involved in education over the last 20 years has experienced constantly shifting grounds in how the system operates, in its objectives, and in the local and national priorities. We need to recognise some long-term objectives and ensure that our training and education objectives and skills acquisition link fully to the economic strategy and its requirements. In recent years, many of us have found the unhelpful element of competition in post-16 provision counterproductive, with an overemphasis on delivering qualifications rather than focusing on strategic and local long to medium-term priorities.
So I hope the Bill will ensure that the providers of post-16 education and training are aligned and not preoccupied with short-term expediency and quick fixes that do not really take us further forward. We certainly welcome the Government’s interest and ambitions for skills and lifelong learning, in particular the strong collaboration of cross-providers. The new lifelong learning entitlement is a huge step forward, but there must be access to all, and we must address the skills shortfall of so many citizens if we are to face the challenges of the future. We support much of the content of this Bill and look forward to taking forward these issues through its passage.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it may be worth noting that the Back-Bench advisory limit of six minutes per speaker will allow us to finish at around 8 pm this evening.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, is appearing remotely. We can see her but we cannot hear her.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We will go to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very sorry that we have not been able to hear the chair of the Covid-19 Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I hope we will be able to hear her contribution at some point during this debate.
I draw the House’s attention to my role as a director of the Careers & Enterprise Company. I am also delighted to be one of the FE ambassadors that my noble friend the Minister mentioned earlier on. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her excellent maiden speech. I am entirely in agreement with her that one of the most useful skills I have ever been taught is to touch-type.
I welcome the Bill, as other noble Lords have done, and also the White Paper on which it was based. It has confirmed and elevated the importance of further education, and it is a clear commitment not only to boost skills but to strengthen our economy and increase individual productivity. In the time available I will focus on the involvement of employers in skills needs and, if there is time, say a little bit about the lifelong learning entitlement.
The involvement of employers in identifying skills needs, which is in Chapter 1 of the Bill, I entirely support—and there is wide support for this, as we have heard—the aim for there to be a more strategic relationship between employers and further education and training providers. However, I have spoken to Loughborough College locally, which is already working with more than 700 employers—and I am sure that many other colleges would say the same. So there is a feeling that perhaps what is being asked is not always new but is being pulled together in one place for the first time.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the local skills improvement plans, which will obviously be very important. But, as my noble friend the Minister said, they are really only being piloted in certain areas now. I hope that I can prevail on her, and through her to the Secretary of State and to the skills Minister, that in the course of rolling out the local skills improvement partnerships, we should not undo what is already there.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, careers education is of critical importance. It gives a strong underpinning to the Bill; although it is not mentioned in the Bill, it was mentioned in the White Paper, where there was a commitment to careers hubs. Careers hubs have improved careers provision by 92% in the two years since they were started. They are a central plank of the White Paper, they are set up and delivered through the Careers & Enterprise Company and they are designed to bring together employers, schools, colleges, apprenticeship and training providers and others aligned to national skills and local jobs. They have already established themselves as anchor institutions in local areas, not just as careers programmes in schools and colleges but also as the link with the local economic strategy, because they are tailored to be responsive to local economic need.
I hope that Ministers are aware that careers hubs offer the Bill three things. The first is that they are the key route for local businesses of all sizes into schools and colleges. I know from my time both as a local Member of Parliament and as Education Secretary that that is often the missing link. Schools and colleges want to work with local employers and businesses but are unsure how to make those connections. I entirely take the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, that those who run businesses are not educationalists—but many of them obviously have a great interest in working with young people and learners locally. But again, bridging that gap into schools and colleges is often tricky, and that is where the careers hubs come into force.
The second way in which careers hubs can underpin the Bill is by renewing the emphasis on vocational and technical learning and building the right level of skills into our economy—hubs can be an enabler for these reforms—and the third way is by helping the Government’s levelling-up agenda. So I am pleased to see that employers and providers are being directed to work with the Careers & Enterprise Company’s network and careers hubs when establishing local skills improvement plans. Can the Minister say in her remarks at the end how the Government intend to keep careers hubs at the forefront of their thinking as they develop trail-blazing local strategic improvement plans and roll them out across the country?
I turn briefly to the Bill’s definition of “employer representative bodies”. It would be helpful now—or certainly in Committee—for Ministers to explain who they think the employer representative bodies are. This ties in with the future role of the LEPs and what their responsibilities will be. Clause 2 of the Bill talks about an employer representative body as being
“reasonably representative of the employers operating within the specified area”.
“Reasonably representative” is very broad, and I wonder who will decide how the members of an employer representative body are indeed reasonably representative.
I also draw attention, as others have done, to the local need point. Of course, exactly as my noble friend the Minister said in her opening remarks, we want people to stay in their local areas, to have jobs and to improve their prospects locally. There is also a need to identify future jobs—particularly in relation to future technologies, for example, or industries such as the growing industry around green jobs—and emerging skills needs and to see those on a national level too. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify how the local skills improvement plans feed into a national overall skills strategy and how that is then communicated back to the colleges and providers.
Briefly, on lifelong learning entitlement, as others have said, it seems somewhat confusing. We recognise that many people will have several careers now. The Bill is trying to address the long-held policy ambition of helping people to reskill throughout their working lives. A big argument advanced by the Association of Colleges is that level 3 should also be eligible for the lifelong loan entitlement. So can my noble friend say what the process will be for determining which courses will be eligible for the lifelong loan entitlement?
We welcome this Bill across the House, I am sure, and I hope that we will be able to enhance it as it goes through future stages.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I hope that I can call the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB) [V]
The irony clearly weighs heavy when I have wi-fi issues. I apologise, but the internet completely collapsed in my home—fingers crossed that it works this time. You would think that I would have been able to crack it, but I appreciate that I am the least qualified person, perhaps, in many ways.
I too commend the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her maiden speech. She is an absolute heroine to many of us. I can still see in my mind’s eye her visceral explanation of cutting into flesh for the first time, which may haunt me to my later days. In fact, she might have tempted me to swap careers had I not already become a Member of your Lordships’ House. That is one important dimension of this interesting and important Bill that I shall talk about as part of my role as chancellor of the Open University.
As noble Lords will know, because many in the House today are graduates of the OU as well as honorary graduates—we even have a wonderful ex-chancellor in the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, as well—the OU is the largest university in the UK. It provides part-time learning through all people’s lives and careers. Perhaps less known to people is the fact that 70% of OU learners are also in full-time work, which is why this Bill is so important in unlocking the relationship between work and vocational technical training and between employers and study.
Furthermore, as I referenced in declaring my own interest in perhaps changing careers, there are some concerns from the Open University about the way in which this is constructed—particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, mentioned in his earlier remarks, there are concerns about the lifelong learning entitlement and how it is structured. The OU would be extremely keen to see it structured in the most creative and imaginative way possible to prevent too much rigidity around learning requirements and to make sure that we really allow for part-time learners who may be in work who may want to go sideways in their career. It is unclear yet to me whether, if I became a forensic anthropologist as a Member of the House of Lords, that would be down, up or sideways. But jokes apart, we must make sure that people are enabled to take sideways and forward leaps and, potentially, upgrade their skills but slightly downgrade what might be seen as their natural career prospects. The Open University has concerns around the LLE requirement and how it is structured, and I would be very keen to hear the Minister’s response on this.
Similarly, the OU, as will be known to many Members of your Lordships’ House, has seen a collapse of more than 67% in part-time learners—not just for the Open University but in those going into higher education over the last decade. The Government themselves have recognised that this is cataclysmic for our economy, and we must make sure that we build back the capacity for part-time learning right at the heart of this Bill and put at the heart of it the importance of part-time learners for the economy and wider society.
I always joke in the OU degree ceremonies that part-time learners are no such thing at all. Normally, they are double-time learners, holding down a family and making sure that they also study. It can sometimes take five or even 10 years but, in all my interactions with OU students, they have been people dedicated to improving their learning through their career and the various ducks, dives, weaves and twists that life takes. We want to be clear at the Open University that this Bill will represent part-time learners very clearly—and, as I say, without too much rigidity about requirements, particularly in Clauses 14, 15 and 17. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.
The Open University is one hat that I wear very proudly, and I am thrilled to be its chancellor and champion of all the types of learning that it represents. I have also recently chaired the House of Lords Select Committee on the long-term implications of Covid. As other noble Lords have alluded to, particularly my noble friend Lord Patel, we have done work recently to look at the hybrid nature of our world right now. As some noble Lords may know, I have a long-standing interest in digital skills and, surprise surprise, that came out very clearly from our work. So I am pleased to see a recognition that we need these technical skills in this Bill, but I hope that it goes far enough and fast enough.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, very articulately declared, we cannot design for the here and now; we need to look ahead to the next decade and think about what those skills will constitute and look like. We have found consistently that not only is there a lack of skills right now for employers, there are also huge concerns among employers about what skills will be available in the next decade to take on the challenges that we have not yet even managed to quantify or think about. We in our committee report called for a closer partnership between government and employers to tackle professional qualifications and digital skills to help, for example, a nurse or anybody dealing with any kind of front-line service to have a deeper understanding as part of their professional development. I hope that we take again an imaginative and creative view of what that looks like.
I end by reiterating the point made by my noble friend Lord Puttnam about Demis Hassabis and the importance of creativity and imagination. I am always struck by the words of Sugata Mitra, the great tech entrepreneur, who did a huge amount to open up learning and access, who said that learning is the new skill, and imagination, creation and asking questions should be at the core of skill. We must bear that in mind as we take this Bill forward; we must not get too stuck in rigid ways of thinking about skills, as they will shift immeasurably over the next decades. It may be best to equip people with the ability to ask questions that they want answered and equip them with the ability to personalise their studies through their whole lifelong journey.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, particularly in her last comments, as part of what has been a really interesting debate, with an excellent maiden speech in it. I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register relating to education, particularly my work with my clients, Purpose and 01-Edu.
There is of course much to welcome in this Bill but, sadly, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, time prevents me from dwelling on those elements. However, it is welcome that the Government are prioritising adult skills and to hear the Minister stress the need to focus on the needs of those not going on from school to university but going on to learn other skills. The combination of globalisation, new technology and climate change mitigation means continued rapid changes in the demand for skills. The World Economic Forum projects that almost half the skills needed for employees to work effectively will change in just the next four years—so deskilling is rampant. It is therefore the urgent responsibility of every Government around the world to transform their skills infrastructure so that it is highly flexible and to anticipate as well as react to the needs of the labour market, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said. Skills policy is now as much about changing in-work skills as it is about helping those at the start of their working lives, which appeared to be an assumption in the Minister’s opening speech.
Here in the UK, decades of underfunding of an overly complex skills system, persistent low productivity, Brexit uncertainty, and widening regional prosperity gaps make an emphasis on this all the more important. The Institute for the Future of Work’s recent report, The Amazonian Era, highlights recent trends, with worker management platforms rapidly deskilling people, from the warehouse floor to hollowing out supervisor roles—deskilling by algorithm. Yet this Bill seems to assume that skills qualifications act like a ratchet and that, once you have got a level 3, the only way is up, to level 4 and beyond. But skills are not like a platform computer game moving up through the levels; they are less Super Mario and more Snakes and Ladders. Personally, I would advocate the development of individual skills accounts over the loan system advocated in this Bill, using a mix of funding from the Treasury, employers and individuals, rather than what is being proposed.
In my remaining time, I want to focus on the diverse needs of three very different groups: the deskilled, the always reskilling, and the perennial professionals. On the deskilled, can the Minister confirm that the local skills improvement plans will fully integrate with welfare-to-work provision? In 2009, when I moved as a Minister from the DfE to the DWP, I struggled to get effective integration of skills and welfare policy—perhaps my weakness. But one department measures success in qualification outcomes while the other does so in job outcomes—and they work to very different timeframes. That has to be fixed through changes to the universal credit regime.
We also need an all-age careers advice service—and I enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan —that aligns with a business advice service. For example, the move to a net-zero economy will create huge opportunities as we transition to new ways of living in our homes and at work. We will have new skills systems and businesses growing to meet those opportunities and anticipate these changes rather than just reacting to them. The fact that Wrexham College only recently became the first FE college to offer training in electric vehicle maintenance is truly shocking. For this group—the deskilled—the qualification ecosystem needs to be more dynamic.
Then there are those sectors, especially in the digital economy, that will always move too fast for qualifications to keep up. I am currently working with Nicolas Sadirac and 01 Founders, which is opening its first school in London later this year to train full stack software engineers. This proven system does not charge tuition fees, is a two-year course and has virtually a 100% employment rate at an average starting salary of over £40,000.
This model—no prior attainment, applying by playing an online game, no teachers and no qualifications—freaks out policymakers because it explodes all the foundations of what we understand about good education, but employers are desperate for this talent because it works. It has a highly dynamic curriculum and does not wait for qualifications to adjust to labour market demand. What is this Bill doing to support more innovative skills training like this, which is hardwired to deliver the shortage skills we need to grow successfully across the country? Does the Minister foresee funding skills measured by job outcomes as well as qualification outcomes?
Finally, I must say something about the training of professionals and here I will focus on teachers. The Government are currently engaged in a review of initial teacher training. Last week they quietly published a document titled Delivering World-Class Teacher Development, which does not mention universities once. It is part of a move that appears to be one of statist centralisation where they want to control the content and method of teacher training to fit Ministers’ judgments on what is best.
This is a grotesque attack on the academic freedom of universities that may destroy the very system supplying teachers into our schools. It betrays a view that teaching is little more than a craft skill, rather than a profession that needs both continuous academic and practice-based development. Can the Minister reassure me, and the many ITT providers I am talking to through the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Teaching Profession, that there will always be a place for universities like Oxford, UCL and Sunderland in teacher training? Our adult skills infrastructure must meet the needs of great professions like teaching, as well as traditional trades and emerging jobs. In doing so, it must fully respect the role of academic vocational training.
This is a really important Bill, but it is no more than a start. I look forward to trying to help improve it and I hope that Ministers are listening to the real-world reality of change and reflecting that policy thinking needs to change to take account of rapid deskilling and the diversity of needs we all face.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black, for a fantastic and fascinating maiden speech. Secondly, I need to declare rather a list of interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, kindly pointed out, I have become an adviser on skills to the Prime Minister. I was a member of the Augar panel, which reported to the review of post-18 education and funding, and I am also a professor at King’s College London.
I am delighted that the Government are introducing this Bill. A system which offers all adult citizens the chance to obtain high-quality education and training is not just fundamental to our economy; it is central to our future as a country committed—I hope—to opportunity, second chances, openness and making the whole idea of shared citizenship a reality. I believe that the measures incorporated in this Bill are an important step towards creating such a system.
I have argued for many years that our post-18 education and training system is indefensibly lopsided. The gap in spending and the tension between higher education and vocational provision has widened and become even more entrenched. But the Prime Minister last year announced reforms in which two concrete objectives were set. I think these are fundamental, and this Bill will contribute to meeting them. They are about the need to bring higher and further education closer together, and about tackling the great divide which has opened up between the well-resourced and well-signposted opportunities for young people leaving school to go into full-time higher education, and the world of part-time and adult retraining—an area in which we used to be global leaders. As other noble Lords have already pointed out, the last decades have seen us go backwards in a way that it is vital we correct.
When the Augar review reported two years ago, the first recommendation we made was:
“The government should introduce a single lifelong learning loan allowance”
for adults. The Government accepted this and consequently are working quite hard to transform the whole student higher education funding system. The clauses in this Bill are only part of what will be needed to deliver the new system, but they are fundamental foundation stones for what I hope—and I know other noble Lords also hope—will genuinely transform the system of higher and further education in this country in a way that will be good for everybody.
As well as a very divided system of post-18 education, we have managed in this country to create an extraordinarily complicated one. This is reflected in the Bill, which contains a number of specific reforms designed to clarify and simplify. In my remaining time, I would like to comment on two in particular: the regulation of post-16 education and training providers, and the clauses which deal with education and training for local needs.
In 2017, along with other noble Lords, I was quite involved in the passage of the Technical and Further Education Act, which included provisions to protect students in the event of college failures. However, there were no equivalent provisions in the Act for independent training providers. The need to protect all students, trainees and apprentices has been evident for a long time. While the independent training provider sector contains many truly excellent, innovative and effective organisations, that part of our system and its overall reputation have been bedevilled by regular failures and scandals. In 2017, the Government declared they were unwilling to amend the Act then and there but would consider the issue. The mills of government grind slow, but they have considered, and what we now have proposed is a single unified system of protection for learners which I hope other noble Lords will join me in welcoming.
I will comment very briefly on the proposal to create local skills improvement plans. These have attracted a lot of attention this afternoon and I look forward to further comment and discussion. As many noble Lords will be aware, our college network was in large part created by local businesses and employers. Colleges therefore responded very directly to changing local business needs because they talked all the time to individual local employers.
Over the years, those organic links have in many places withered away. Of course, there are a number of fantastic colleges, but it is very much individual principals and employers who make them as excellent and responsive as they are. Far too often, colleges—for very good reasons —spend most of their time and energy focusing on their relationships with public funding bodies and not with local employers. The White Paper’s fundamental goal of bringing employers right back in and making this part of the infrastructure seems to be absolutely correct.
Clearly, just creating LSIPs is not going to revolutionise everything; there are other important reforms in the White Paper which will, for example, give colleges far more autonomy. But putting employers in the system in a structured way—not via other public bodies where members are selected and appointed centrally, but as a group of local employers—is a necessary part of creating that responsive system we all need.
It has been an enormous pleasure to speak today. I hope that the Bill and our discussions on it will take us forward into a new era and we will look back on this as an important and major part of what this Government have done for the skills, education and future of this country.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her outstanding maiden speech. I look forward very much to meeting her face-to-face very soon.
This country’s skills deficit is enormous, and it hits a wide range of sectors and industries. Despite periodic reforms, practically every employer in each sector says that those who complete their formal training are still not job ready. At the same time, there is a huge pool of people of all ages with ambition and drive who would love to have the opportunity to develop their skills and transform their employment chances, and who are frustrated that there is no suitable route for them to follow. While I sincerely hope that this skills Bill will succeed at last in joining up the supply and demand, noble Lords will perhaps forgive me if my hope is not entirely matched by my expectations.
I want to outline the dire gap that there is between ambition and reality by its application to the construction industry. The construction industry is strategic for the delivery of practically every government policy. Whether it is free ports, new prisons, 300,000 homes a year, or 40 new hospitals; whether it is a mighty levelling-up agenda, or simply the vital overhaul of 20 million existing homes to make them fit for zero-carbon Britain in 2050; none of that can happen without a flourishing construction industry to deliver them. The ambition is there, but the capacity is not. I hope that this Bill will go some way toward bridging that gap.
Construction faces a desperate workforce and skills crisis. The Construction Industry Training Board says that an extra 217,000 people will need to be recruited in the next four years to deliver on the ambitious targets set before it. This is not about hod-carriers but about skilled tradespeople, professionals at all levels, and a range of completely new skills, some of which your Lordships might never have heard of before.
After the outflow of EU 27 workers from the industry post Brexit, we needed to at least double the output of new entrants simply to plug that gap. On top of that, however, we also need to train for the new skills required to deliver zero-carbon homes and to retrofit 20 million existing homes. We will need completely new roles, ranging from heat-pump installers and air-pressure testers to retrofit co-ordinators and energy managers. Your Lordships may never have heard of those job titles, but all of them were major bottlenecks in the delivery of the ill-fated green homes grant fiasco last winter. Now, the forthcoming building safety Bill will ratchet up another shortage, this time of fire safety engineers.
I am indebted to the CITB for sharing figures that show that, at present, about 100,000 people take up construction-related courses in the further education sector each year. The problem with that is that only 24% directly enter the industry, while another 16% take up construction-related apprenticeships. The remaining 60% of further education construction starters do not reach the construction workforce at all. It is even worse than that, as many of those apprentice starters do not finish their training, and by some accounts up to half of them also leave the sector. Therefore, out of every 100 trainee starters in further education, only around 30 finish up working in the industry.
And who exactly makes it through the training to the workforce? Some 84% are men. The industry has the most unequal gendered workforce in Britain, and only 6% of that workforce is BAME, about half the national proportion. There is plenty of evidence of the industry’s consequential problems: low skills at every level of activity. The stark evidence emerging from the Grenfell Tower inquiry shows that it is not just a shortage of good bricklayers that is the problem but capacity and competency from top to bottom. Poor productivity, consistently the worst of all our major industries, and very low investment in research and innovation, leads to a depressing spiral of poor quality, low profitability and multiple business failures.
I simply say to noble Lords that, in the construction industry, there just has to be a total rethink of the training provision, and that should include but certainly not be limited to: who actually provides the training; what that training is; who is going to foot the bill for the training; and how to make it attractive to young BAME people and to women. Those questions have to be answered first by the Government. This skills Bill has to be the next step towards putting training in the industry, for the industry, at the top of the agenda. Otherwise, every other policy target and best wish of the Government will certainly be missed.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Baker Dearing trust. I have four comments on this Bill. First, I welcome its proposals to create a skills plan for each town in the country. Secondly, it has missed the opportunity to revolutionise digital skills, which are the weakest part of our present education system. Thirdly, I am very concerned that this Bill could lead to the separation of technical education from academic education, a concern shared by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Fourthly, I will move an amendment to make the Baker clause a statutory duty, rather than dependent upon ministerial advice.
First, I am glad to see that skills plans will now emerge for every town in England, reflecting the needs of the local medium and small-sized businesses. These plans will reveal the skills that the FE colleges will need to teach. It will certainly put industry at the heart of education. This is exactly what university technical colleges have been doing for the last 10 years. The governing body of a UTC is controlled by the local businesses and the local university. The university comes in to teach, and the local businesses bring in projects for the students to work on in teams. I thank the Government for adopting the UTC principle of combining technical and academic education.
Secondly, all the evidence that we are getting in the Select Committee on Youth Unemployment reveals that there is a dramatic shortage of digital skills. Businesses, students and even the unemployed all say that they suffer from not having digital skills. In a survey of 1,000 companies big and small, ranging from nuclear to pubs, 76% said that they lack digital skills, notably data analysis with AI, and this restricts their growth and reduces their profits. We have also been sent evidence—and this I find totally surprising—that, since 2015, in schools for 11 to 16 year-olds, 40% fewer students are being taught about computing than six years ago. That is a staggering statistic in the digital age; it beggars belief. What the Government need to do is to provide all students with a laptop and an internet connection; computing should be taught from the age of 11 for at least one hour a week and that should grow each year. GCSE computing science should be a compulsory subject. There are 75,000 computer GCSE entries: it sounds a lot, but it is 1.5% of the total and fewer than those who take Spanish GCSE. This will need a revolution in teacher training, for all teachers should be expected to acquire digital skills.
Thirdly, I fear that this Bill will separate technical education from academic education, so that there is virtually no connection between them when they should be going hand-in-hand. At 16, school leavers can go to FE colleges, start apprenticeships or go to a provider of technical education where their training will reflect the needs of local employers, and that is good. However, less than a quarter of young people who start at an FE college at 16 will progress to level 4, a critical age where the skills gap really begins, and an insignificant number will then start a higher or degree apprenticeship.
Most students at 16 will stay on in the sixth forms at their schools, and the heads of those schools will tell them that the only way that they can get into university is to stay in school and study academic A-Levels. There are no engineering A-levels and very few technical ones. Technical education between 16 and 18 barely exists because the courses are costly and the teachers are few, so it is not surprising that many 18-year-olds leave with no employability skills. No wonder that 16 to 18 unemployment is now 14.4% and likely to rise.
Evidence presented to the Select Committee on Youth Unemployment is that employers do not want just exam results but employability skills, such as having worked in teams, made things with hands, designed things on computers and engaged in problem-solving. They are looking for adaptability, creativity—which the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned earlier today—and imagination. This will not happen if technical and academic education are separated in two separate silos—one marked “technical and vocational” and the other “academic”. What happens then to the parity of esteem? The Government should act to ensure that this educational apartheid does not come about.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I would like to start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her interesting and fascinating maiden speech, from which I personally learned a great deal, and, equally, by saying how proud I am to follow the noble Lord, Lord Baker, because his ideas and what he has achieved in education policy are also very interesting and have taught me a great deal.
For many years, I have been heavily engaged in the lifetime learning debate, which is increasingly important because of the longevity of our population and the impact that technology is having on employment. Added to this, we have just lived through a pandemic which has caused considerable disruption to the labour market, resulting in changes that are going to be very long-lasting.
I want to congratulate the Government on the reforms to post-16 education that this Bill seeks to implement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has already outlined, this Bill will give employers greater input into skills development and ensure that there is stronger regulation and consistency of qualifications. This Bill also responds to the current skills gap in the economy and places duties on education and training providers in specific areas to co-operate with designated employer representative bodies to develop, review and revise plans.
We live in a society where people are living longer and a great many of us are working much later in life than previous generations were able to do. It is projected that someone entering the workforce today will change careers five to seven times during their working life. We know that many jobs may significantly change or become obsolete because of technology change. It is also likely that many children born this year will eventually end up in careers that, at present, do not exist. There needs to be significant investment in lifelong learning and a fundamental rethink of the way we deliver education. Our current school system, where compulsory education finishes at 16, increasingly does not prepare pupils for modern life in a labour market that is changing so rapidly. In the future, we will need most people of working age to participate—perhaps more than once and perhaps many times—in further education to keep up with labour market changes.
It is, therefore, disappointing that in the last 10 years there has been a 26% fall in the total number of people in England of all ages accessing undergraduate higher education. This has been driven by a significant decline in part-time higher education. Now, there are 67% fewer part-time undergraduate students in higher education than a decade ago. The Government have acknowledged that this is a problem, and this Bill is an important start in trying to reverse this trend.
However, in its current form, the Bill does not go far enough in reforming our education sector. There is an opportunity to ensure that the education system provides equal access and support for learners, regardless of where the learning takes place. Rather than creating a unified, credit-based funding system, the Bill creates separate funding systems for those who study module by module compared to those who study a full degree. Education of technical skills or qualifications should be given the same level of importance and respect, and there should be one funding system that does not separate them. Our society needs people to gain degree qualifications, and it is crucial that the Government do not undervalue our universities; apprenticeships and other technical qualifications are different and they teach different skills, but they are just as valuable and should be given equal status.
In a world where an 18-year-old leaving school today will likely work well into their mid-70s, or even later, and where the labour market is likely to go through significant change, investment in lifelong learning is crucial. This Bill makes an important start, and I support what it aims to achieve. However, much more needs to be done to support the lifelong learning education system that we are going to need in the future. I look forward to being a participant in this Bill, which aims to do just that.
Lord Layard (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we should really welcome this Bill, because, as we know, our country does a pretty good job with its graduates but a much less good job with the other 50%. If we are looking for reasons for the difference in the treatment of these two, we should look immediately at the different ways in which they are funded. If you are going down the academic—the route to university—the funding automatically follows the student. Any sixth form or university, therefore, has total freedom to put on a course and admit students, because it knows that if it attracts students, they will be funded, student by student. This system has produced one of the most dynamic learning systems in the world. The non-university route is totally different. The FE college or other provider has to contract, with the Education and Skills Funding Agency, for its budget year by year. The total budget is capped, and it is the Government, therefore—not the students or providers—who decide how many places there are in the sector.
Over the last 10 years, the result has been quite extraordinary. In the 10 years before Covid, the further education budget for people over 18 was cut, in real terms, by 50%. Even if you add in the funding for apprenticeships, the cut is over a third, while, at the same time, university funding has soared. The difference is just incredible. This situation and this system cannot be allowed to continue. Elementary fairness requires that we provide automatic funding for every qualified person, whether they go down the route to university or the route through further education.
This is the moment to make the change, because the Government have, to their great credit, announced that they plan a lifetime skills guarantee, which provides free education up to level 3, independent of age. The guarantee would be a historic landmark if it were put in the Bill, which it has to be. But there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the guarantee can be implemented, because you cannot implement such a guarantee with the existing system of funding, which has no mechanism for reflecting the demand from the students.
The Bill therefore needs two more clauses: one to put the lifetime skills guarantee in law, and a second to state that by, say, 2025, all colleges and other approved providers should receive automatic in-year funding for any student covered by the lifetime skills guarantee. That is my main proposal.
I will end on the subject of apprenticeships. In the year before Covid, nearly one-third of all 18 year-olds were not in any form of education or work-based training. That is amazing—what a disaster. In my view, most of them should have been on a level 2 or 3 apprenticeship, or on a pre-apprenticeship course, but currently, there are simply not enough apprenticeship places to meet the existing demand from young people. It is not a cultural problem; it is a problem with the supply of places. Yet at the same time, half of all apprenticeship starts are not for young people but for people aged over 25, many of them long-standing employees getting top-up training that should be paid for by the employer. In addition, as the department’s own research shows, the benefit-cost ratio for apprenticeships for those aged over 25 is barely half what it is for apprenticeships for those aged under 25.
Many more of our apprenticeships have to be directed at young people. In my view, the state’s prime duty in education is to get every young person a proper start in life and a proper skill. Until we have done that, there should not be any apprenticeship money—or nearly none—for the over-25s. At the very least, there should be a legal requirement in the Bill that, by 2025, no more than, say, one-quarter of apprenticeship funding goes to people over 25.
This is a Bill with enormous potential to transform people’s lives and to improve our economy, but I believe that it needs at least three additional features. First, if it is to mean anything, the lifetime skills guarantee should be in the law; secondly, there should be automatic in-year funding for every student exercising the lifetime skills guarantee; and, thirdly, there should be a maximum limit of, say, one-quarter on the share of apprenticeship funding going to people over 25. I hope the Minister will be able to consider and support these proposals.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her excellent maiden speech.
I rise with some trepidation, as this is the first time that I have spoken in an education debate. My reason for doing so is to raise issues about what is not in the Bill. Although the Minister mentioned the green revolution in her opening remarks, she failed to note that there is not a whisper of reskilling to meet the challenge of climate change in the Bill itself.
Like others, I welcome the Bill. For far too long, lifelong learning has been seen as being a bit quirky. It must instead become an acknowledged norm. We must make it easier for people to upskill or reskill, so that they can redirect their efforts to where there are going to be opportunities in future developments as we reshape our economy to meet the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change and threats to our natural world.
This Bill should represent a pivotal moment for supporting UK efforts to move to a prosperous zero-carbon economy and society. It could help with building public understanding and confidence and the behaviour change needed to meet net zero and to protect our finite natural resources. It could offer impetus for green jobs and the competitiveness benefit that comes with them. However, it does none of those things. It is silent on the massive skills shortages in sectors that will be crucial to building a greener economy. There is no provision to embed climate and sustainability considerations into the post-16 framework, despite strong evidence from business, educators and learners on the need to do so.
Given that there is unlikely to be further legislation in this area for some time, this Bill is where these gaps must be addressed. The Government are well aware of this, which makes it rather puzzling that there is a lack of even a signalling of their intent to address how they will join up their strategy to achieve net zero with the planned reforms of the post-16 and skills system.
The Government have a 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, which highlights the opportunity to unlock hundreds of thousands of jobs in the transition from a fossil-fuel-based economy to a more sustainable one—one that will support a just transition for workers. They have the Green Jobs Taskforce, set up jointly by BEIS and the Department for Education, whose remit is to support the UK to transition to a net-zero economy and deliver a green recovery by developing recommendations for an action plan for government, business, education institutions and trade unions to support 2 million good-quality green jobs and the skills that will be needed by 2030. The taskforce finished its work in April this year and has not yet reported. How do the Government plan to incorporate the task force’s findings?
Is it indeed the case that local skills improvement plans would be prepared without reference to strategic objectives such as the net-zero targets or the associated sector-specific strategies, such as the industrial decarbonisation strategy, the transport decarbonisation strategy, the energy White Paper, the nature strategy and the heating and building strategy? Can the Minister reassure me that these crucial underpinnings of how we build back better—in the Government’s own words—will be taken into account in LSIPs? If so, how will that happen?
It is unclear how the Bill will offer support to workers transitioning from industries such as oil and gas, or to fossil fuel heating engineers who will require retraining and reskilling. Current policy plans mean that workers transitioning out of high-carbon sectors who already possess level 3 qualifications would not be able to access the lifelong learning entitlement. Maybe the lifetime skills guarantee level 3 entitlement could be put on a statutory footing and extended to include subsequent qualifications where relevant.
The interrelated climate, biodiversity and Covid challenges have intensified questions from students, teachers and parents about the purpose of education. The learning approaches and analytics they need and want are those that are necessary to tackle global and local crises. This Bill is an opportunity to embed climate and sustainability aspects in both non-vocational and vocational 16 to 19 provision, as well for older adult learners. I hope that the Government, in later stages of the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, will address the green gap within it.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I add my warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome—I am in awe. I also slightly wish that I had had my first job in a butcher’s shop, rather than packaging up the pear drops in the newsagent, then I too could have been an international high-flyer. It was a brilliant maiden speech.
I need to declare a few interests. I am a non-executive board member at Ofsted, from August I will serve on the Court of Newcastle University, and I had a temporary role on a committee at Ofqual towards the end of last year.
I of course welcome this Bill. As it so happens, my dad was an FE lecturer in Tyneside until his retirement. I remember very well when I was growing up meeting some of his students. We would bump into them in town or they would come round and thank him. A lot of them had come to education later in life and would talk about how their confidence had been transformed, so I am particularly pleased to speak on this issue today.
In my own maiden speech four years ago, I said that the pace of the technological revolution meant that the Government must use the tools they have to ensure that the labour market can adapt as nimbly as possible to an unprecedented pace of change. The Bill is certainly a step in the right direction, although there are areas I want to probe.
The Government are clearly passionate in their determination to level up and to ensure that we see a tangible link between skills and retraining and local jobs, and there is a very clear rationale for the local skills improvement plans. I agree that employers should be at the forefront of this. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is aware that the pace of change in work- places means that we must think beyond the immediate jobs requirements of local employers, because we need to ensure a long-term employment market in which all can thrive according to their talent and hard work.
It is with this in mind that I gently ask my noble friend whether she can reassure me that we are definitely going far enough to empower local communities. Voters across the UK have just given a big vote of confidence in local leadership—for example, in re-electing local mayors. How will local leaders, with their in-depth understanding of demographic trends, existing skills, market trends and local infrastructure, be involved in the plans? Although I was unable to speak in the Queen’s Speech debate, I read it all back, and several noble Lords across the House expressed concern at a sense of “Whitehall knows best”. My noble friend absolutely has my sympathy, as she knows—this is an age-old dilemma for Governments who want to grip an agenda—but I would be grateful for some reassurance.
Like others, I turn now to lifelong learning. The Government are to be commended for the funding for level 3 qualifications, but I share concerns about those who could, in effect, be frozen out because they have an existing qualification. Does this not contradict the principle of retraining? As far as the loan entitlement provided for in Part 1 is concerned—the Government can consult on it—again, in principle all is good. It is absolutely right that we disrupt the status quo away from a one-size-fits-all approach, but I want to be sure as the Bill progresses that we really understand how gaining skills and/or retraining can work in practice, and do not make an assumption that policy and legislative change translates into easy decisions for, for example, a cash-strapped, time-poor 45 year-old.
There are lots of points on the detail that will need to be worked through, but there are immediately some glaring questions which others have raised and I share concern about, particularly regarding the equivalent or lower qualification rules, which my noble friend mentioned in her opening speech. Surely the pace of change we have discussed at some length today means that those with all sorts of qualifications will find themselves in need of retraining; again, I go back to the need for a nimble system.
More broadly, I support the Government’s optimistic message on lifelong learning and retraining but, ultimately, it is not me they have to persuade. We do not need a huge leap of imagination to understand how daunting the thought of taking on a loan in order to train or retrain can be to those who, through no fault of their own, have lost their job or have effectively been frozen out of the jobs market as a result of childcare pressures or caring responsibilities. Therefore, I urge the Government and employers—because I do not think government can or should solve every problem—to prioritise the social infrastructure that will enable more people to realise their ambitions and be part of a sustained recovery.
The Government acknowledge that the funding and loans system is complex. The more complex the system, the greater the need for clearer signposting. There is a lot of work to be done to develop a consumer- friendly system, particularly for the hard to reach. We are talking about lifelong learning, so we need to match that with a genuine understanding of the factors that affect decisions and resilience at every stage of life. But for all the challenges I have highlighted, I am absolutely confident that there is a way through. I look forward to working with the Government, who have my full support as they take the Bill forward.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I welcome a Bill which focuses on lifelong learning and is committed to enhancing skills among the many young and indeed older people who do not go to university. I also welcome a Bill which aims to enhance the further education sector and support outstanding teaching as well as emphasising collaboration between employers and education and training providers, with the provisos made by my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley. Lastly, I welcome a Bill which seeks to correct the injustice of considerable financial support for students in universities against negligible financial support for students studying in FE colleges.
We undoubtedly have serious skills gaps compared to other OECD countries, with shortages of skilled employees in many sectors and low levels of productivity. This reflects too little investment by government and employers in alternative qualifications to university degrees. This has been particularly apparent in the last decade, when the coalition Government and the Conservative Government who followed them slashed further education, cutting colleges’ incomes by 50%.
Having welcomed the aims of the Bill, I turn to some of its limitations. As a piece of legislation, it is short on detail; it is a skeleton with too little flesh on it to allow us to understand how it will work in practice in key areas. This perhaps explains the long timescale for implementation, which will not be until 2024-25 for core proposals. The Bill reads a bit like a work in progress rather than the end of a detailed policy-making approach culminating—rather than beginning—with a piece of legislation. In a post-Covid world, action will be needed urgently and cannot be delayed for four years. This is especially true of training and educational support for the unemployed after furlough ends.
As others have said, the Bill’s implementation is also dependent on a large injection of resources, both in the short and the longer term. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has questioned whether these resources will be forthcoming and whether detailed calculations of the costs entailed have been undertaken. What is the total price of the Bill when implemented, and when will the Government start injecting new resources?
Let me illustrate this with respect to FE colleges. Their funding has been insufficient. They need more, and they need longer-term funding settlements. This much was recognised, as the Minister knows, in the White Paper. It becomes even more salient when their funding is compared with that of schools and universities —as my noble friend Lord Layard has already mentioned—since they are much less well off in funding per student. Recent research by the IPPR found that to keep up with demographic pressures and inflation, over the last 10 years we would have had to invest £2.1 billion more per annum in adult skills and £2.7 billion more in 16 to 19 year-olds in FE. The Government must provide for future needs and redress the long-standing past underinvestment. Are the Government committed to starting the process in the next spending review, and will they move to long-term, multiyear simplified funding? Without this, the colleges will not be able to develop their curriculum and the range of courses needed to meet the outcomes of discussions with employers on local skills needs, nor will they be able to pay the salaries needed to attract high-quality lecturers to develop and teach new programmes.
I want to pick out one important area for new courses that may not emerge from locally based identifications of skills needs but requires a national scheme. This concerns the green economy. The Government’s commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 requires a big shift to education and skills training to stall climate change. The Bill is a lost opportunity as it fails to link the Government’s goals on decarbonisation in energy, transport, and buildings, sustainable land management and carbon sequestration. Not only will those entering the labour force for the first time need to be prepared for green jobs, but many who currently work in fossil fuel sectors will need retraining. Why does the Bill make little or no reference to net zero? Should there not be a requirement for skills improvement plans to refer to national objectives on the green economy?
Lastly, I want to touch on the lifetime skills guarantee, on which the Government are still consulting. I am really glad that the gist of the Augar report’s recommendations on student support has been accepted, but the Government must provide more detail on eligibility, whatever the level or type of course the student is training in. Who will be eligible in terms of the range of subjects? I hope the range will be very wide and not narrow. They also need to consider, as others have said, how to support the maintenance needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds—or are the Government just going to ignore this? There will be a great deal of work to be done in Committee in this area and, I fear, in many other areas too.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, and congratulate her on an impressive maiden speech. I very much welcome this Bill, as it is clearly appropriate to revisit how current legislation is meeting the needs of students, employees, potential employees and employers, in a rapidly changing world. Let me declare my interests: I have been actively involved in encouraging the establishment of the institute for agriculture and horticulture, TIAH, which is under way, to help improve the image of the sector, provide signposting to quality-approved courses and CPD opportunities, and establish a national register. The support of Defra on this has been very welcome. I am also a fellow of City & Guilds.
The key objectives of the Bill are laudable and very welcome. Putting employers at the heart of post-16 skills policy has been the intention of previous policies. That is easily stated but more difficult to apply in practice. To devolve responsibility to local level, to have local skills improvement plans and employer representative bodies, must be the correct approach. What is unclear from the Bill is how this intention links to national skills priorities for each industry sector, how this relates to regional priorities—in particular, the involvement of local enterprise partnerships—and whether local employer representative bodies to be designated by the Secretary of State are intended to represent all industry sectors within a given local area.
Too often in the past, employer representative bodies have been dominated by large industrial employers and new high-tech sectors regarded as sexy and attractive. Other sectors, which are crucial but fragmented and characterised by SME employers, are sometimes not recognised and therefore not included. This is particularly true of the rural sector and agri-food businesses. They are not identified as sectors with skills gaps in the White Paper but are hugely important and provide exciting opportunities for those choosing a career. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance on this point and, in doing so, give a definition of “local”. Is local a county or parish definition, or something else?
The need to facilitate and encourage lifelong learning is vital; even more so as we emerge from the Covid experience, when many who have been furloughed or made redundant may have wished to retrain. A lifelong loan entitlement is an interesting concept and we await the consultation with interest. However, to wait until 2025 before this loan becomes available is regrettable. In my view, we will miss an important window, when such a facility would be very helpful. I hope that the Government have learned lessons from the student loan experience in determining the thresholds and timetables for repayment. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in this respect.
I will now comment on the changes to the regulatory framework proposed in the Bill. In my view, there is potential for significant confusion, as referenced by other Peers in this debate. Government support for vocational training and skills development, with T-levels et cetera, is very welcome. The ability of students to achieve degree-level qualifications as an alternative to attending university, with all its associated costs, must be correct. There is, however, some concerning potential overlap among the regulatory bodies. The Bill must be clear about the relevant roles of the Office for Students, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, Ofqual and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—particularly the latter two bodies. Unless I have misinterpreted the wording, it appears that the new roles envisaged would create a two-tier and rather cumbersome regulatory approval system. The last thing we need is confusion, duplication and an additional load of bureaucracy. Within this new framework, it is essential that the authority of Ofqual and its accountability to Parliament are not diluted.
We also need to be aware of the administrative costs of regulatory oversight. I speak as a former chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee. Every new or amended regulator adds a new level of cost. The total cost of the suite of regulators in this space will be substantial.
I fully appreciate the need for nationally recognised industry standards. It is important that statutory control, as proposed in the Bill, particularly the role and influence of the Secretary of State, does not lead to overcentralised control or inhibit competition on skills provision in the marketplace.
I conclude by raising a concern about rural and land-based education. The Minister will be aware of the deep concern in the north of England about the proposed closure of Newton Rigg College in Cumbria. The failure to find a solution so far, and the possible loss of this geographically important college and its unique role in serving the needs of the uplands sector, as well as woodland and forestry management, is, I hope, not a signal that the Government do not regard rural as important. I left school aged 15 and the only formal education I received afterwards was in Northumberland, in what is now called a land-based college, very similar to Newton Rigg. As it was for the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, this was through evening classes and day-release courses.
As has been stressed a number of times today, we must ensure that young people and those who wish to retrain are well informed on course availability, including rural, land-based and agricultural courses, and have every opportunity to choose a career as a consequence. In the light of climate change, our net-zero ambitions, the importance of food security and opportunities within the rural economy, I hope the Government continue to regard this sector as important. I fully support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, on the need for seasonal workers in the agricultural and horticultural sectors.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I begin, as many others have, by paying a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, who made a fascinating and somewhat gruesome maiden speech. I look forward to hearing her again on those subjects and in more detail. I long for the day when this Chamber is full again, when we can have a proper debate, without too many colleagues Zooming in.
I will concentrate on one issue in particular, which is an aspect of the construction industry, about which the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, spoke with some passion and deep knowledge. I declare my interest as the founder and chairman of the William Morris Craft Fellowship programme and the first vice-president of the Heritage Crafts Association.
As many of your Lordships know, I am passionate about restoring buildings, particularly this one and Lincoln Cathedral, which I look at from my home every time I am back on the weekends or in recess. I am acutely conscious that great buildings, such as this one, Lincoln Cathedral and churches around the country—often focal points of their local communities—are in greater danger than they have been for many a long year. It is partly a consequence of the pandemic: many churches have been shut for months and have deteriorated. Many are bat-infested, which is a real problem that I have talked about in your Lordships’ House before. We owe these buildings to craftsmen and, more recently to crafts men and women, through the ages. One evening every month in Lincoln Cathedral, when we generally pray for those who have been benefactors or achieved great things, we pray for the unknown by name who created that great building. It is the same here and in every parish church in the country.
We founded the William Morris Craft Fellowship, named after that great pioneer—also a great socialist, but I will not talk about that—in the 19th century because of his dedication to the arts and proper restoration. We sought to find mainly young crafts men and women around the country who showed enormous potential but who had all been through a long apprenticeship. I say in parenthesis that one of the things that disturbs me about the Bill is that it does not confront “apprenticeship” properly. The word has been too loosely used in recent years, even attached to flower-arranging courses that last nine months—although I say nothing against flower arranging.
To master a craft is a long, arduous and challenging business. We were looking for those who had done so, who had shown great interest in kindred crafts—because you cannot be master of your own unless you understand others—and who showed the potential to be able to take charge of important sites. Over the last 35 years since we founded this fellowship, we have chosen well over 100 mainly young men and women who have gone on to do all manner of things, including writing notable books about the subject.
That is why I am so much in sympathy with my noble friend Lord Willetts when he talked about not having an artificial distinction between the academic and the vocational. I am a great believer in vocation. I consider that those of us in this place, and in the other place where I had the honour to serve for 40 years, are following a vocation to public service. It is desperately important that we encourage more and more young people to realise that by working with their hands they are also using their brains and helping to create or preserve things of great beauty.
I mentioned the other day, when we were we were talking about the Environment Bill, the importance of constructing buildings of quality today—I cited the Prince of Wales on Poundbury—but the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, was right: there are not enough who have mastered their crafts. I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about the delay in the implementation of aspects of the Bill, but I hope there will be a real emphasis on encouraging young people to embrace real crafts and to help to create or preserve those buildings of beauty in which the history of our country is embodied and will continue to be built.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure as always to follow one of the interesting speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. However, on this occasion it is an even greater pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, on her maiden speech. I have a bit of history with her: her current position is pro-vice-chancellor for engagement at Lancaster University, and when I was chair of the council I—along with others on the panel—appointed her. It was the easiest appointment I have ever made in my life, and that does not reflect on the quality of the other applicants. Sue is tremendous and she will make a great contribution to this House.
We are talking today about a very serious subject: that of decades of public policy failure on Britain’s part in education. We have made multiple efforts: the technical schools of the 1944 Act that never happened; the training boards that Labour established in the 1960s but were then thought unsatisfactory; and the learning and skills councils established by my noble friend Lord Blunkett but then abolished. There has been no stability of approach and no stable institutions, and we have huge problems.
I first came across this issue when I worked with my noble friend Lord Mandelson at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at the fag end of the Labour Government. We suddenly realised, based on the work of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and his Gatsby Foundation, that we were facing a real crisis in technicians: if we were not able to have sufficiently highly qualified technicians, how could we be a successful economy working at the frontier of knowledge? We have heard today from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about the lack of training in digital skills and computing. Another worry is construction. This Government, rightly, have huge ambitions for public investment—we are raising it from something like 2% to 4% of GDP—but if we do not have the workers how are they going to fulfil those ambitions?
I welcome the Bill. I would not say that the present Secretary of State for Education was one of the Conservatives whom I most admire—I admire many Conservatives, by the way—but I praise him for taking up the cause of further education. I hope his efforts will have more success than the past decades of failure.
One of the most shocking things that I have learned in this debate is from my noble friend Lord Layard, who had enormous influence over the policies of the Blair and Brown Governments, when he said that today we are in a situation where one-third of 18 year- olds are not in any form of education or training. That is a recipe for a low-pay, low-skill economy with massive inequalities for decades to come. It is a recipe for social disaster in the world of knowledge, advanced technology, artificial intelligence and all that which we are moving into. We have to do something about it.
The funding of lifelong learning, the introduction of modular courses and efforts to secure greater employer involvement are all admirable. However, there are a couple of matters about which I worry. First, I worry that the whole approach is too centralised. I have always been very sceptical of the Skills Funding Agency, which holds the whole system in an iron grip and does not allow for local flexibility and initiative. I would like mayors and combined authorities working with employers to develop skills improvement plans on a localised basis in England. Secondly, the education system needs collaboration, not polarisation. I saw this at Lancaster, a very good university, where we had a very good partnership with Barrow’s college of further education to train graduate engineers for the Vickers yard.
Such collaboration between colleges and universities should be strengthened; we should not be trying to force the systems apart. That is very important. I worry that we are allowing ourselves to think that university expansion has reached its limit. We in this country are supposed to admire places like Asia. Well, in places such as South Korea something like 70% of children are going to university, so do not let us have any artificial limits.
I shall make a final point. We must be prepared to put public money into this. We can make choices about it, but I think personally that my own party’s commitment to abolish tuition fees is ridiculous, given the amount of money that we have to spend on other aspects of education. On the government side, the Conservatives have to recognise that further education and apprenticeships have been an area of massive underfunding. We need a joint commitment to create stable institutions and to provide the funding that will lead to a transformation in this field.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill represents an opportunity to create a more agile and jobs-focused skills system that is underpinned by local collaboration between further education, higher education and business. Strengthening collaboration with business can help us to identify and respond to skills demands through providing short courses that support employment and provide a talent pipeline for job creation.
For local skills improvement plans to be successful, they must leverage the input and strengths of businesses, along with further and higher education providers. Partnerships between colleges and universities can build clear pathways for people to learn new skills and support employers to recruit and upskill their workforce across the different stages of education and training. Local strategies should complement the work of LEPs and combined authorities in skills planning and harmonise the efforts of regional actors. A fragmented approach across different geographies risks confusing employers and leaving gaps in coverage.
The Government must go faster to support adult learning, ahead of the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement. The CBI, of which I am president, in its Learning for Life report found that, by 2030, nine in 10 people will need to upskill or retrain in order to prevent skills gaps emerging in the UK. Covid-19 has thrown this challenge into even sharper focus, with an urgent need to respond to increasing unemployment. The introduction of a lifelong loan entitlement is a positive step to enable more adults to acquire the skills they need to flourish. However, the 2025 timeline needs to be accelerated in order to support the reskilling that our economy demands. In the interim, the Government should work with further education and higher education providers to incentivise and upskill through more flexible, modular and bite-sized courses.
To build on the Bill and deliver on the priority of boosting adult education, the national skills fund must also provide support for individuals facing the biggest barriers to learning, thus supporting those with the greatest retraining needs. This will be essential to mitigate the job displacement being caused by the pandemic and will help the UK to seize the benefits of an increasingly digital and green economy. We need a levelling-up of opportunity for people to build their skills, but that will require significant business investment. Realising the Government’s ambitions for this Bill will require fundamental levy reform. Addressing skills gaps in our economy and giving everyone access to the education and training they need will cost approximately £130 billion over the next decade. That is what the CBI has estimated. The Government must create the right incentives to unlock business investment in every town, city and region.
In its current form, the apprenticeship levy serves as a barrier to investment in skills. It is distorting investment as firms try to make training fit awkwardly into an apprenticeship. Many firms are also reticent about investing in further skills support until they have spent their full levy fund. A flexible skills and training levy could unleash business investment in both people and workplaces, and could capitalise on the increase in employer demand for the more modular, skills-based provision that the Government are proud of. Does the Minister agree with that?
The Government have also taken steps to make it easier for employers to transfer funds to SMEs in their supply chains. While levy payers are keen to help smaller firms invest in apprentices, that does not overcome the wider challenges, including those faced by SMEs. The fundamental issue is that employers are being forced to address all their training needs via the apprenticeship route, leading to most levy payers underspending their pot of funds. We have reached an impasse with the Government, with the Department for Education pointing the finger at Her Majesty’s Treasury. Will the noble Baroness the Minister clarify the situation?
The Open University has said clearly that the Bill is a key opportunity to reverse the calamitous decline in part-time students in higher education in England. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is essential that this is not missed. I was proud to be the youngest university chancellor in the country at the time, from 2005 to 2010 at the Thames Valley University, now the University of West London. I saw at first hand the amazing number of mature and part-time learners, but that has sadly declined hugely now.
Professor John Holford, who was a fellow commissioner on the Centenary Commission on Adult Education that reported in November 2019, has made some really important points. He says that a Bill which focuses on skills and productivity is important, but post-16 education is also vital for many other reasons too. For example, it can help individuals and communities who are struggling to counteract loneliness and isolation in the wake of Covid. We need to recognise the wider educational role of the further education sector.
Schools and universities celebrate learning for vocational qualifications, but they also teach philosophy, ethics, art and music, which are the tools needed for active citizens. Further education alone is denied that breadth. Educational breadth is needed so that adult education can engage with those who are most in need. Education has often not worked for them in the past. They do not see education as a route to earning more. Adult education needs to be able to offer the kind of learning that will enthuse and engage people. Does the Minister agree? Very often, this will build their confidence so that they can go on to study further for a qualification to progress towards better work, improved health and well-being, along with other outcomes that benefit themselves and their communities.
This Bill offers no new support for students studying below level 3. That pathway is vital to the post-16 educational landscape. Without adequate support in the adult education budget for lower-level qualifications, many students will not be ready and able to take up the level 3 offers that are included in the Bill. Does the Minister agree with this?
The preparation of local skills improvement plans must involve wide consultation not just with employers but with professionals, including community adult education providers such as the institutes for adult learning, general further education colleges and local authority community adult learning representatives.
In conclusion, I am proud to be chancellor of the University of Birmingham. Earlier on, my fellow chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made such an important point in this debate. Far too often, people have a mindset that further education equals technical and vocational, while university education equals academic. Universities are also proud to offer vocational training and qualifications, whether that be in filmmaking or engineering.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, for a most interesting speech. I welcome this ambitious Bill and the lifetime skills guarantee, both for filling our skills gap and for the personal fulfilment it offers for many who were ill-served by secondary education or need to change direction. I declare interests as a former chair and current fellow of the Working Men’s College, chair of the Department for Education’s stakeholder group for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma education and other positions as listed in the register. I am also grateful for the extensive guidance sent to us on the working of the new plans.
While I very much support expanded provision of higher-level technical education, whose dearth has so much impaired our competitiveness and domestic standards for so long, I want to focus on provision for that large number who need a second chance by widening access to further education.
The fact is that, in 2019, 34.1% of students—over one-third—failed to get a standard pass at grade 4 in GCSE maths or English, the gateway to almost all forms of further education, and that is without counting the number who drop out of education long before the GCSE years. The noble Baroness the Minister will be aware that many Gypsy and Traveller children do this because of the relentless bullying and prejudice which many schools seem unable to eradicate. I am indebted to the Education Policy Institute and the excellent report, The Forgotten Third, for its analysis of the reasons for inadequate attainment. It shows the dismal outcomes in unemployment and low-level crime for this deplorably large proportion of our school students. Needless to say, lack of innate ability does not feature. These are young people who are in the main capable of earning a living and making a contribution to society. They need enhanced access to a second chance.
So, I have a series of questions. How will lifelong entitlement work for them? It seems to be available only for study at higher technical and degree level. How will skills acceleration and local skills improvement plans work for them? In relation to the obligation on colleges and designated institutions to make regular assessments of local needs, how will the colleges take account of school dropouts and school leavers not equipped for available work? It should be said again that there is no evidence that these young people are all lacking in intelligence, although some may have limited aspirations. What account will the proposed government intervention process take of these factors?
In principle, my points all concern access to vocational qualifications. The basic question is: what scope is there for funded initial or foundation courses to enable access to traineeships, apprenticeships and the rest of further education for non-achievers in English and maths? What provision is there for tutoring and mentoring, which are particularly important because of the Covid-related gaps in education, and how will careers advice and guidance on these and other access arrangements be made available? According to the Traveller Movement, Gypsies and Irish Travellers in 2017-18 obtained only 40 traineeships out of 17,700 and 180 apprenticeships out of 216,000.
It is also important for improved teacher training to include the cultural backgrounds of students, including the culture and heritage of that large group of minority ethnic students, not least Gypsies, Travellers and Roma children, who appear prominently in the numbers failed by the system. There have been many incidents of ethnicity-based bullying and prejudice in the further education sector for those few Gypsies, Travellers and Roma students who have surmounted the obstacles to getting in, and it may be similar for other students from minority ethnic backgrounds. Such training would not only be just but would increase the effectiveness of teaching. The same applies to the Office for Students. What assurances can the Minister give us on that point?
In conclusion, as it stands, this potentially useful Bill has little to contribute to levelling up. It is rightly aimed at strengthening the economy but misses the opportunity to include the many who need, and deserve, a fairer chance.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking my noble friend the Minster for the way she introduced this very important piece of legislation today. I also join them in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, on her maiden speech.
The Bill highlights areas that in my view have for far too long not received the government attention that reflects their importance. If we are to be an outward-facing global country, the development of skills permitted by the Bill will be critical. The key areas that I want to address briefly today concern the lifelong learning that should be available to all if we are to become that global, competitive country. There is no such thing as “a job for life” anymore. We live in a world where all jobs are expected to be fluid and interchangeable, and to have technology and digital skills at the centre of their roles. Whether it is in construction or in the new emerging economy, our future job roles will need all those skills, from basic technology to intricate digital mapping and AI skills.
Therefore, access to skills training and opportunities to move across sectors will be critical for an agile and quick-reacting economy such as ours. As others have said, will my noble friend ensure that there are no barriers to accessing new qualifications, even if people have already benefited from entry-level qualifications? Lifelong learning must mean exactly that. Employment needs are changing at pace and we must not stop at entry-level roles, as that in itself stops employment development.
I also place a strong emphasis on the importance of language skills. So many times we hear of people from minority communities being exploited in poorly paid roles or, sadly, in some instances being subject to modern-day slavery simply because they lack language skills. It is not good enough to have funding provided to local authorities without clear evidence of how that funding provides tangible, measurable results. The pandemic has shone a light on the fragility of communities in their struggle to protect themselves from not just the pandemic but abuse. They lack access to educational tools and support for families in multigenerational households. We need to address the poverty of learning. I say to my noble friend that these are deeply embedded, long-standing problems that have been ignored for decades.
I will also touch on life skills and experiences. Like many noble Lords, I have participated in educational political surgeries with schools. I recently did one with a high school in Gloucester. There, I was really encouraged to hear the thoughtful and pragmatic approach students had to the world around them. The key points that stuck in my mind included whether focusing on exams at the end of a year was an outdated approach to measuring a student’s potential. Some are great at sitting exams, but many are not. They want a true reflection of their abilities to be measured, rather than just leaving it to the end of the year. Real life does not exist in vacuums, so why should the student experience?
The students also wanted greater exposure to real-life skills such as financial literacy, budgets, and debt management. I thank one particular student called Rose, who made the point so beautifully that I realised how poorly qualified I had been when I left school to manage the businesses I manage now. They were incredibly sensible and practical asks for those thinking about the future jobs market.
Careers advice needs to be delivered by a combination of factors, with technical, business and academic-informed provision. This does not stop or start with young people, but should be available for everyone. Employment will undoubtedly change many times over in our working lifetimes, but people in their mid-40s upwards who might lose their jobs because of the pandemic will need skills to meet the new and current requirements of the jobs market today and in the future. We cannot airbrush these groups out because they do not make a loud noise. Their past experiences mean they need the new skills. I therefore urge my noble friend to make support easily accessible to these groups. Please do not forget that we have a pool of people who will feel that they have been left behind.
Finally, let us celebrate alternative routes to top jobs. Let us treat alternatives to degrees with parity. I have raised this in the House on many occasions: how are the Government monitoring career progression across the Civil Service and Whitehall, where we see less and less inclusion and diversity as we go higher up the organisation? Will my noble friend go back to looking at the levelling-up agenda being not just for the private sector but for all sectors where education and skills play a huge role, so we reach the large pockets of the population who remain on the edges of communities, without hope or help? Let this important Bill be the real game-changer for those communities with untapped potential, such as those in my city of Leicester, that will need ongoing support, particularly after the pandemic.
Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, on her excellent maiden speech. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my position as chair of council at the University of Salford. I am particularly interested in the provisions in the Bill in respect of bringing together the higher and further education sectors, and providing greater parity of esteem between the various routes, academic and vocational, that one can travel down to secure a quality job. That blurring of the lines between academic and technical education is at the heart of the University of Salford’s mission. Its founding institution was the Royal Technical Institute of Salford, which was established in 1896 to train the workforce of the industrial revolutions.
Over 125 years later, the university is dedicated to powering the fourth industrial revolution. Today, academics are working hand in glove with employers, both public sector and private sector, to transform higher education. The university offers industry-focused degrees, designed with employers and with real-world experience baked in from day one, alongside new routes such as higher and degree apprenticeships. It is this legacy that the university is now building on, with its ambitions to develop an institute of technology. This innovatory project will bring together, in partnership, employees and further education colleges across Greater Manchester, to offer a range of level 4 and 5 courses, higher technical qualifications across digital, engineering and data, to plug the missing middle skills gap that we know employers are so desperately crying out for.
Turning to the legislation itself, I will focus on two areas. Of course I welcome the principle of the lifelong loan entitlement. Access to funding for training and retraining throughout one’s life will be a critical foundation for any aspiration to build a vibrant economy after the coronavirus, However, despite the positive mood music on the lifelong loan entitlement, the Government are leaving us hanging on for the detail. I look forward to seeing the specifics in due course, but I would like to outline two broad principles that I hope the Government will keep in mind when they decide this funding scheme, and perhaps they will respond to them today.
First, parity of esteem between further education and higher education cannot be achieved by simply increasing the funding going to further education at the expense of higher education. Colleges and universities working in partnership to deliver pathways that are right for the individual learner is how we achieve their ambitions, not by promoting further competition between these parts of the education and skills sector, as colleges and universities race to secure limited resources. The funding system, along with the regulatory system, across further and higher education needs to promote collaboration and co-operation, not competition. It is also worth stating that meeting our country’s economic aspirations is not just about more people choosing to do higher technical qualifications rather than going to university. It is about making sure that people go on to further education rather than stopping their learning at level 2 or 3. Our main challenge is not too many people going to university, but that too many people finish education too soon.
The cost of fees is only part of the issue when it comes to securing greater numbers of adult learners through further and higher education. We know that mature students are more debt-averse and cost-conscious than maybe school and college leavers. We have seen this in the sharp decline in mature students, following the raising of tuition fees and the ending of maintenance grants in recent years. Alongside the lifelong learning entitlement, the Government need to consider what maintenance and cost of living support can be provided, especially for adult learners who might have to reduce their hours to enable them to work and study part-time, and for a block period of shorter time-intensive courses. Again, I would welcome a response from the Minister on that today.
I quickly turn to the second matter, the OfS. I have grave concerns about the Government’s plan to allow the OfS to set minimum baselines on quality that do not have regard to students’ background, institution type, subject or location. This move seems at odds with the aspiration to level up access to education and training. It could well also have unintended consequences. There is a real risk that universities will be disincentivised from increasing access to further and higher education to those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and from introducing more flexible modes of study.
I conclude with another word of caution to the Government on the Bill. Where collaboration is already taking place in local areas between many local actors—including colleges, schools, universities, businesses, local government, the NHS, elected mayors and combined authorities, as we have in Greater Manchester—support it to flourish. In my area at the University of Salford, we are already leading a consortium of employees and colleges to develop new technical qualifications to meet local skills needs. The university and college sector has already committed to working together. Where structures are in place for joint working, do not seek to replace them for the sake of it. Work with those places to deepen and enhance those structures, recognising the unique needs, strengths and challenges of individual places.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill, which I believe is absolutely key to the recovery of our industrial and commercial base post Covid and post Brexit. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, on her maiden speech. I shall be very brief and make just a couple of observations.
Last year, in a debate in your Lordships’ House on the economy, I flagged up the case of an exemplar skills, training and retraining centre: the Marches centre in Bridgnorth, Shropshire. It was experiencing funding issues, and I tried to connect it with government. I was unable to obtain any real sort of response at all from Treasury officials, so I advised the business that I would connect it with the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street. His office was extremely sympathetic, but unfortunately no success was achieved. The training business has survived but in a much reduced way.
It occurs to me that part of that problem was that neither Bridgnorth nor Shropshire and the Welsh Marches benefits from the same level of training and skills education support enjoyed by the large West Midlands conurbations. With this Bill, such a situation must not be allowed to happen.
I have two questions for my noble friend on the Front Bench. How closely are the Skills Ministers and Business Ministers working together to ensure that the Bill is supported and inputted to by business? It is vital that business takes the lead in skills training; it knows exactly what the needs are at the coalface. Secondly, with many training providers facing cash-flow issues due to reduced and considerably leaner numbers from Covid restrictions, what support will those providers be given? Without training providers, the Bill’s deliverables will not be met.
The Bill is an excellent opportunity to provide and enhance the skills of our national workforce, and I welcome it.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her outstanding maiden speech, and welcome her to the House of Lords. I know she has made a huge contribution to the higher education sector, most recently and presently at Lancaster University. Her expertise and experience will be of great value in our future debates. I look forward to working with her on this Bill in the forth- coming weeks.
Who could argue with the principal aims of the Bill—to transform post-16 education and training, to boost skills and productivity, to involve employers more closely in course planning and provision, to get more people into work and to launch a new lifetime skills guarantee? What is there not to like? But let me just stop there a minute. We are learning that this Government speak in headlines—ringing headlines that are echoed in the press and social media—but then frequently there is little or no follow-through.
It is important to make it clear that to deliver the transformation that is needed in post-16 provision, a transformation which it is quite clear from the debate so far that we all support, to deliver the objectives of this Bill, we must acknowledge that significant changes are needed, changes to structures, attitudes and funding. On these crucial areas, the Bill is largely silent.
I have been involved in post-16 education in various ways, having served as a governor of an FE and an adult education college. Post-16 education, especially 16-19 education, is incredibly fragmented. There are 11-18 grammar schools, faith schools, 11-18 academies, comprehensives, sixth-form colleges, FE colleges and, very occasionally, tertiary colleges. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that putting employers at the heart of the post-16 skills system relates to their relationship with the local FE college only, but what of the other units providing post-16 education? Will adult education colleges be involved? Will other education providers be drawn into collaboration and, if so, how will this happen?
To be successful, local plans must bring together all schools and colleges in an area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Black, so vividly reminded us in her story about the schools working together with the college in the Lancaster area. Employer groups need to include such major employers as the NHS, local government and local universities. Can the Minister clarify the intentions here because unless there is significant collaboration in local areas across the area, the aims of this Bill will never be achieved?
There is also a huge issue around parity of esteem, and the Minister pointed this out in her opening remarks. Parental choices and student preferences have not changed that much in the past 50 years. Leaving aside public schools—although they cast a long shadow—grammar schools and 11-18 faith schools remain very popular with parents, followed by 11-18 local academies and sixth-form colleges. I regret to tell noble Lords this, but in the local areas that I know well, students are not clamouring to go to the local FE college, even when they want to pursue courses in computer games technology or basic health skills.
I was talking to my 18-year old grandson about this issue recently. He attended a sixth-form college in the north-east. I asked him whether any of his former schoolmates went to the local FE college. His reply was swift and telling: “Only if they couldn’t get in anywhere else.” That showed me that attitudes and perceptions have not changed very much. We all know the problem, dating back to the Education Act 1944, that technical schools and technical education never developed as envisaged, and that in the past two decades all the emphasis has been on getting a university place, not on developing practical technical expertise or getting technical qualifications.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has been working incredibly hard in recent years to change this situation, but the difficulties that he has encountered show the magnitude of the problems that we are still facing in this area. It will take great effort and a huge transformation of technical provision throughout the country to change perceptions. It is something that we must do, but it will not be easy, and it requires long-term investment.
The Bill is silent for the most part on funding issues, yet we know that one reason why FE colleges have struggled in recent years and have had to cut courses and narrow curriculums is lack of funding and constant cuts to budget. Post-16 education funding is at present not fair and not rational for all the competing institution. My noble friend Lord Layard pointed this out very clearly.
If the Government mean what they are saying about wanting to improve opportunities and boost skills, particularly among disadvantaged students, they must commit to long-term funding, not just for post-16 FE colleges but in a whole range of social welfare provision, to enable poorer, more disadvantaged and unemployed individuals to access courses, train and retrain and become more skilled.
Among the briefings sent to me for this debate was a sobering statistic that 13 million adults in this country—that is nearly one in four people over 18—lack level 2 qualifications, equivalent to GCSEs. Some 9 million adults lack functional literacy and numeracy skills. The Bill has a lot of heavy lifting to do, and it will need major investment over many years if it is to be more than aspirational. We want it to be successful, and I await the evidence in Committee that the investment will be forthcoming.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am proud to be a fellow of City Lit, the leading adult education college in the country, which, alongside other institutes of adult learning, works hard to ensure that all adults, whatever their age or stage in life, can receive high-quality education and learning throughout their lives. However, during this stage of recovery from the pandemic, many people may not yet be ready for retraining or reskilling and will need to rebuild their confidence first, for example, people with a lower level of formal skill, those with long Covid or people who have been in the same sector for decades and are still unprepared for a career change.
The Bill introduces a new duty for further education providers to review how well the education or training provided by the institution meets local needs, with new powers for the Secretary of State to intervene where providers are not meeting local needs, as seen through the lens of the needs of local employers. There is also a focus on technical qualifications and on careers in certain sectors at level 3 and above. However, surely the definition of local needs should incorporate a broader range of outcomes, for example, progression into work for students taking non-accredited courses or qualifications below level 3. Indeed, recent Department for Education data has shown that the return on investment for qualifications below level 2 is higher than that for level 3. As my noble friend Lord Bilimoria and others have emphasised, without adequate support for these lower-level qualifications, many students will not be ready and able to take up the level 3 offers which are featured in the Bill. The Government response to a recent consultation on these qualifications is promised later in the year, and I suggest that this consultation will need to be properly considered alongside the provisions in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on these points.
Education institutions across the country have been impacted by the pandemic but throughout lockdown have continued to deliver high-quality provision by accelerating the development of online courses, retaining many of the strengths of venue-based provisions, such as interaction with tutors and other students, and the ability to draw on learning resources in a range of media. Now that social distancing restrictions are gradually lifting, institutions will look to blend online with in-person provision to offer a range of courses which have greater flexibility than ever before. This is a key time to codesign some of this future provision with local employers and other local stakeholders. However, colleges and providers will be unable to maximise this without an increase in infrastructure, support and investment.
A core purpose of lifelong learning has always been to give people purpose through new experiences and knowledge and by connecting them with other like-minded individuals. We have some amazing institutions that work hard to ensure that everyone is enabled to learn and improve themselves as well as to hold roles within their communities. These institutions provide pastoral support on top of meeting the educational needs of their students. What have I learned during my life about the skills that all citizens need for an uncertain but exciting future, especially during and after a pandemic? First, more traditional approaches to further and higher education are in need of a rethink. In further education there is an aspiration to develop close links between education, business and the cultural and creative sectors. I want to see educational institutions become inclusive places that allow each and every person to find personal fulfilment—places which fully understand the ethical underpinning that enables equality of opportunity, where people can learn from each other, across traditional disciplines, learning to fuse arts, science and humanities to enrich them all. If we do not support the next generation to do this, we will be failing them.
To me, the pandemic launched a cultural revolution which has left some people feeling out of their depth and others thriving because of the resilience and adaptability for which their life experiences and education to date has prepared them. We can learn from their differing experiences. It is becoming clearer that being a digitally competent and confident communicator who is able to work anywhere and manage one’s own time is more important than being a compliant worker who clocks in and out on time. Being able to balance one’s work and personal life is critical too. Some people have perhaps not developed emotionally and in other ways that enable them to manage these boundaries well enough.
We need to be careful not to put all learners in one box, which the Bill and White Paper are at risk of doing. My own interest is to make sure that adults with learning disabilities are not left behind, and that this future strategy ensures that individuals who need high-quality education but may experience significant barriers to accessing it are better catered for. Institutions such as City Lit, offering world-leading provision for adults with learning disabilities, the deaf community and people who stammer or struggle with communication issues, must be able to continue this invaluable work. As we consider the Bill, let us ensure that no one is left out.
Lord Jones (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her speech.
Over half a century in Westminster’s Houses, I have seen countless Bills, presented by successive Governments— Bill after Bill—and today we have the noble Baroness’s Bill. Britain is still striving to find the holy grail of skills and it is truly a worthy, welcome and urgent objective. One recollects the embattled Chancellor Denis Healey exhorting Britain’s manufacturing companies to drive down unit costs. Today’s Chancellor, Mr Sunak, urges British industry to raise its productivity—not much change over 45 years as Britain struggles to hold on to her manufacturing base.
The Federal Republic of Germany is a mighty industrial presence in Europe, a formidable competitor, a huge exporter, and renowned for engineering skills. Did not Chancellor Bismarck forge a lasting technical skills template in the 19th century? How can we persuade more school leavers to compete to take up apprenticeships? How can we persuade more young women to enter this crucial field? Female entry is woefully low but a successful apprentice in our blue-chip companies might find that the world is her oyster. In the Times the noble Lord, Lord Baker, revealed that the big engineering, motor and aircraft companies pay their apprentices salaries of £12,000 to £20,000 per year, and some even more.
Does the Minister agree that parents of high-school leavers should be told formally and in a timely fashion about these salaries, prospects and activities? Should not head teachers encourage their students to apply for apprenticeships in the most positive manner, as a priority? Do we envisage in the future school tables for apprenticeships gained? It is far-fetched, perhaps, but how better to spur matters forward for the national future?
Ultimately, so much depends upon the head teacher. Today, young women are storming the rugby pitches, soccer fields, cricket squares and the boxing ring. A far better place might be the aerospace shop floor where excellent apprenticeships lead to salaries of £25,000 per year and much more, consequent upon qualification, bonus and shift work. Overall, the modern shop floor is spotlessly clean, well policed by health and safety and complete with pension and holiday. The current industrial playbook demands high-quality housekeeping in today’s factory environment. Rolls-Royce, Nissan, Tata and Airbus all have close, local links with their adjacent FE colleges.
Take, for instance Airbus—the register refers to my interests—which furnishes a splendid example in north-east Wales, my homeland and one-time constituency. It is a 6,000-strong establishment of world-class skills, a reservoir of unbeatable technical prowess and the equal of any comparable factory in the world. It makes the wings that fly the unsurpassed Airbus fleet. Each year a large cohort of able apprentices enter mainstream production. This company earns many billions in exports for Britain and has outstripped its mighty competitor, Boeing. It is the jewel in the crown of Welsh industry and the foundation of its famed advance is leadership, fine apprenticeships, FE and business collaboration, and skills excellence.
The FE college in this renowned mix is Coleg Cambria, which is near the factory runway. It has British awards and competition wins aplenty. The paramount requirement in post-16 education is always the leadership skill of the principal, the CEO. This establishment had fine leadership from Wil Edmunds OBE and David Jones OBE. These able professionals always liaised with head of plant, the professional acknowledged throughout Europe, Mr Paul McKinlay—a brilliant leader. The business world of north-east Wales is the customer for skills. Skills training fails if the business world is shut out. I am keenly aware that unions make up this global and local success in aerospace.
To conclude, in the helpful Explanatory Notes in annexe A on page 23 on provision, there is reference to
“the competence of the Senedd”.
Will the Minister expand on this? How and when was there consultation on the Bill with Senedd Ministers and officials? There may not be time for the Minister to answer; if so, will she please write on the points I have raised?
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a council member of City & Guilds. I am very much looking forward to Committee. It has been a pretty challenging Second Reading so far and I am confident that we can do some things to improve this Bill. My own suggestion will be that we should broaden the definition of outcomes in Clause 17 to cover mental health in higher education.
Going into HE is a huge step change for most children. In JCB’s apprenticeships provision, which is pretty remote and therefore provides the facilities a university might, it goes to immense lengths to look after the mental and general well-being of their apprentices. To my mind, universities fall well short of that standard.
When I tried a few years ago to see whether it might be possible to persuade universities to rely more on teacher recommendations to pick out students who were underperforming for reasons of background but might turn out to be extremely good students none the less, they said that they could not do that as they never got to know their students well enough over the course of three years to evaluate whether the teacher recommendations had been accurate enough.
Universities can be lonely, frightening, isolating places. The NHS mental health provision can take some long while to catch up with the move from home to university. I am sure that many of us have stories of friends or relations who have had a mental health crisis at university. In my case, a colleague of mine had a son at a Russell Group university, who happened to be on a course where there did not seem to be much social life revolving around it. He was going back to his student accommodation, where there was not a lot of social life, and it was a chance telephone call from a fairly distant university friend to this child’s mother that prevented the suicide.
It really is not acceptable these days that we allow these sorts of things to go on, when we know they are happening and we know we can do something about it. Universities can and should come up to speed. I do not think that we should find ourselves in a situation where we are giving universities a bad mark—it is something that they can all do well enough and come up to speed on, given a bit of oversight, so that they know they will be watched on it and that this is something they have to do. Clause 17 gives us an opportunity to make some serious progress in this area.
On local skills, I am very much in the same camp as my noble friend Lord Willetts. This is a matter of our children, not just businesses; it is not just the interests of the businesses that matter but what our children are and could become. It is ridiculous to imagine that all children in Eastbourne, where I live, are destined to become either waiters or brickies. I am sure that there are just as many musicians, programmers and engineers in our cohort as there are in the middle of some well-provided city. We are a town of 100,000 people, with no academic state sixth-form provision. It would be very sad if that same attitude of provision was to be extended to vocational education as well.
There is a big role in this area for a national input on skills, on what is needed and on where the jobs are going to come from over the next 20 years. Not all employer groups have good coverage of industries, good skills and good cohesion; not all know what they need in a changing world. We have to support the local structures that we are going to build with a very strong understanding of what is happening in the world outside, and therefore an understanding of how to support those of our children whose destinies are not to work in the local economy.
In that context, I very much hope, along with the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that we will do something serious about careers information, advice and guidance. There is an opportunity in this Bill to embed that in a structure that can truly nurture it, to build on the current but much divided successful institutions and provide something that will be part of someone’s lifelong education, which they can turn to whenever they need, and to build on a flexible and modular education that they will receive. Perhaps it will move out of schools, where it really struggles, and into the world of FE, making it much easier for people to obtain the information that they need when they think that they want to change a career.
Lord Parekh (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the problem that the Bill addresses has been with us for a very long time. Our education system has long been guided by a single model of human excellence: you start your education in a school and keep progressing until you get to a university degree. If you are smart enough and have the resources and inclination, you might do post- graduate work and end your education with a doctorate. But that is not important; what is important is that you must have a university degree—you must be certified by the university to have acquired a certain body of knowledge and skills. If you are not good enough to go to university, what do you do? You turn to technical education, to the polytechnic, and if you cannot make that, you walk out of the education system altogether.
In short, there has been a deep divide between university and technical education, between higher and further education, and between successfully negotiating the obstacles to higher education and failing to do so. This divide has had some profound consequences for our society and economy. Since university education is the only marker of success and the basis of individuals’ self-respect, everyone wants to go for it, with the result that there is inflation in the pursuit of degrees. Secondly, just as a GP thinks of himself as a failed consultant, the person who fails to make it to university thinks of himself as a failed university graduate. This leads to a tremendous amount of bitterness and sadness, and a lack of self-worth on the part of the individual. The system also means that practical intelligence, being good with one’s hands and mechanical skills are treated as inferior and not valued at all.
Obviously, there is no movement from university to technical education; they are parallel universes and you are confined to one or the other. This has been our problem for the last 150 years. Various attempts have been made to tackle the problem; this Bill is a very sincere and profound attempt to do so. It has some very good ideas—I do not need to spell them out—and the idea that individuals who are interested in higher education would have lifelong access to resources is one that levels up opportunities and is to be greatly welcomed.
Before ending, I want very briefly to point out three or four limitations of the Bill, and I very much hope that the Minister will take account of them. First, it concentrates on technical education and treats it as wholly separate from university education. As in the present system, there is no movement from one to the other; each is encapsulated in its own little stream.
Secondly, and this worries me even more than the first point, technical education is seen and justified almost entirely in instrumental terms. There are skills that a society or region needs, and the question is how you persuade students to go for those skills. What is now suggested, therefore, is a kind of industrial fodder—like parliamentary fodder perhaps, but in the case of industrial fodder students will become not so much respectable individuals trained in the art of thinking for themselves but rather individuals who are masters of certain skills, which they are able to sell.
This has a very important consequence, which I must emphasise, on the regional or local orientation of the education system. Each locality, area or region must indicate its employment needs, but how is this to be done? By employer representative bodies providing a list of skills. That, in my view, is to give employers an enormous amount of power and influence. They will suggest which skills are to be produced, and we know what the limitations of that will be. They are not democratically elected, and so the result will be that you create almost a kind of corporate state, where the state works hand in glove with large employer organisations. I fear the consequences of that.
Finally, in order to execute a system of this kind, the state obviously has a tendency to become heavily bureaucratic. This is one noteworthy feature of the Bill that many of your Lordships has pointed out. It gives the Secretary of State the power to indicate which employer representative bodies to recognise and which to withdraw recognition from, and to ask whether the sector is functioning properly and which provider institutions are not satisfactorily run. Again, this gives the state an enormous amount of power in the field of education, the like of which we have not seen in this country before—not even under Mrs Thatcher. So, while the objectives are valuable, I very much hope that the means to realise them will be just as civilised and humane.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I, too, strongly welcome this important Bill. Skills are fundamental to our future well-being both as a nation and as individuals. In order to succeed in an increasingly complex, competitive, technologically driven, net zero-targeting world, we need the right skills in the right places for the right people at the right time. The Bill includes many proposals to enable that. Most of what I wanted to say has been more eloquently expressed by other noble Lords, so I will confine myself to questions in three areas that I believe may need some further thought, relating to small businesses, independent training providers and careers education.
The Bill rightly focuses on ensuring that skills are relevant to local needs, mainly through local skills improvement plans, created and managed by local partnerships and led by employer representative bodies. The Government play a central role through designating the employer representative body for each local area and then through approving the actual plans. This sounds to me more like a top-down, centrally driven approach than a truly local one.
So how will LSIPs engage smaller businesses, particularly in areas with few major employers, where most employers are small? How will the Government ensure that LSIPs are not dominated by the views of larger, better-resourced employers in determining local skills needs and allocating available funding? How will LSIPs build on and work with existing local partnerships, such as LEPs, careers hubs, skills advisory panels and local digital skills partnerships?
On independent training providers, I have a rather different perspective from my noble friend Lady Wolf, who I am rather relieved to see is no longer in her place. ITPs provide a substantial proportion of skills training, including in the great majority of apprenticeships and traineeships. They are an essential and valuable part of the system. Many are small, but they bring much-needed responsiveness, innovation and competition to the skills training marketplace. Yet the Bill seems focused on constraining them through requirements to meet potentially onerous conditions for inclusion in the list of relevant providers.
Before joining noble Lords, I ran a small independent business providing employability training for young Londoners. Our work was commissioned by bodies such as the former London Development Agency, Barnardo’s, Nacro, schools, colleges and local authorities. These provided stringent supervision and oversight. But, as a small business focused on service delivery, we would have struggled to meet the sorts of conditions suggested in the Bill—for example, for insurance cover against possible cessation of training. Such a sledge- hammer approach risks penalising all ITPs for the failings of a few.
So how will independent training providers be more positively engaged in the development and delivery of local skills improvement plans? Will the Minister commit to ensuring full consultation before details of the register of training providers and of the conditions ITPs have to meet are finalised?
Many noble Lords have emphasised the importance of impartial, independent, expert and personal information, advice and guidance, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just now. Careers education and guidance have improved significantly in recent years, helped by the careers strategy launched in 2017, which ended last year. But there is still some way to go to ensure that everyone has access to high-quality careers advice, that its provision covers all ages and circumstances and that it is provided by well-trained, highly qualified professionals with an understanding of the skills scene, both locally and nationally, including pathways for acquiring skills in areas such as creativity—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam—and entrepreneurship, which we have heard rather less about. Yet the Bill makes no reference at all to careers information and guidance.
Will the Government consider including a right to professional careers guidance as part of the lifetime skills guarantee? Will the provision of good careers education be made a formal requirement for colleges to achieve high Ofsted ratings? Finally, will the Minister commit to producing an updated careers strategy to support the aims of the Bill, including the extension of career hubs to cover the entire country?
I support many other suggestions made by noble Lords, including the desire to see the Baker clause given statutory force and a more flexible apprenticeship levy. I fervently hope that the Bill, when it leaves this House, will be even better crafted to create the skills system we so badly need. I like the description of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, as a “down- payment”. Will the Government complement it with a comprehensive, overarching, cross-departmental, long-term education and skills strategy, so that the Bill will prove to be much more than just another of the regular reorganisations of our education and training furniture that have so signally failed to deliver in the past?
As my new noble friend Lady Black of Strome suggested in her splendid maiden speech, we need to create an education ecosystem that brings together the talents and energy of all participants in delivering the skills we need, including SMEs, ITPs and careers professionals.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak today to add my support for this Bill and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her maiden speech. The United Kingdom stands at a reset moment. It has delivered on the vote for Brexit, is forging a new trading relationship with our European allies and is charting a course towards global Britain. While the UK was among the hardest hit by Covid-19, it is now finding a way out of the global pandemic, emerging as a world leader in the design, development and distribution of effective vaccines. But if we are to make the most of this reset moment, we will need to unlock the talent, prosperity and potential of our regions, communities and people. In order to do this, there needs to be a real focus on developing the skills required not only for a 21st-century skills revolution but to create the economic powerhouse that will drive the United Kingdom forward. We will need every element of British talent.
In many ways, the UK is well positioned to do just this. We are one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with an open and vibrant economy. Our national institutions are robust and our people are among the most educated in the world. But there are also clear challenges. While levels of prosperity in the UK remain much higher than other nations and increased further during the first half of the 2010s, in more recent years this prosperity has been stagnating. One of the key drivers of this stagnation has been declining enterprise conditions, including skills shortages and barriers to doing business. England, for example, has three times more low-skilled people among those aged 16 to 19 than the best-performing countries such as Finland, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands. In many ways, this was less visible while we had unrestricted immigration. But now that we can feel the impact of more controlled migration, we can see the need to really focus on upskilling our own people. This is a good thing, and one that we should hugely welcome.
So why is this Bill so welcome, and why has our existing approach to skills development simply been insufficient? For the past 20 years, the UK poverty rate has shimmied at around 20% of the population. In the Labour years, just about every income transfer that could be thrown at this challenge was thrown, and the level still shimmied at or around 20%. In the coalition days, just about every employment intervention was thrown at this challenge, and the level still shimmied at or around 20%. If we have learnt anything in the past 20 years, it is that we cannot solve poverty through income transfer alone, or through supporting people into low-paid work alone.
The poverty data shows that if you are on the national living wage, it takes all adults in a household working full-time to lift a family out of poverty. Even then, 10% of such households are still in poverty. These families cannot work any more hours. They need to increase the value of each hour they work. To do this requires increased skills.
The way to ensure that families who are doing everything right are out of poverty is to invest in their skill level and enable them to be able to earn more for each hour they work. This Bill is therefore hugely important as part of an anti-poverty strategy, but to actually level up requires us to develop those with the lowest levels of skills at a faster rate even than those who are already skilled. This will require opportunity, so there is one area where I would specifically like to probe a little on this matter.
The current welfare system is not really designed as a support mechanism for those on low incomes to upskill. It is designed as an anti-poverty tool and to support people as they transition into work and up their hours. So I ask my noble friend the Minister: what changes are the Government considering to universal credit conditionality to support their excellent approach to skills development?
But this Bill is important not only as an anti-poverty tool; it is also hugely important for employers. Many businesses report a deterioration of local conditions for enterprise, including skills shortages and barriers to doing business. Assessments of adult skills generally point to skills mismatches and many employers report that a lack of skilled workers is a major and increasing bottleneck for their operations, affecting their capacity to innovate. On average, 26% of vacancies are generated by skills shortages within businesses. This is as high as 36% in, say, the south-east. Across a range of sectors, there is a growing employer demand for the skills that higher technical education provides.
The White Paper highlights the need for technicians, engineers and health and social care professionals to meet the many vital challenges we face as a society. Investing in these skills at both a local and a national level is critical to improving our productivity and international competitiveness. Our skills system has been very efficient at producing graduates but has been less able to help people get the quality technical skills that employers want. A stat that we have heard quoted today is that 4% of young people achieve a qualification at higher technical level by the age of 25, compared with the 33% who get a degree or above. Just imagine if we could have a society where 33% achieve higher technical level qualifications as well as 33% getting a degree.
I am delighted to be supporting a Bill that will enable people to invest in their ability to earn more for each hour they work, that will enable employers to develop their businesses using the incredible talents of the British people and that will enable us to compete on the world stage at this critical moment of transition for us as a nation.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree very much with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has just said. But I shall be listening to the Minister respond—I hope—to the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Puttnam, and to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Layard, made about the cuts.
Of course, I must welcome what was—no doubt about it—an awesome maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome. I fully admit that I had read about her in the past and was in awe of what she was doing and what she had achieved. Her speech was absolutely magnificent.
First, I declare my interests—no, let us do the Lords’ interests. At present, there are about a dozen ex or current university vice-chancellors in the Lords and, last time I checked, over 40 university chancellors. I am unaware of any leader or ex-leader of further education being in the Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, made the point about the cuts to FE. If that had happened in higher education, there were 40 chancellors waiting in the Lords to pounce on Ministers.
In 12 years in government, in several departments, I never met a civil servant who had further education experience and, as far as I am aware, no one in the Cabinet has been through further education. It is a bold claim, of course, but I doubt that many Members of the House have had actual FE experience as a student—and as for the Commons, such experience today would be a rarity. This makes the Bill even more important. It is concerned with important aspects of life that policymakers and lawmakers have no hands-on experience of. Those are not quite the criteria to get it right.
I left secondary technical school in 1957. There were two such 13-plus schools in Birmingham, one specialising in engineering at Handsworth and the other in Bournville specialising in construction. It is amazing: these are of course two of the sectors where there are skills gaps existing now that this Bill is supposed to address, but there were only ever two technical schools in Birmingham. I did three years day release in further education while I was doing my indentured apprenticeship for a mechanical engineering Ordinary National Certificate, and two nights a week to get my endorsements in electrical and English—although I suspect I never really made it in the latter.
In the FE college at the time, there was abundant adult education, as there was in some secondary schools. For many years in the period 1972 to 1997, I served on the board of an FE college, so I was aware at first hand of the changes from pure technical skill to a more comprehensive range of courses, and the change from local authority control. I think our first action on the board, post local authority, was to change the name of the college so that people knew where it was. This was far more important than it sounds, by the way, from a marketing point of view.
In some ways, I missed the phase where colleges became more competitive and aggressive, and indeed remote from their communities—although I was shocked, when taking over from my friend the late Lord Corbett of Castle Vale as chair of the local community organisation, by the negative approach of a city centre further education college to a campus at Castle Vale. That was caused purely by remoteness.
I freely admit I am now more out of date, but I want the Government to succeed in this endeavour for the good of the country—as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, this is not a political Bill. But I fear a further narrowing of the existing provision and curriculum. It appears the educator voice is missing, which cannot be a surprise given my introductory remarks, and there is clearly no accountability to communities. I am not, however, fearful of employer involvement in courses. This was very strongly the case in the 1950s and 1970s, but employers are not the same. Today they are more “here today, gone tomorrow” than in the days before our deindustrialisation. Some strategic stability is required and therefore a partnership with educators is vital—and I have to say that I think this should include professional organisations such as the chartered institutions. I do not think anybody has referred to those today. They were crucial in FE, in awarding certificates, along with the old Ministry of Education.
The range of courses has got utterly out of control due to the market. But we need to be careful about classifying qualifications that have so-called “low economic value” and therefore restricting choice and flexibility. Low economic value to one can be the salvation for another new enterprise or product. We have an unequal nation where levelling up is not I hope intended to make us all the same, but we need to ensure that the Bill works for more diverse, non-traditional cohorts of students.
Further education, unlike higher education—I have a mixed experience of a sandwich course at a college of advanced technology and then, after a 10-year gap, post-graduate work—can be more transformative. It can help build the alert democracy and support the aspirations of all, going well beyond skills preparation for jobs. For some, it may be the only route to any qualifications they ever obtain, but there needs to be LA involvement, maybe through the mayors. We ignore our local capacity at our peril. Indeed, I once read that a nation’s greatest asset was the capacity and willingness of its people to work. This Bill must improve our human asset base.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I feel I should declare my FE experience, which was shorthand at Wagga Wagga College in Australia and a very brief, and perhaps best glossed over, experience of farm mechanics a long time ago.
I will start with some older history, however: human history, or rather prehistory. Some 400,000 years ago, in the East African Rift Valley, the human species faced a huge threat: a massive ecological change. The very foundations of their world had shifted. Archaeological evidence shows that those ancient humans—individuals just like you and me—developed new skills and technology, and used their creativity to develop new forms of communication, all remarkably quickly. That is an account drawn from a major study in the journal Science Advances, published last year. I hope your Lordships’ House will see the parallels with what we face today.
We face a climate emergency, the state of our nature is dire and our current growth-driven economic model has left us in a crisis of poverty and inequality. Massive change is needed—yet, for all the Bill’s talk of the future and the need for transition, neither it nor the policy summary make any mention of climate or nature. There is only a brief mention of them in the impact assessment. Your Lordships’ House has found itself in this situation with multiple recent Bills, and other Bills have left here only after the addition of at least some reference to climate and nature. I hope that we can do that again. As the country that is the chair of COP, with a Government who like to attach the words “world leading” to “green”, it is quite astonishing that we should find ourselves in this position again.
I point noble Lords to the excellent Peers for the Planet briefing on these issues, which goes into far greater depth than I have time to do today. However, I will tick off some points. First, the global economy has to be green, and, even in the Government’s own terms, there is a significant competitive advantage in enabling UK workers to upskill in green areas. Secondly, the Government have, or are promising, a whole range of sector-specific strategies, but we see no sign of how these will be joined up with the local skills improvement plans. Thirdly, we get from the Government a very narrow idea of what future skills are needed—there seem to be a lot of hard hats involved and, of course, the ubiquitous digital skills. Of course we need a huge amount of improvement in those areas, but equally urgent are skills in sustainable land management, nature-based solutions and ecosystem management—hard-toed boots perhaps, but caked in healthy life-rich soil rather than hard concrete. Fourthly, we see no way in which the Bill feeds into the need for a just transition for individuals and communities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, powerfully illuminated.
Young people are demanding that their education include far more information about climate and sustainability. They understand that it is central to every part of their future life—so why are the Government not able to consider this in every part of education in our society? The sustainable development goals to which the Government signed up and the systems thinking that underlies them should be in every part and level of education.
That brings me to some points about what is in the Bill. I begin with the expert remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport. I would associate myself with everything that she said but focus particularly on one point: she said that the local skills improvement plans need to be coproduced by communities, politicians, educators, students and businesses. From the Government, we are hearing very much a sole focus on business, and we know that the loud business voices are likely to be the big ones, which are not the major part of our economy. As the excellent University and College Union briefing on this Bill notes, the educator voice is missing from the Government’s plans. I want to focus on and extend the noble Baroness’s point about students, for if students are not at the heart of designing courses, they are unlikely to meet their needs, not just for a narrow set of technical competencies but for life in a fast-transforming world.
We now come to the big issue: what is education for? The majority of today’s speakers have focused on employment, but we all need lifelong learning and continuing education in varying forms and fitting various places in the Government’s classifications, from level 2 upwards. We need to function in society as community members, voters, parents and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, noted, users of the financial sector. In a society with an epidemic of mental ill-health, we should not underplay the value of learning new skills, finding new places in society for public health, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, noted.
The Minister said in her introduction that 34% of working-age graduates are not in high-skilled employment. I really hope she will acknowledge that that does not mean they are not using the skills they obtained from that education. Employment is not the only place those skills are needed. That is where I find myself, considerably to my surprise, in agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson. Setting further and higher education against each other, even in opposition to each other, and suggesting that funding should not be available to those with higher qualifications for so-called lower-level courses further hardens what is already an extraordinarily hierarchical system.
I fear that the Minister, in response, may say I am drawing the brush too widely, that these are matters for other Bills and other days. I go back to the first words of the Bill:
“A Bill to make provision about local skills improvement plans; to make provision relating to further education”.
Education is not and cannot be just about jobs or serving the economy.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a board member of the Capital City College Group and chair of the advisory board of Learning Development Training, a private further and higher education provider. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who raised some important issues. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black, and look forward to hearing more about her life.
FE and skills were described by the Minister, and many others, as a Cinderella service in education. However, Cinderella did actually get to the ball: FE rarely has. This is not new; we have a record of neglect. In his history of the loss of British influence, Corelli Barnett set out a two-centuries’ long failure to foster a coherent skills base, which equipped us so poorly as an industrial power before each world war and then again afterwards. Yet we routinely say that the Government must do better, and despite efforts in FE and some exceptional colleges—I pick just one, Bridgwater & Taunton College—the Government themselves routinely do no better. This legislation is a major opportunity for more than 2.2 million students per year currently to develop career opportunities. I welcome that, but the devil is in the detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, set out an extensive set of details we will need to amend, especially given the extent of cuts in recent years. The Bill faces a world of profound social and cultural change. Work is restructuring and sometimes vanishing at an unprecedented rate. AI will accelerate the change. Personal and group identities and aspirations are changing, and I believe there is a concomitant acceleration of social fragmentation. Access to information and knowledge is unparalleled, and with changing technologies has come a growth in personal demand for choice—an insistence on personal choice which will not be amenable to strict direction.
The world of skills providers is no longer the traditional rationalist, calculative, instrumental and depersonalised one. It still demands expertise, not least because of its complexity, but it is now more characterised by being networked, information-based, personal, risky and often post industrial. There is a demand for new competences, the capability to withstand more competition, to deal with faster technical and environmental change and to know that there are no jobs for life. They flow from the structural changes in industry and occupations, and all these changes in the nature of workplaces, work/life balance, and the dreadful fact that some households have people now in the third generation of unemployment —truly left behind—pose a great challenge. This must surely focus us on enabling personal aspiration wherever the aspiration can be met in the UK.
The Bill has to achieve vital goals. First, it must overcome chronic poor productivity against the background I have tried to describe. It must ensure high skill levels are achieved and geographically distributed, but allow for enhanced personal mobility. That means far more lifelong learning and far better literacy and numeracy. Raising skills would drive the UK to being a high-supply, high-demand economy and away from low productivity but, if it is to succeed, the financial support of students must be far more explicit than it is in the Bill, especially up to level 3 and as people change career course.
Secondly, the Bill has to respond to the need for work readiness. The better the qualifications of students, the better employers say their applicants are prepared. It is right to focus on employability, but experience shows that employers are not always expert at reading the runes about the future rather than identifying their immediate needs. If the Bill is to succeed, there will need to be serious consultations about developments in business demand. With the best will in the world, that cannot rely exclusively on employers. There is a significant role for government industrial strategy, for skills advisory councils and certainly for individual students.
Next, a third of adults engage in no formal learning whatever after leaving school, yet they live in a world which is changing rapidly and constantly, so the Bill must address the motivational barriers from early learning onwards. This is not just a matter for colleges, sixth-form colleges or indeed the many entities in this space. They need to work collaboratively; it is a whole-society issue. It is fundamentally an issue of economic and social resilience for the United Kingdom, and we must learn the lessons of the last couple of years. Perhaps our most valuable asset is our ability to co-operate.
Finally, a simple switch between university and skills funding, as several noble Lords have said, is surely misconceived. To prosper in a world of rapid technological change and innovation, and with the growing importance of creativity, including the arts, in our economy, it is essential to develop people who can work through the challenges of fundamental rethinking. A significant proportion will have to be able to deal in conceptual analysis, and this has been a central example of progress in history. Professor Robert Reich’s huge influence on boosting the competitiveness of the United States economy was built on this thought. In short, higher education provides the necessary condition for education-led prosperity, as it is also a wide basis for vocational qualification. Yet we must also meet the needs of the sufficient conditions, and that is where the skills agenda and this Bill can be transformative. This is the foundation of meaningful parity of esteem. Let us not embark on a turf war between HE and FE funding—that can never help. We, and the Bill, will be tested on the promotion of an all-through co-operation, not on robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Royal Veterinary College and former chancellor of Cranfield University and my various environmental interests. It is really great to be number 50 on a speakers’ list; everything that could be said has been said, but unfortunately I have not yet said it, so I will try to be brief.
I welcome the Bill in principle for its provisions on technical skills education and lifelong learning opportunities for all, but it misses a real opportunity that has already been raised by a number of Peers. The twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity decline are the biggest existential threats globally; the Bill needs to respond to that and to take an ambitious approach to developing the wide range of skills to meet our global climate and nature goals and to exploit new UK and global markets and jobs that these goals are already creating.
We need to move to a prosperous zero-carbon economy and society with the help of the Bill. It should be a catalyst for building the wider public understanding and behavioural change fundamental to meeting net zero and reversing biodiversity loss, such as in the case of those challenges driven by our rising consumption across the globe. This is not just my view—businesses, educators and learners have all expressed their views and provided strong evidence that climate and sustainability considerations need to be embedded into our post-16 framework.
Local skills improvement plans have been raised by many noble Lords; they must not just be driven by local employers but take account of government priorities and strategies, such as the industrial decarbonisation strategy, the energy White Paper, the nature strategy and the heating and building strategies. This Government appear to have quite a lot of strategies. With skills for nature-based solutions, ecosystem management, drainage and even tree planting, we will need to think of the future. A child starting school this summer will leave in 2035 and will move into labour markets that will be largely zero carbon. The Bill also needs to offer support to workers transitioning out of high-carbon sectors or intensive agriculture who already possess level 3 qualifications but will not be able to access the lifelong loan entitlement. That needs to be changed.
Along with many other noble Lords, I want to voice my comments about the mood music around higher and further education at the moment, which might well impact on this Bill and on post-16 education. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson, that there should not be a false conflict between further and higher education; they should work in collaboration and not compete for resources. Ensuring parity of esteem is important, but it should be by investing in further education, not by taking funds away from higher education and levelling down.
At times, the Government are almost hostile to higher education, with the result that courses are being judged on student outcomes defined partly by getting degree-level jobs, whatever they are, and earning appropriate incomes. It seems to be obligatory at this point to declare your education, so here I go: I have an MA in Classics from Edinburgh University, a highly relevant degree, but not exactly job orientated in some people’s views. For reasons best known to myself and a complete mystery to my mother, I took a job as a secretary for two years post graduation, which would have screwed up Edinburgh’s outcome measures, had they existed 50 years ago.
I believe that we need careful scrutiny of Clause 17 on quality assessment for higher education. Metrics of quality need to take account of contextual factors, if they are not to jeopardise widening access for the less advantaged. They must take account of how students define their success and the flexibility that they will need in the fast-changing job market.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, this has been an extraordinarily wide-ranging debate. I thank the Minister for her co-operation and for having meetings with us beforehand. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on a brilliant maiden speech. I noticed all the Lancaster connections, with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, being Lancastrians; my daughter and her husband met at Lancaster 30 years ago, so it has fond memories for me too. I hope we shall hear much more from her in the future, whether it is on the living or the dead.
Given all the very many briefings we have received from far and wide, I start by asking the Minister what discussions the Bill team had with stakeholders before drafting the Bill. Did they take advice from the Association of Colleges, the Open University, City & Guilds—I declare my interest as a vice-president, having worked there for 20 years—or from the Federation of Awarding Bodies, which held a discussion this morning that threw up some interesting questions that I had not thought of, or from independent training providers? We heard from the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Aberdare, about the importance of independent training providers, and other awarding organisations. If so, did the Government take their advice or, given all the amendments that we seem to be throwing up, did they proceed without reference to those whose professional lives have been devoted to skills, colleges and adult education?
I am also involved in the Professional Qualifications Bill, where the Minister keeps telling us he will “assuage” us, as he attempts to convince the Committee that all is well with that Bill. Will the Minister hope to “assuage” us this afternoon, I wonder?
Of course, we are all delighted to have a skills Bill; as we know, skills and further education are too often overlooked. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I blame it in part on the fact that almost all officials and politicians have gone the university route. They have had little or no contact with work-based, vocational qualifications, nor indeed with further education, as they have followed the gilded path of academia, often regarding trade, if they regard it at all, as another less privileged world. How wonderful that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, is a shining example of how very mistaken that view is.
The growth in apprenticeships is beginning to erode the divide and curiously, one outcome of Covid may be that university experience with no face-to-face teaching, socialising or drunken raves may be looking less inviting to the young school leavers. So we approach this Bill with high hopes and expectations but, having read the myriad briefs, those hopes and expectations are not as high as they might be.
If I am one of the winders, I like to namecheck, but I am afraid I will have to apologise this time. I have listened to everyone, including when I was doing my duty on the Woolsack—I am quite capable of multitasking —but time will not permit me to acknowledge all the insightful contributions we have heard today.
I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, is not in his place. I welcomed his piece in yesterday’s Times, with his well-reasoned arguments for abandoning the ELQ rules whereby you cannot get funding for studying for an equivalent or lower-level qualification than one you already possess, even in a completely different subject area and when it could open doors to other employments. I hope the Government will look at this again, because it really is very detrimental.
We welcome the lifelong learning entitlement, although we Liberal Democrats regret that it is in the form of a loan. We heard the reasons why from both the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld. Many adults will be reluctant to incur debt when, mid-life, they have responsibilities to families, so pursuing their own improvement could seem selfish. We wish to see this as a grant, a skills wallet, which we are sure would pay for itself as the recipient’s earning power and self-esteem increase.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, we are also anxious not to lose sight of the value of levels 1, 2 and 3 qualifications. Level 1 can often be the stepping stone for those who have never passed any exams to gain new confidence and the desire to continue to learn. We saw this many times with NVQs at level 1, derided by the snobbish press as “not very qualified”. Actually, they applied that to all the NVQs, which just shows how ignorant and prejudiced some journalists can be. At City & Guilds we saw non-learners grow in stature when awarded a national qualification—a national certificate—and given a real incentive to continue. The Minister says that they do not feature in this legislation because they are catered for elsewhere. Perhaps she could clarify that.
All the questions I would have asked have, of course, by now already been asked—just not by me, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said. I will concentrate on a handful of areas in which we would really like to hear the Minister’s reply and hope to be assuaged. The first is the relationship between Ofqual and IfATE, which has already been raised. The Minister said this would be collaborative. Will it be collaborative? Will it duplicate? Will it make things much more complex? The fear is that these two organisations will make the situation more complex.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, talked passionately about enforcing the Baker clause. When the technical education Bill was going through, this was the only amendment the Government accepted. Of course, it was a Conservative amendment. All our brilliant Liberal Democrat amendments got thrown out. Then an election was called so we were not even able to have ping-pong. The Baker clause is a very valuable thing whereby people have to go into schools, at an early enough stage that the youngsters still have decisions to make, to tell them about UTCs, colleges and all the other possibilities.
This leads us on to the whole business of careers information and guidance, which a great number of noble Lords brought up, including the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Stunell in connection with the construction industry particularly. It is vital that young people are shown the possibilities at a very early stage. There is evidence that youngsters at the age of six or seven have already gender-stereotyped particular jobs. This is not good for them, the economy or anybody.
Schools need to collaborate with colleges. Schools have all sorts of incentives for wanting to hang on to their pupils and to make them do GCSEs and A-levels. My noble friend Lord Storey asked: would it not be wonderful if schools celebrated their apprenticeships? I remember, in the balmy days of coalition government when I was in the DfE, saying to Michael Gove: “For goodness’ sake, get the schools to celebrate their apprenticeship leavers. If they’re putting up a placard outside the school saying, ‘These kids have all gone on to university’, put up another one saying, ‘These ones have gone on to apprenticeships’.” He said, “What a very good idea, Sue”, and did absolutely nothing about it—but there we are.
If we are to work with the colleges, one of the inequities that needs to be redressed is the difference in pay between college teachers and schoolteachers. It really is not right, so will the Minister please take that away and try to do something about it?
One of my major concerns when the technical education Bill was going through was that T-levels were technical—just “technical”. As we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord Johnson and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, a whole range of craft and creative industry qualifications really deserve their place. Not only are they good for careers and economy but, by goodness, they increase our quality of life. Yet this emphasis all the time on technical qualifications rather implies that craft does not matter; it does, and we need to do something about it.
I had another bit of paper somewhere; I have just a couple more things. We fully endorse funding for modular and short courses. That is absolutely essential, but why not until 2025? As we have already heard, that really needs to come forward. We need it as soon as possible.
We also notice with concern the sad drop-off in part-time learners from both the Open University and Birkbeck, but I also read that there has been a 26% fall in undergraduate higher education in the last decade. Where are all our young people going? What are they doing? This really is not good enough. We need a full-time push to try to get skills and education back on the agenda. If this Bill can be the catalyst for that, that will be terrific.
I have a last bit of paper somewhere, except that I have lost it. No, here we are. We have too much paper in this place. I have to say that, when you sit for six hours in the Chamber with a mask on, some of your rationale does disappear.
We have had an absolutely wonderful variety of speeches. All of us in the Chamber are committed to skills and education, and to the Bill going through and improving skills and education opportunities for everybody, but we have also heard major concerns that it really does need amendment. I feel sure that we shall all be prepared to work cross-party to try to ensure that we improve the future for young people and adults, and that the Bill ends up as a major contribution to the economy and the well-being of all of us. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to Committee.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and in many ways stimulating debate. Perhaps that was inevitable given that participants included four former Secretaries of State for Education. For more than an hour, we had the company of the current holder of that post, which does him some credit. Four former Education Ministers also spoke.
As my noble friend Lord Rooker pointed out, in his typically forthright style, many noble Lords referenced positions held in higher education institutions. To the best of my recollection, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, was the only Member to declare a position as a board member of an FE college, far less a school. That is another aspect of the divide that we need to bridge if our calls for parity of esteem are to have the ring of authenticity.
I am pleased to wish the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, a warm welcome to your Lordships’ House. I add my congratulations on her remarkable maiden speech. I do not know the noble Baroness, but I certainly know of her. She was a professor at the University of Dundee, my home city, so I was aware that she had created the Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification there. It has now gained an international reputation.
This Bill has been a long time coming, because it is the first piece of government education legislation laid before Parliament for almost five years. That is so far in the past that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, was then the Education Secretary. We are now on her third successor.
The data shows that 16 to 19 education in England has suffered a huge funding squeeze, as my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Layard stated. Between 2010-11 and 2018-19, real-terms funding per student in sixth forms and colleges fell by 16%. Technical students received 23% less funding than academic students. Recent additional funding of £400 million announced by the Government focused on technical education will, I am afraid, reverse only a quarter of these cuts.
The Bill does not deal with fundamental resourcing issues, but these have to underpin any serious attempt to transform post-16 education and training, which the policy summary notes claim is the main aim of this legislation. The impact assessment identifies the huge decline in adult education, apparently without appreciating the irony, given that the adult education budget has been slashed by half in real terms, which has led to a sharp decline in adult learners and particularly in workplace learning. The Government’s recent pettiness in axing the Union Learning Fund showed that Ministers are more interested in playing politics than supporting workplace learners. None of the Bill’s objectives will be achieved if these issues remain unaddressed.
The Bill covers only FE providers and sixth-form colleges. It makes no reference to schools, yet they play a vital role in equipping young people with the skills they need to thrive in life. The White Paper stressed the importance of good careers education in schools, a point made in today’s debate by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, yet the Bill does not mention that either. A significant number of schools deliver technical qualifications —some have been accepted to pilot T-levels —and it is difficult to understand how a meaningful local skills strategy can exclude post-16 provision in schools.
One of the main planks of the Bill is the introduction of a lifetime skills guarantee, albeit, as many noble Lords have said, with a rather narrow focus within the technical disciplines that it will support. Almost 1 million priority jobs will be excluded from the lifetime skills guarantee in sectors facing a skills shortage. What about Wednesbury Woman who wants to retrain as a computer programmer, or Mansfield Man who wants to go into hospitality? What is in the Bill for them? Inexplicably, hospitality—a sector desperate for new staff and suffering terribly from the effects of lockdown—is excluded.
One significant barrier for adult learners is the cost of study, an issue not included in the Bill despite being highlighted in its impact assessment. Perhaps the Minister can explain that conundrum. While provisions are made for a lifetime loan entitlement, it is unfortunate that its details are yet to be revealed. The effect of this is that they cannot be scrutinised by noble Lords today and must be delayed until Committee.
Lifelong learning must mean just that, as many noble Lords have said. People should have access to training and reskilling throughout their lives, but there remain concerns that the LLE may see participants being saddled with substantial debts, especially if the Government fail to deliver on the recommendation of the Augar review that maintenance grants should be reinstated for people from low-income households, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. We are told this is an issue on which the Government will consult. I have to ask: why? Wales has shown that these grants attract many into training, so why yet more delay?
The question of delay also concerns the LSG, which will not be introduced until 2024, and the LLE a year later. The Minister referred to complexities in this regard involving the modular system, but the many people facing unemployment in the coming weeks and months needs access to courses now to help them to retrain and upskill. What does the Minister say people should do in the interim while this is being developed?
The Government say that their main focus is on helping the country recover from the pandemic’s damage to the economy and spreading opportunity more evenly across the regions—worthy aims. Local skills improvement plans are identified as the means of achieving that, but the employer representative bodies in the legislation seem designed to be creatures of direct ministerial control; several noble Lords have registered their concern about that. While it is right that our skills system should be better at identifying and meeting the skills needs of employers, designating them the exclusive drivers of technical education, as my noble friend Lady Morris said, gives them too much power. Employers certainly have a contribution to make, but to suggest that no other bodies have anything to offer is surely wrongheaded, not least because employers do not have a great track record in training their employees for future patterns of work and developing skills demands. After all, the Government introduced the apprenticeship levy specifically because encouragement had failed.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, referenced the West Midlands metro mayor. I wonder what Mr Street’s reaction is to being completely sidelined, along with other metro mayors, combined authorities, local enterprise partnerships and universities. We will bring forward amendments that empower these bodies to co-produce local plans in recognition of their own vital roles.
The Minister has important questions to answer here. Top of the list is to explain the membership, functions and central government control of employer representative bodies. How will they undertake their planning, particularly when starting from scratch? How will ERBs be held to account, and how will the extent to which providers are meeting local needs be measured and assessed? What will happen if a metro mayor disagrees with the ERB? What role is envisaged for local enterprise partnerships, which are not mentioned in the Bill at all? Yesterday’s issue of the Local Government Chronicle carried an article claiming LEPs were to be evolved rather than abolished. Can the Minister confirm that, and whether such evolution will be the subject of consultation?
My noble friend Lady Wilcox made the important point that supported internships, which can play a major role in supporting learners with learning difficulties to prepare for and enter the world of work, must be added to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, also spoke passionately of the need for the inclusion of supported internships, which should be an integral part of local skills plans. This is sure to be addressed in Committee.
The Bill’s centralising theme also extends to two aspects of further education. It hands the Secretary of State powers of intervention if he does not like what a particular college is teaching, even if the quality of that teaching has been shown to be good. The Secretary of State can dismiss the local leadership team if the college is deemed not to be following the LSIP. Independent training providers will also be cowering at the thought of being targeted by Ministers for the same reason—a warning we heard issued by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard.
That seems draconian, but the Bill also gives Ministers the ability to regulate initial teacher training for further education. Such a system did exist; it was introduced by the Education Act 2002 but abolished by the Deregulation Act 2015. I ask the Minister what has led to the need for change just six years later. It seems the intention is to introduce standards for ITT in further education and to accredit providers to deliver them. On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with that, but it sounds like the politicisation of initial teacher training—something that, as my noble friend Lord Knight highlighted, is already happening in ITT for schools, as a result of Ministers’ commitment to a particular educational ideology.
In opening the debate, the Minister referenced the Augar review’s call for parity of esteem, and many noble Lords followed her lead. If one theme has dominated the debate, it is the need to end the division between academic and technical routes, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, rightly said, is a false one. He illustrated that by reminding us that academic courses are offered at FE colleges, while technical subjects can be studied in universities. The divide was characterised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds as a “crazy distinction”. While my noble friend Lord Puttnam stressed that this is not a zero-sum game, my noble friend Lord Liddle called for “collaboration, not polarisation”. I echo these sentiments and very much hope that the Bill will at least begin to bridge that divide.
While we welcome the Bill’s aims, there remain many areas of detail—some not in the Bill, as drafted—that require extensive scrutiny and testing. We look forward to engaging with both Ministers in Committee, with a view to enabling the Bill to achieve a joined-up system of education, including regulation and funding.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today; I appreciate the expert knowledge that they bring and the many passionate speeches. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, I hope I have retained some of my rationality during this interesting debate.
I begin by giving a special thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Black, for her maiden speech. Like my noble friend Lady Morgan, I am the beneficiary of a touch typing course, which has stood me in good stead. I was fascinated to hear of the career of the noble Baroness, Lady Black, in forensic anthropology—but, as one of the more squeamish Members of your Lordships’ House, I do not need to know anything further. I wish her well, and hope that she enjoys her time in this House as much as I do.
I turn now to the points that noble Lords have raised. But given that there have been 50 speakers, as was outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am afraid that the department will be writing some letters after I have concluded.
Before I turn to the specific questions, many of your Lordships followed the lead of my noble friend Lord Willetts, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Baker and Lord Cormack. I am the beneficiary of the wisdom of previous holders of junior and Secretary of State positions in the department, in that my homework has been corrected: there is no artificial distinction between vocational, technical and academic—no sense that one is better than the other. We are trying to achieve a system where they all have parity of esteem, where the institutions that teach these qualifications have parity of esteem and where the quality of all those qualifications is there.
The reforms in the Bill are aimed at bringing the system closer together and the lifelong loan entitlement, for instance, will bring together all the funding support for learners—that is, level 4 to level 6—wherever you might be studying that. One can also look at the system at the moment and see that there is not a conflict or a battle between FE and HE—the Government do not desire that at all. We recognise the collaboration there is. When we look at the recent introduction of institutes of technology, we see that they have been a collaboration; the university technical colleges of my noble friend Lord Baker have also been a collaboration, as have been the recent specialist maths sixth-form colleges, with universities involved in 16 to 19 provision. So the system is not even that twofold—just FE and HE. We will also fund T-levels, A-levels and other high-quality academic and technical qualifications for young people and adults at level 3. This will ensure that, whatever option learners choose, they will have a pathway to success.
A few noble Lords mentioned being disqualified from access to LLE. If you want the funding for level 4 and you are accepted by the institution to study that, it does not matter if you do not have level 3 or level 2. That is how universities have operated for a while: they sometimes have different access routes. Therefore, although obviously we have the funding situation for levels 1 and 2, you will have that entitlement. If you get accepted on a course at level 4, you will be in the lifelong loan entitlement pot. There is no prerequisite that you have to have level 3. However, of course we recognise the value of those qualifications, as many noble Lords have said, and therefore the advanced learner loans will still exist for level 3 courses that are not the 400 courses that we are currently funding if you do not have the full entitlement or if you have the full level 3 entitlement and want to do something different. I hope that clarifies that everyone will have that lifelong loan entitlement between levels 4 and 6.
On the measures in the Bill on local skills improvement plans, I agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor on the importance of localism. The local skills improvement plans are putting employers at the heart of the skills system in a way similar to the apprenticeship situation and the T-levels that we have designed. Many noble Lords talked about that tension: someone has to be in the driving seat here. There cannot be a cast of thousands but there needs to be appropriate consultation. So the Government have decided that these will be employer representative groups. To clarify to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we did not define them as businesses but as employers. That might be the big local hospital, or a university might be an employer for that purpose rather than just being the provider. They are well placed to have that convening role, including of course the SMEs, in their local area. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds highlighted, their involvement is crucial.
My noble friend Lady Morgan asked what the Government envisage ERBs to be. We consider them to be independent bodies designated by the Secretary of State to develop local skills improvement plans. They are capable of developing that plan in an effective and efficient manner and many noble Lords talked about the future—the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Lane-Fox. The plans have to be dynamic and will include not just existing skills but what the future for the local area looks like. I want to reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins, Lady Janke, Lady Henig, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that in Section 4 the relevant providers are not just FE and HE; they include the schools that are delivering post-16, as well as the independent training providers. So the educators are included, and it is supposed to be a dynamic relationship between the employer representative body and the relevant providers that, as I say, we have outlined.
On a point raised many hours ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the mayoral combined authorities will be engaged in developing the local plans. The White Paper talked about the fact that they will be consulted on this and, as I mentioned, we have these trail-blazers that we have recently procured, so we will know the particular areas where we will be starting there. They will help to shape the local plans.
However, one reason to have local skills improvement plans is the gaps we have at the moment. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, referred to this position for parts of Shropshire, in such a dynamic region as the West Midlands. There will be a local skills improvement plan across the country and it is obvious to state, but perhaps I need to say it, that not everyone has a mayoral combined authority. As noble Lords have often said, we do not have a settled, defined geography out there for many things—our police authorities, our local government—so this is where “local” will be defined by the local employers coming forward. Many of the current trailblazers have come with the endorsement of local government or, where relevant, the mayoral combined authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, asked how the local skills improvement plans will interact with national strategies. They will be informed by the national skills priorities, as highlighted by the Skills and Productivity Board; that will remain. The board will undertake expert analysis of the national skills that we need to inform government policy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked what powers the Government have should businesses take a back seat and rest on their laurels. If the ERB does not comply with the set conditions, the Secretary of State may not approve and publish its skills improvement plan and could remove its designation. Obviously, it goes without saying that all the powers of the Secretary of State are subject to criteria for judicial review. These powers must be used in a proportionate manner, et cetera; they are obviously not an absolute power.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, talked about the importance of green jobs and net-zero carbon. We expect the LSIPs, led by the employer-represented bodies with that link to the national strategy, to look at what future green jobs are in the area. An element will be national because of what needs to happen with household boilers, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, so there will be an interconnection there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, raised questions on local needs. It is about the needs of the learners and the employers in a local geographic area served by the college. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, questioned the centralisation here, but what we are saying here is that we are allowing “local” to define itself. We have not said that it has to be the local authority area, the MCA area or the LEP area. There is a dynamic here to areas being able to say, “This is the area that we, as employers, need to look at.” The plan will be an important point of reference.
As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, spoke, I mouthed “Newton Rigg”. I am aware that there have been issues in relation to the provision of land-based education in that part of Cumbria. I regularly see questions about it, so I will happily engage with him if I can offer any further assistance.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and other noble Lords that the purpose of the section of the Bill dealing with technical educational qualifications, which includes a lot of hospitality within that sector, is to simplify the approach to regulations between the institute and Ofqual. The two bodies already work effectively together. They are effectively collaborating; we are embedding, or perhaps futureproofing, it so that they carry on working in the way that they do at the moment. In the legislation, we are extending the technical qualifications that IfATE can regulate but Ofqual will continue to have independent regulatory oversight of technical qualifications in live delivery. The legislation will bring the treatment of technicals more in line with A-levels and GCSEs, where the content is subject to regulatory scrutiny. Obviously, we have been talking to Ofqual during preparation of the Bill.
Extending the institute’s power will raise the quality bar and ensure that the majority of these qualifications, like apprenticeships and T-levels, are aligned to employers’ standards. This will place the employers’ voice at the heart of the system. We are creating a clear progression pathway for learners and there will be an opportunity for Parliament to consider the details of the regime when the regulations are laid.
It has become clear today that a lot is happening around this legislation; this is the statutory underpinning to the skills White Paper, but we also have the consultation that has just finished on level 3, the call for evidence on level 2 and the consultation on the details of the lifelong loan entitlement. Turning to that, I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that it is our intention, as outlined in the Explanatory Notes, to bring forward amendments to the lifelong loan entitlement ahead of Committee. I can also confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that the LLE will be available to be used from levels 4 to 6. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, also mentioned the funding of level 3. As I have outlined, that is covered by the national skills fund and there are now the boot camps—flexible courses for up to 16 weeks. As I have said, that is in addition to the availability of the ALL and bursary support fund for level 3 qualifications.
Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Watson, and my noble friend Lady Wyld, raised questions on the detail of the LLE ahead of the upcoming consultation. We will do that as soon as possible during the passage of the Bill. I am not able to give a clearly defined timeline on this, but the consultation will cover questions on, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned, maintenance credit transfers; the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and many other noble Lords mentioned the ELQ rules, which will also be within the consultation. I am happy to ask officials to set up briefing sessions with noble Lords once the consultation has been launched.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Curry, my noble friend Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, asked about the introduction date of the LLE. As well as the consultation, we have got a lot of work to do with the Student Loans Company to co-design a system capable of delivering the required operational changes, and we will introduce secondary legislation to enable the LLE to function. This, as I have outlined, is the whole pot for level 4 to level 5, so there will of course be changes. Once you release the maximum loan amount for the academic year, that has a knock-on implication for that which it already funds—mainly the level 6 undergraduate degree. We have got to get this right operationally and, unfortunately, it is going to take more time than we would ideally like.
The question of part-time study was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lane-Fox and Lady Greengross. I have to say, having been to a graduation at Birkbeck university, I was overcome by emotion seeing people getting their degrees, many with their families and children there. The decline in part-time study and adult education is a great shame, and I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts for his humility in accepting that it is something that we are seeking to put right. One of the main purposes of this is to ensure that the loan entitlement enables that modular, part-time learning to begin again. But I accept the questions raised about how adults access loans, as opposed to young people; I am sure there are behavioural scientists looking at how we get people to take these loans up.
In response to my noble friend Lord Willetts and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, the LLE will be available regardless of where you study—it will be “institution blind”, as I think another noble Lord said. It will be based on the level of qualification you are studying, not which institution you have selected to study in.
On the parts of the Bill that relate to initial teacher training, as I have outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the powers we are taking are to deal with the small part of the market that is not producing the quality that it should for initial teacher training for FE. Once we have worked in collaboration with the sector, if we still need that power, we will use it, but we want to make sure that the quality is there.
I believe the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, relate to the current review of the ITT market for school-based training, and so I will ask officials to write to him, as that is outside the scope of this Bill.
On that note, there were other matters, as this Bill sits quite narrowly within a framework of a lot of other interconnected issues. I will deal with a few of those in the time I have left.
I am very grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for highlighting the importance of special educational needs and of using the assistive technology to support FE learners with SEND. This is an important part of the Bill. Obviously, the figures for those with SEND show that a higher proportion of them go into technical or vocational qualifications or into FE institutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about alternative student finance. We are considering a student finance project that is compliant with Islamic finance principles in parallel with the post-18 review of education and funding. That review is due to conclude alongside the next multi-year spending review, so we will provide an update then. I know that that is an issue that has been talked about for a number of years.
Of course, many noble Lords raised questions about apprenticeship funding. Again, apprenticeship levy funding is not part of the scope of the Bill, but £2.5 billion is available this year and the funds available to levy-paying employers are available to be transferred down the supply chain. We are working on the apprenticeship levy to ensure that it is meeting those needs. Most employers who pay the levy might not spend all of their funding, and they can fund apprenticeship starts in smaller employers. We will make improvements to support employers offering more apprenticeships and to make them more flexible through accelerated front-loading and flexi-job apprenticeships and making transfers easier. We also have a specific piece of work on the sector that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is in—that is the creative industries—where apprenticeships have been difficult because there is not one employer and people are going from project-based work.
The importance of careers advice was mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Addington and Lord Bichard, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lady Morgan. Obviously, that is not within the Bill, as far as I am concerned, because we do not need statutory underpinning for that. However, I recognise that the Bill is sitting in this wider framework of connected issues, and we have given £100 million to the National Careers Service and the Careers & Enterprise Company this year.
On the perennial issue of cross-government working, which was mentioned by many noble Lords—particularly the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lady Stroud—and also came up in one of our meetings in advance of today’s Second Reading, we are looking to answer those questions, so I will write to noble Lords about the interconnection of this with the benefits system. It is not straightforward to answer in a Second Reading debate how we can ensure that it connects properly, but I will write to noble Lords.
In relation to the specific question on the Kickstart scheme, I am told here that universal credit claims are eligible if the claimants are aged 16 to 24 and meet the relevant conditions. We are working with DWP to turn those as well into apprenticeships when it is right for the employer and that young person. I hope that answers the specific question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, but if it does not, I will write further to him.
Obviously, I have read the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, in the Times, which I think were more properly addressed to the Treasury in relation to the finances. The issue was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and that will also be passed on.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about the importance of the Bill. The imperative is the need now for us to follow through, to fund this and to deliver it. I beg to move.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at 8.09 pm.