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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Government thank Henry Dimbleby and his team for their work on the independent review of the food system. We are committed to carefully considering the review and its recommendations, and responding in full with a White Paper in the next six months. That will set out our ambition and priorities for the food system to support farms of all sizes and our exceptional food and drink producers.
Mr Hollobone
Does the Secretary of State agree that the heart will be ripped out of the British countryside if small-scale family farms in Kettering and elsewhere go under as a result of industrial agriculture and the relentless pursuit of cheap food? What will he do to ensure that family farms remain an important and permanent feature of rural life?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of small family farms in our agriculture system. A lot of the economic analysis done by the Government and companies such as AB Agri shows that some of those smaller family farms are technically the most proficient and often the most profitable, as they have attention to detail. The Government are going to be bringing forward more proposals to support new entrants to our farming industry so that we have a vibrant, profitable sector, with farms of all sizes.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The National Food Strategy has recommended that the Government must define the minimum standards we will accept in future free trade deals and a “mechanism for protecting them”. The report says that without that there is “serious peril” that tariff-free deals could not only “compromise” our own attempts to drive up these standards, but allow cheap imports, which would “undercut” our farmers. Given that the Trade and Agriculture Commission already made exactly that recommendation in its March report, almost five months ago, can the Secretary of State tell me when these core standards will be set out and whether that mechanism for defending them will be in place before the Australia deal is signed?
George Eustice
The Government are working on a sanitary and phytosanitary policy statement that will set out the UK’s farm-to-fork approach on these matters, the science of good farm husbandry and how that improves food safety standards. We also have some key things in our legislation, such as bans on the use of hormones in beef and of chlorinated washes. Those are in our legislation and will not change.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
New measures to crack down on livestock worrying are being introduced as part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. They will expand species and locations covered, and will enhance enforcement. Improved powers for the police will make it easier for them to collect evidence and, in the most serious cases, to seize and detain dogs.
Robin Millar
Farmers in Aberconwy have been speaking to me about the threat that dogs out of control pose to livestock. Dan Jones, who farms the Great Orme above Llandudno, told me just yesterday about how five ewes were killed in two attacks in just one day. This week, I was pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) in her Bill to amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, because this is a UK-wide problem. Will the Minister meet her, me and other north Wales colleagues to discuss how we can strengthen legislation further to deal with this menace?
Victoria Prentis
I would be delighted to meet colleagues to discuss this important subject. New measures in the Bill specify that a dog will be considered to be at large unless it is on a lead of less than 1.8 metres or the dog remains in sight of the owner, who is aware of the dog’s actions and is confident that the dog will return if called .It is important that we continue to work on these details to get this absolutely right.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
We have amended the Environment Bill to require a new, historic and legally binding target for species abundance for 2030 to be set, aiming to halt the decline in nature. The details of that target will be set out secondary legislation and the target will be subject to the same requirements as the other long-term legally binding targets set under the Bill.
Mr Dhesi
The UK is among the most nature-depleted countries; half our wildlife has decreased since 1970 and one in seven species is now at risk of extinction. Given a decade of huge cuts, all the rhetoric and the modest uplift in Natural England funding cannot hide the fact that the Government have consistently missed United Nations biodiversity targets. Minister, in order to show leadership and set an example to the rest of the world, should a natural target not be set now, rather than wait, so that we can stop and reverse the decline of nature by 2030?
Rebecca Pow
I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are taking this issue really seriously. We are the first Government to set a target such as this, aiming to halt the decline of nature, and indeed recover it by 2030. We are working on the detail of that target. It will be set, along with all the other targets, through the Environment Bill, which will enable us to work together to raise up nature everywhere, and we will be announcing those targets in October 2022.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
I have become accustomed to the flurry of press releases from the Department and the long list of initiatives that the Minister has a habit of reciting when questioned about biodiversity and species abundance. Does she agree with the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), when he says:
“Although there are countless Government policies and targets to ‘leave the environment in a better state than we found it’, too often they are grandiose statements lacking teeth and devoid of effective delivery mechanisms”?
So, where is the plan?
Rebecca Pow
I hope the hon. Lady will agree that the plethora of press releases demonstrate just how much work is going on in this Department. We are bringing through groundbreaking legislation that will put in all the measures that we need to tackle these really serious issues. So we have the targets in the Environment Bill and we have a whole range of grants and funds, such as the woodland creation grant and the Nature for Climate peatland restoration grant scheme. They are open now, and people can start applying for them, and we really are moving on this.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
The England trees action plan, supported by £500 million from the Nature for Climate fund, announced a series of funds to support the creation of woodland over this Parliament. That includes over £25 million for our woodland creation partnerships this year, £6 million for the urban tree challenge fund for the next two years, a £2.7 million local authority treescapes fund for 2021-22, and £15.9 million for the woodland creation offer this year.
Bob Blackman [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, and for the work that she is doing. Clearly, in urban and suburban settings, new trees are a lifeline to encourage the green lungs of the cities and towns around our country. What more can she offer to encourage local authorities to implement new street trees, which are appropriate to the setting, not only on streets, but also in parks and open spaces?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. It is not just about planting trees in rural areas; our urban areas are so important, because that is where people engage with the trees. So I am sure he will be pleased to hear about the urban tree challenge fund, which is providing £6 million over the next two years to support trees in exactly the places he says—our towns and cities. We have also opened the £2.7 million local authority treescapes fund, to encourage more tree planting in non-woodland settings, but particularly along roads and footpaths, just as he is suggesting. I hope that he will be encouraging his local authority to apply for some of those grants.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
It is very good to see my hon. Friend back in the Chamber after his illness. For 2021, the Government have secured fishing opportunities of around 628,000 tonnes of quota across all the annual negotiations—approximately 55,000 tonnes more than last year. The Government are now preparing for the next round of annual fisheries negotiations. We have held a series of briefings with stakeholders this month on the latest scientific recommendations, and we will be developing our negotiating mandate in the months ahead.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The decision not to come to an agreement with Norway was met with mixed reactions across the different sectors within the industry. While the pelagic sector is undoubtedly doing well out of our new status, there have been challenges for the demersal sector. So can my right hon. Friend give a commitment that the Government are determined to deliver honesty of opportunity for all sectors in the industry—demersal as well as pelagic?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend is right. The pelagic sector in particular has benefited from the UK becoming an independent coastal state with more quota and less competition from Norway and the Faroe Islands, which have not had access to our waters this year. For 2021, the fleet received an increase of around 5,800 tonnes of mackerel compared with the year before. My hon. Friend is also right: we want to deliver for all sectors, which is why, in England, we have given a significant uplift to the inshore under-10 metre fleet with additional quota this year. It is also why, as I speak, we are in the final stages of negotiations on annual exchanges with the EU that will help the white fish sector.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The fishing industry knows that the Government have failed to negotiate real-terms quota data with the European Union, and it also knows that the Government have no idea—no idea—how much non-quota species are being caught by EU boats in our waters. With the shellfish ban on exports and British fishers being harassed for catch data that we do not require from EU boats, where in the Tory manifesto did it say that we would actually give away control of our waters, and where is the plan for fishing? Where is the plan?
George Eustice
I will take no lectures on these matters from the hon. Gentleman who wanted us to remain in the European Union and wanted to allow EU vessels to have the ability to fish in our waters without even requiring a licence to do so.
The Government have required all foreign vessels, including EU vessels, to have a licence to fish in our waters, and that sets certain conditions. We have access to vessel monitoring data so that we can track the precise location of all those vessels, and we are also working on methodologies now so that they must declare their catch when they leave our waters and when they enter our waters, and that will give us the data that he suggests that we need.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce compulsory microchipping of cats, and that was recently restated in the action plan for animal welfare. We carried out a public consultation, which ended in February, and DEFRA officials are currently analysing the 33,000 responses. We will publish the details of our proposals later this year.
Catherine McKinnell [V]
So despite widespread public support, as the Minister confirmed, we are yet to have a timetable for the compulsory microchipping of pet cats. We know that 2.6 million unchipped pet cats in the UK have less chance of being reunited with their owners if they are lost or stolen, despite how heartbreaking the loss of much loved pets can be and the recognised need to improve animal welfare. Will the Government ensure that the consultation on cat and dog microchipping reports as soon as possible and announce their timetable for introducing regulations to make microchipping compulsory for pet cats?
Victoria Prentis
I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for microchipping cats. A total of 74% are already microchipped, including my own I am pleased to say. We will be working hard, as soon as we have responded to the consultation, to legislate as soon as possible. Only secondary legislation is needed to bring about changes if those are considered necessary, so I do not anticipate any great delay, and I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working on this at pace.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The seafood response fund gave funding to shellfish, aquaculture and catching businesses across the UK when they had been affected by covid or by trade disruption. The size of each payment was based on the average fixed costs for each business. For catching businesses, this was based on vessel size, and for aquaculture businesses, this was based on the number of people they employed.
Alan Brown
Now that the Minister has had time to read the deal that the UK Government have signed, she will see that it is a bad deal and that there has been a lot of trade disruption. In January and February, Scottish companies were losing roughly £1 million per day. By the end of February, the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation stated that its members had lost £11 million. What does the Minister estimate is the total cost of covid and Brexit on the Scottish seafood industry? How much compensation has been paid to Scottish companies? How much compensation is still to be paid, and what has she done to resolve the issue of exports to the EU?
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extensive work that has been carried out by the Scottish seafood taskforce, chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), which has provided practical and sensible measures to assist with exports to the EU. On the specific fund, we were very careful to make it clear that Scottish businesses should not lose out, so the fund was available for all eligible UK businesses, and Scottish businesses were able to apply for a top-up if that was appropriate, so we were very careful to ensure that Scottish businesses were treated equitably.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Measures in the Environment Bill will help to address the problem of untreated sewage entering the rivers. On 9 July, Southern Water was fined £90 million—the largest sum yet for a water company—for persistent illegal discharge of raw sewage. Ministers have been clear with water industry chief executive officers on their companies’ legal duties. We are also tackling river pollution from poor farming practices. In addition to regulation and financial incentives, catchment-sensitive farming helps thousands of farmers to make water improvements.
Andrew Selous [V]
Leighton sewage works pumped raw sewage into the River Ouzel for 149 hours in 2019, and in March this year waste water was pumped into the river for several weeks at Mardle Road. Volunteers Ruth Mundy and Liz Hooper report the absence of ducks, egrets and kingfishers, which were common in the past. Will the new director of water quality at the Environment Agency be able to achieve a rapid and sustained improvement?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue. It is clearly unacceptable. I hope he will agree that we now have many measures in place; he has been involved in pressing for them. The storm overflows taskforce has been set up to deal with the sewage overflows, which, in our view, are used far too frequently. Much more monitoring is in place through the water companies. They have to publish a plan on this issue and the Government have to report back. We are really cracking down on the whole issue of water quality, which my hon. Friend is right to raise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The agricultural transition plan sets out how support for farmers is changing. Instead of paying farmers subsidies based on the amount of land they own, we are introducing new schemes to incentivise good ecological practices. We will also offer grants to support new entrants to the sector, and to improve productivity and business planning.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The UK Government yesterday indicated that they were willing to break their own trade deal with the EU because of consequences that they told us would not happen. The EU may then very well implement tariffs on UK exports to the EU, as it has a right to do under the Tory-negotiated deal. That would be calamitous for our agricultural sector. The Minister will no doubt answer with reference to all the new deals that the International Trade Secretary is signing the UK up to, but just days ago the New Zealand Prime Minister warned that failing to keep to treaty commitments could threaten membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Will the Minister commit to covering the extra costs to farmers that this whole sorry mess is causing, or are the consequences of this ideological Brexit crusade to be borne by everyone but the UK Government and their Ministers?
Victoria Prentis
I do not think it is any secret to the House that I was no Brexiteer, but I must say that for farming and fishing I think we have really gained from Brexit. In England, we do not think the environment can wait. We want to start paying our farmers public money for public goods; that is how they will be supported in the future.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Scottish seed potato industry is renowned globally for its high health status and it is second to none. It exports to some 40 countries around the world and 80% of its exports are outside the EU—to markets such as Egypt and Morocco. As my hon. Friend knows, the EU has adopted a curious stance in respect of authorising Scottish seed potatoes. Although EU law provides a mechanism for equivalence to be recognised, the Commission has so far refused even to allow its Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed to assess our application. We are continuing to work with industry to unblock this issue.
Douglas Ross [V]
To remove the risk to Scotland’s seed potato industry and respect the principle of reciprocal trade, will the UK Government agree to prohibit the importation of seed potatoes from the EU?
George Eustice
We introduced a temporary six-month marketing authorisation that allowed EU seed potatoes to be marketed in England and Wales earlier this year. That has now expired, as agreed with the industry and the devolved Administrations. If any applications are received for marketing equivalence, the UK will consider whether seed potatoes have been produced under conditions equivalent to requirements in GB regulations. Of course, the sensible thing to happen is for the EU to apply its own rules and laws, and to assess the application that we have lodged with it.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The UK has a resilient food supply chain built on strong domestic production, open markets and an advanced logistics and retail sector. The impacts of the pandemic and labour shortages mean that it has been tested. We have been working with colleagues across Government to ensure that our food supply chain has the support that it needs. The Agriculture Act 2020 requires regular assessments of food security and the first of these will take place later this year.
Ian Byrne [V]
Department for Work and Pensions data has revealed the shocking fact that, pre-covid, 42% of households on universal credit were food insecure. With the planned removal of the £20 uplift to universal credit, what impact assessment has the Secretary of State’s Department completed on the impact of removing the uplift regarding the food security of the 6 million people on universal credit?
George Eustice
We regularly monitor household spending on food. It is important to note that last year household spending on food among the poorest 20% of households was the lowest on record, at about 14%. That said, we absolutely recognise that there are individual households that struggle to afford food. That is why the Government have brought forward a number of initiatives over the past 12 months to support them through groups such as FareShare, as well as the holiday activities and food scheme.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
There are crops rotting in the fields due to a shortage of people to pick them, there is a self-inflicted shortage of HGV drivers due to the Government’s poor Brexit deal, and there are now empty shelves across Britain because thousands of retail workers are doing the right thing and self-isolating. Why has the Secretary of State for food not got a grip on the lack of food security in the country, and where is the plan?
George Eustice
When it comes to labour, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have introduced the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which has been crucial this year in providing farms with the seasonal labour that they need, and we have allowed 30,000 seasonal workers to come in under that scheme. We are also continuing to work with businesses on the issue of staff having to isolate. The Government will shortly be saying more about their approach on this to ensure that key critical infrastructure can continue.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
We are introducing reforms to the waste sector that will help us to increase the amount of material we recycle. These reforms include introducing consistency in household and business waste collection in England, extended producer responsibility for packaging, and a deposit return scheme for drinks containers. Together, these measures will help us to meet our commitment to recycle 70% of packaging by 2030 and 65% of municipal waste by 2035.
Jessica Morden [V]
Not only are we in Wales the third best at recycling in the world, but in Newport, under the leadership of Newport Council and Wastesavers, we are the top recycling city in Wales, and the reuse centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) is one of three nominated for civic amenity centre of the year, with rates of 90%. Does the Minister agree that the Government can learn much from Wales and Newport?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am not going to be sniffy about this: if we can learn lessons from anyone, I am never too proud. Equally, the challenges are different in every place. We have set our targets to increase our recycling rates here in the UK, but actually Wales, and Northern Ireland, will be joining us in the deposit return scheme. We very much welcome all the negotiations and consultations that we are having to ensure that that will work across the borders.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Reducing leakage is an essential part of our ambition to improve water efficiency. Ofwat has set companies a performance commitment to reduce leakage by 16% by 2025. The water companies have further committed to deliver a 50% reduction by 2050, which could save up to 1,400 megalitres of water per day. I will require water companies to develop their water resource management plans on this basis.
Sir Robert Neill [V]
The problem we have in Bromley is that 95% of the mains are cast iron, according to Thames Water, and are therefore much, much more liable to breaking, rather than the average in London of 50% to 60%. It means we have repeated leaks, often in the same place, patched up time and time again. We had 133 in one postcode area in four months, in one instance. This is actually causing real issues for my constituents. Can we have a specific programme to replace outdated Victorian infrastructure and bring it up to purpose for the 21st century?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I do realise the challenges that people are facing in his constituency. Repairing and replacing leaking pipes is, as he points out, absolutely critical; obviously, it is particularly critical to maintaining clean, safe, reliable drinking water to our homes and businesses. Identifying those leaks is challenging, and water companies are looking at innovative ways to improve outcomes. It is really for the companies to decide how to maintain their infrastructure, but we are pushing them with the targets that have been set. To minimise the disruption caused, they are required to provide notice of planned work to customers and local authorities.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Over the past 18 months, key workers in our food supply chain have worked incredibly hard to keep the nation fed during the difficult context of the pandemic. The recent hot weather has increased demand for some items, such as bottled waters, and staff absences have increased, but remain lower than seen earlier in the pandemic. We are working with colleagues across Government to support businesses in the food supply chain, and I take this opportunity to thank all those key workers working on farms, in food factories, in the distribution system and in our food retail sector for their extraordinary efforts.
Matt Western
In the past two years, we have seen tragic floods in Yorkshire, Cumbria and south Wales. We have seen the floods in Europe and now in China. The Government have cut spending on flood defences by 10%. Why?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in that the capital spending on floods is increasing to £5.2 billion. That is almost a doubling of the previous programme. We have held meetings around the Yorkshire area, and Yorkshire will be one of the key beneficiaries from that investment we are making.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Some of the challenges we have are typically with houses built in the Victorian era where, as she says, the street drainage system goes into the foul water sewage system. That can lead to it being overwhelmed at times. Most developments that have taken place since the 1960s do have surface water drainage separated from foul water sewage systems. We have set up a taskforce to look at how we can address this problem and, in particular, reduce the use of combined sewage overflows.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I had a good trip up to Newcastle-under-Lyme recently to meet residents and the pressure group Stop the Stink and to see and smell for myself the horrific emissions from Walleys Quarry, the local landfill site that has the dubious honour of being the smelliest tip in England. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the owner of the site, Red Industries, to restore residents’ physical health and mental wellbeing and stop the stink? Where is the plan?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) has been raising this issue with me, the Prime Minister and others consistently. There is a challenge. I have met him twice to discuss it. I have also met the local team in the Environment Agency dealing with this, and I have discussed it with the chief exec of the Environment Agency. One of the problems is that it is thought that some plasterboard was illegally dumped at the site. That is what is causing the current problem with hydrogen sulphide. The Environment Agency is working on a plan to flare those gases off, and we are doing all that we can to support them in that endeavour.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) [V]
George Eustice
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a really big year for the environment internationally—not only with COP26 being hosted in Glasgow, but with the convention on biological diversity COP15, where we are going to be setting some crucial biodiversity targets. I am sure that either I or one of our ministerial team would be more than happy to speak to her event, and we are speaking to many other such events around the country.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
George Eustice
I am regularly contacted by students in schools around the country on this great challenge. We have made some very important steps forward with the ban on some single-use plastics, and we intend to go further with such bans, and the levy on single-use carrier bags. We have, in our flagship Environment Bill, the proposal for extended producer responsibility, which will make the people who manufacture goods and use the packaging responsible for its recycling at the end of its life. That will be a significant change that will help reduce the use of plastics.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
George Eustice
The UK Government work very closely with ICES. Indeed, our chief fisheries scientist at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is the deputy president of ICES. ICES regularly receives submissions from CEFAS, and where we believe its methodology is incorrect, wrong or missing certain things, it is often our scientists in CEFAS who help to update that information. Of course, when we set quotas annually and set our position on that, we take into account a range of factors—principally the ICES advice, but other factors as well.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
George Eustice
We are doing a very detailed piece of work on all the targets we intend to set under the Environment Bill, including on air quality, but also on water, biodiversity, and waste and resource management. We are looking very closely at two particular approaches to air quality. One is a concentration target for PM2.5— and I know there have been representations from people that it should be 10 micrograms—and the other is population exposure.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) [V]
George Eustice
We have not cancelled culling licences, but it is the case that the intensive four-year culls in many parts of the country have run their course and have therefore ended. To answer my hon. Friend’s question, we are running field trials at the moment on that DIVA test, and we plan to have that vaccine in 2025.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
George Eustice
The Department for Transport has already announced some plans to increase the speed of driver testing and to deal with some of those logistics issues. Secondly, we are working across Government to ensure that where isolation is needed we protect particularly important strategic infrastructure.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
George Eustice
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We all have a role to play in this; people should take responsibility for their litter. We have taken some steps, such as fixed penalty notices so we can issue on-the-spot fines to people who do litter, but we need a culture change in this area.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) [V]
The National Audit Office produced an important report recently considering how effectively central Government and local authorities in England are collaborating on net zero. The report emphasised the need for clear roles and responsibilities and for ensuring that local authorities have the right resources and skills to tackle net zero. The question of when the Government will respond is a matter for Government, but I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, told me this morning that his Committee will be taking evidence on this National Audit Office report on Wednesday 8 September.
Mr Hollobone
The National Audit Office report concludes that there are serious weaknesses in the Government’s approach to working with over 350 local councils in England on decarbonisation owing to a lack of clarity on the council’s overall roles, piecemeal funding and defuse accountabilities. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Public Accounts Committee to also scrutinise the Government’s response to this important report when it is eventually published?
Mr Bacon
As my hon. Friend will know, the Public Accounts Committee approves the NAO’s strategy and budgets and does not involve itself in individual reports, but he will also know that the National Audit Office report recommends that central Government carry out an analysis of the net zero funding available to local authorities, and it has highlighted that, despite the budget available going from £74 million in 2019-20 to £1.2 billion in 2020-21, the approach remains fragmented, so I hear what my hon. Friend says.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous) [V]
May I first apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and all Members participating for not being present in person as I am required to self-isolate at home?
I am very pleased the hon. Lady has asked this question because, like her, I am a big supporter of social prescribing, and I am delighted to be able to tell her that the Church of England is a member of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs green social prescribing advisory board and that we work closely with the members of the National Academy for Social Prescribing.
Rachael Maskell
While hospital chaplains play a crucial role in providing support within our NHS, our community chaplains and clergy are highly trained professionals and could play a far more integral role in the provision of community health, not least as primary care is completely overwhelmed currently. What further discussions have taken place between the Church Commissioners and the Department of Health and Social Care and also clergy and their local primary care networks on how they can support the social prescribing agenda in their communities?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for praising the valuable work that clergy do in this area. Examples of Church social prescribing include our therapeutic gardening projects, often in urban areas, and the new cycle routes to all our 42 cathedrals. Nearer to her, the Joyful Connections café at St Luke’s church in York is linked to a GP social prescribing scheme and has run dementia-friendly church services. Indeed, a 2018 American Journal of Epidemiology study showed the positive impact on wellbeing and mental health of faith in Jesus and being a Church member.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Andrew Selous [V]
The Church has published fresh guidance to help clergy and parochial church councils in their decision making, recognising that the circumstances in each parish may differ for space, age and demographic reasons.
Caroline Ansell
It has been nearly a year since people in churches could lift their voices in song, and this Sunday there will be joy. But for some church leaders, some concern seems to remain, despite the very well established and known physical and mental benefits associated with singing. Does my hon. Friend agree that those benefits should be very much in the hearts and minds of decision makers as they look at how to progress this summer?
Andrew Selous
Just like my hon. Friend, I am very much looking forward to being able to sing in church again—and if it stopped raining or being a heatwave, we could even worship outside. Clergy will want to do what is right in their own churches and cathedrals, recognising that we are many members within one body and are called to be responsible to and for one another.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
Any changes to the commission’s accountability are a matter for the UK Parliament through statute and not the Speaker’s Committee. The Elections Bill was introduced to the House earlier this month. Members will have the opportunity to debate the proposals relating to the Electoral Commission during the passage of the Bill. The commission will provide briefings for parliamentarians to support their considerations of the Bill’s content and impact, covering the full scope of the measures proposed.
Gavin Newlands [V]
I thank the hon. Member for that response, but under the Government’s proposals in the Elections Bill, the Electoral Commission’s powers to ensure that criminal offences under electoral law are prosecuted will be drastically curtailed. Given the numerous instances over recent years of sharp practice and outright criminality, and the corrupting influence of dark money in our democratic processes, will the Electoral Commission be able to fulfil its basic remit and properly regulate donations and spending if the Bill is passed?
Christian Matheson
The Electoral Commission tells me that effective enforcement when the rules are broken gives voters and campaigners confidence in the system. Where any political party or campaigner deliberately or recklessly breaks electoral law, voters have the right to expect that they will face prosecution. The Government do not consider prosecution to be an area of work that the commission should undertake. If the Elections Bill is passed, the commission will work with the Government and other prosecuting authorities to ensure that there is no regulatory gap across the full range of offences. The commission will retain a range of other powers and access to civil sanctions to continue its important work in regulating political finance.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous) [V]
I am enormously grateful to all three of my right hon. and hon. Friends for continuing to bring the House’s attention to the ongoing, horrific levels of persecution of people for their religion or belief.
Sir Desmond Swayne
How concerned is my hon. Friend about the rise of persecution of Christians in India, and is there anything to be done?
Andrew Selous
My right hon. Friend is right about the reports that keep coming out of India. The Church is pressing the Government to see India as a country of particular concern where targeted sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for severe violations of religious freedom may be needed. Overseas development assistance should be used to advance the human rights of people of all faiths in India.
Alexander Stafford
My hon. Friend will be aware of the terrible conflict currently raging in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. There have been disturbing reports of violence against Christians and shocking allegations that priests and nuns have been attacked and killed. What is the Church doing to help ensure that Christians are protected in Tigray and that Ethiopia’s religious diversity is safeguarded?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the situation in Tigray is truly desperate. Both churches and mosques are being attacked and looted and, in some cases, their worshippers killed. Our bishops have raised their concerns forcefully with the Ethiopian ambassador and have asked our Ministers to relay their concerns to the newly elected Ethiopian Government.
Jacob Young
In Nigeria, violence against Christians is ongoing. Since December, there have been 10 mass kidnappings and repeated attacks on churches and religious leaders. The week before last, 30 people were killed and 200 homes and four churches were destroyed. What is the Church doing to bring that to global leaders’ attention so that this appalling suffering can be brought to an end?
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We sometimes need to pause for a moment to take in the enormity of what is happening. The Church of England continues to press the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to provide the financial and technical assistance necessary to address these horrendous violations of religious freedom. The Church is also working to enable parliamentarians in Nigeria and elsewhere to hold to account those who perpetuate such horrific violence. These victims will not be forgotten by us.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)
The Sponsor Body, supported by the Delivery Authority, is currently developing the detailed plan that will for the first time give an accurate sense of the costs and timescales and the full detail of the work needed for restoration and renewal. It will be put before both Houses for a decision before works commence. Securing best value for money is fundamental.
David Simmonds [V]
Given that the House has debated the subject numerous times, supported the Joint Committee’s 2016 proposal and passed the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, does my right hon. Friend agree that continually re-examining the scope and cost of the project increases the risk that we are not making our national Parliament fit for purpose and runs the risk of us having our own Notre-Dame moment with our beautiful and historic building?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to mention the terrible fire at Notre-Dame, which serves as a reminder to us all of the risk to our great heritage assets. He is also right that putting off works tends to increase costs eventually, so I agree entirely about the time sensitivity of action and thank him for his timely reminder.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester)
The commission collects and annually publishes data from all UK police forces on allegations of electoral fraud. The data show that the UK has low levels of proven fraud. In 2019, police forces across the UK recorded 34 cases of alleged personation in polling stations, which resulted in one conviction and one police caution. Cases of electoral fraud that are not reported to the police will not be captured in that data. The commission has no reliable method to estimate how much electoral fraud goes unreported.
Mr Carmichael
If the data show low levels, it is curious that the commission should have concluded that some measure of voter identification was necessary. May I ask the hon. Member to convey to the commission the view that, in fact, a rather more robust and substantial data gathering exercise is required before the case can truly be said to be made for changes in voter identification?
Christian Matheson
I will indeed convey that. The commission has highlighted that polling station voting in Great Britain remains vulnerable to fraud since there are no checks in place to prevent somebody from claiming to be an elector and voting in their name. That distinguishes voting at polling stations from other parts of the electoral process where identity checks already exist, such as voter registration and postal voting. The commission’s public opinion research shows that this issue concerns voters, but I will pass on the right hon. Member’s view to the commission.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Christian Matheson
The commission’s independent evaluation of the Government’s pilots held in 2018 and 2019 found that a large majority of people already had access to the forms of ID that were used in these pilots. There was no evidence that levels of turnout in the pilot scheme areas were significantly affected by the requirement for voters to show ID at polling stations. However, the commission was not able to draw a definitive conclusion from the pilots about the impact of a voter ID requirement, particularly for a national poll with high levels of turnout. The sociodemographic profiles of the pilot areas are also not fully representative of many areas of Great Britain. The commission has recommended that any ID requirements should be secure, accessible and realistically deliverable. The detail of the Government’s proposals for a free, locally issued voter ID card will be key to ensuring that those who do not have another form of photo ID can vote.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He knows that in the 2019 general election there were over 47 million people registered to vote and only six convictions for electoral fraud—a rate of less than 0.00001%. He knows that there are fears that mandatory voter ID could suppress turnout and discourage voting in some communities. I do not want that, he does not want that, and I do not believe any MP wants to exclude people from voting. With that in mind, will he tell the House what more the Electoral Commission is doing to try to increase participation and turnout in elections?
Christian Matheson
Increasing participation is one of the Electoral Commission’s core missions. It tells me that it undertakes significant public awareness activity ahead of major polls to ensure that voters can understand how to participate and have their say with confidence. This May, the period of its voter registration campaign, saw over 1 million applications to register across Great Britain, breaking its targets. If the voter ID requirement is passed into law, the commission will be responsible for new public awareness activity to ensure that voters can understand the new requirements. This would significantly focus on audiences least likely to have the required identification and so most likely to need access to the proposed free voter card.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)
Restoring Parliament will use UK materials wherever possible and create jobs and apprenticeships in the supply chain across the UK, from high-tech design to traditional stonemasonry. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the project has already engaged with a Harrogate business providing professional services on procuring works on a value-for-money and UK-wide basis.
Andrew Jones
I am grateful to hear that—I did not know about that Harrogate business. In addition to promoting opportunities for businesses in Harrogate and Knaresborough, I was trying to get at an underlying point: the wider the contracts and benefits of the restoration project are spread around our country, the broader the support will be for the large sum of money involved in it. I am sure we have all heard people say, “You lot down in Westminster—”, as if Parliament has nothing to do with them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this project has the capacity to either compound or militate against that?
Damian Hinds
I do agree. My hon. Friend is right: it will be a large sum of money, and it is essential not only that best value is secured for that money, but that the benefits of it are spread, and visibly so, across the country. The programme is currently working on its supply chain plans and is already recruiting. The shared apprenticeship scheme is an example of an innovative approach to make sure that smaller firms can also share in the benefits of the programme.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous) [V]
The Church believes strongly that it does not make sense to put value added tax on the repair and restoration of listed buildings. While the Church is grateful that the Government have extended the listed places of worship grant scheme to refund this VAT for another year, we cannot continue with these short-term, sticking-plaster measures. We need to put the maintenance of our listed buildings on a sustainable basis.
Matt Western
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I am sure he will be aware that, in 2019, Historic England commissioned a report into the economic value of and repairs to a sample of 30 churches and discovered consequential costs of 26% to those projects. Obviously, if VAT is charged, it can be claimed back under the listed places of worship grant scheme, as he said. In two cases in my constituency—St Mary’s church, Warwick, and All Saints parish church in Leamington—that consequential cost could be up to £750,000 for both. Does he agree that we should just be scrapping VAT on these projects?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that when regular maintenance is not done, the final costs are much higher. We have had other one-off grants in the past, such as the roof repair fund, which we have been grateful for but which have not provided a long-term solution. Having left the European Union, the Government have gained new tax freedoms and could use them to permanently reduce or, even better, zero-rate value added tax on the repairs and restoration of listed buildings.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne)
The House of Commons Commission has ensured that the House service has implemented the “Working safely during coronavirus” guidance to ensure that we remain a covid-secure workplace. At every stage of the Government’s road map, or when updated guidance has been published, the parliamentary covid risk assessment has been reviewed and updated to ensure that the appropriate mitigations are put in place.
Chi Onwurah
I echo your repeated thanks, Mr Speaker, to the members of staff of the House of Commons, who do so much to ensure the smooth and safe proceedings of the House.
Members of the House travel extensively to our constituencies and within our constituencies. Being gregarious is almost a job requirement—we meet lots of people—yet there is no requirement on us to wear a mask in this place. Will the hon. Member give further consideration to what requirements can be placed on Members of this House to better protect those who do so much to protect us?
Sir Charles Walker
I would like to thank the staff as well. We are all gregarious—not just Members of Parliament, but House staff. I hope that when they are not looking after us, they are out enjoying the restaurants, clubs and bars of London that are reopening. Of course, our protective embrace cannot cover them there. However, face coverings remain one of the many mitigations available to the House to manage the risk of covid. The Commission continues to support their use, in line with national guidance, but the Speaker has no power to prevent democratically elected Members from coming on to the estate or into the Chamber when the House is sitting. There is therefore no meaningful way to enforce a requirement on Members to wear a face covering in the Chamber, but they are strongly encouraged to do so.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous) [V]
The Church is hugely appreciative of the work of the archbishops’ anti-racism taskforce. It has already committed to implementing 34 of the taskforce’s 39 recommendations and is keeping the other five under review.
Janet Daby [V]
The Second Church Estates Commissioner appreciates, as I do, the importance of cultural change in the Church. Clergy from diverse backgrounds must be supported and given equal opportunities, from new ordinands settling in to those moving towards more senior roles. What powers will the new commission led by Lord Boateng have to hold the Church to account as it enters the implementation stage?
Andrew Selous
As the hon. Lady says, in the autumn a new racial justice commission will start work under the chairmanship of Lord Boateng and with Lord Wei as a member. I am delighted to say that we have the highest number of recommendations for stipendiary ordained ministry training in a generation: almost 600, of which 10.9% are from minority ethnic backgrounds—a 2% increase on the previous year. The Church is making gradual but steady progress to make sure that its clergy look like the nation it serves, and the racial justice commission will certainly hold the Church to account on future progress.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
NHS Pay
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of 815,000 people who have expressed their views about the Government’s paltry offer of 3% to NHS staff.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that throughout the pandemic, thousands of NHS workers have been working around the clock, putting their lives at risk to protect the public; notes that the average nurse in the UK has lost 20% of their income the last 10 years and that it is not surprising that there are 100,000 vacancies within the NHS currently; declares that many NHS workers are using food banks to get by; notes that earlier this year, the Government announced a pay rise for public service workers “in recognition of their efforts in tackling Covid-19” but many NHS staff including nurses, porters and cleaners were not included; declares that the wellbeing of NHS staff is more important than ever—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not meant to be making a long speech at this point. He is just meant to be presenting his petition. Perhaps he could just get to the end of the petition.
Jon Trickett
I wonder if you could give me guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am reading out the words of the petition; it is not a speech.
Jon Trickett
It is just the petition, as agreed with the office. I will take your advice, for which I thank you, and perhaps I shall just say that the petition is available for people to read.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that throughout the pandemic, thousands of NHS workers have been working around the clock, putting their lives at risk to protect the public; notes that the average nurse in the UK has lost 20% of their income the last 10 years and that it is not surprising that there are 100,000 vacancies within the NHS currently; declares that many NHS workers are using food banks to get by; notes that earlier this year, the Government announced a pay rise for public service workers “in recognition of their efforts in tackling Covid-19” but many NHS staff including nurses, porters and cleaners were not included; declares that the wellbeing of NHS staff is more important than ever due to the most recent wave of Covid-19 and with morale at an all time low amongst staff; notes that a recent survey showed that 36% of nurses were considering leaving the profession altogether.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to liaise with the NHS Pay Review Body to urgently review the pay of Agenda For Change staff and take into consideration the 10 years of pay caps/freezes while acknowledging their extraordinary efforts throughout the pandemic. The petitioners also urge the House of Commons to urge the Government to reallocate funds to enable a 15% pay rise for NHS workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002682]
Planning applications in Richmond Park
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
I know you want me to be quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to mark the fact that I am the final MP to be participating virtually. With your permission, I should like to mark that occasion by saying a huge thanks to all the technical staff who have made our virtual Parliament possible over the past 18 months. It really is an extraordinary, and dare I say, historic achievement.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate what the hon. Lady has said, and let us fervently hope that she is the last Member of Parliament to participate virtually by video link. Let us hope that when we next meet everyone will be able to be here in this Chamber.
I say to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that I hope I have not stopped an important part being recorded in Hansard, but his petition will be there.
Sarah Olney
I will now quickly present my petition. I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the UK regarding planning applications in the constituency of Richmond Park.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that localist planning principles must be applied to the Former Stag Brewery planning application, GLA references 4172, 4172a & 4172b and the Homebase, Manor Road planning application, GLA reference 4795; further that weakening the planning decisions made by local authorities at local level risks allowing unsuitable development, including architecturally displeasing development, environmentally damaging development, and development that is not primarily designed to meet the need of the local community; further that the Former Stag Brewery planning application cannot be seen in isolation from the Homebase, Manor Road application, the partial closure of Hammersmith Bridge and other relevant issues; further that GLA must institute a holistic approach by assessing the Former Stag Brewery application and then reviewing the Homebase, Manor Road application accordingly.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government, and in particular the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government of the United Kingdom, to meet with Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond Park, to discuss the implications of the Former Stag Brewery planning application and the Homebase, Manor Road planning application.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002685]
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister to make his statement, I have to say that I am far from happy that yesterday the House heard from a Health Minister giving an update with no mention at all of the NHS pay deal, which is a point of great political interest. I find it hard to believe that any negotiations were still going on beyond that time. I urge the Government again to ensure that the House is the first, not the last, to know. It is not my fault that the Secretary of State got pinged, and if he wants to make announcements from his garden, he can do so, but somebody could have been here and Ministers could have shared that information with us. Glorying in the sunshine should not detract from this House hearing an announcement when it is made. It matters to all of us—we all have hospitals in our constituencies, and we all have constituents who work for the NHS, so the clear message once again is that this House should be told. Now then, let us come to a man who has come to the House to make a statement. I call Minister Nadhim Zahawi to make a statement.
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I offer the apologies of the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Social Care on the inability of the Department to make a statement on the acceptance by the independent pay review body that NHS staff should get 3%? I hope you will accept my apology on behalf of the Secretary of State, as he is self-isolating.
Mr Speaker
I really do appreciate that, and the Minister is so courteous, but it makes it worse that a Minister was actually at the Dispatch Box when all that was going on outside, and for them to turn to the House and say, “I can’t tell you”—not “I don’t know”, but “I can’t tell you”—is even more worrying.
Nadhim Zahawi
You make a very powerful point, Mr Speaker.
Before I turn to my remarks today, I want to say something to you, Mr Speaker. I want to take a moment ahead of the House rising for the summer recess to thank you, sir, and everyone who works here in Parliament, your whole team, for everything you have done to keep us all safe over the past few months. The fact that we have kept our democracy running, and running safely, at this time of crisis is an incredible achievement, and we are all extremely grateful to you and your team.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the covid-19 pandemic. This week, we have taken a decisive step forward, taking step 4 on our road map and carefully easing more of the restrictions that have governed our daily lives. Although we are moving forward, we must remember that we are doing so with caution, because the pandemic is not yet over. The average number of daily cases in England is around 41,000 and hospitalisations and deaths are rising too, although at a much lower level than when we had that number of cases during previous waves. So even as we take step 4, we urge everyone to think about what they can do to make a real difference.
Today, we are launching a new campaign to encourage everyone to keep taking the little steps that have got us this far, such as wearing face coverings in crowded public areas, making sure that rooms are well ventilated and getting regular rapid tests. We are also supporting businesses and organisations, helping them to manage the risk of transmission within their venues, including through the use of the NHS covid pass for domestic use. I know that this has been of great interest to Members and want to use this opportunity to reiterate the policy and offer the House the chance to have its say.
This week, after a successful trial, we have rolled out the NHS covid pass, which allows people safely and securely to demonstrate their covid status, whether that is proof of vaccination status, test results or natural immunity. Anyone can access a pass via the NHS app, the NHS website or by calling 119 and asking for a letter to demonstrate vaccine status. People will also be able to demonstrate proof of a negative test result.
Although we do not encourage its use in essential settings such as supermarkets, other businesses and organisations in England can adopt the pass as a means of entry, where it is suitable for their venue or premises and when they can see its potential to keep their clients or customers safe. For proprietors of venues and events where large numbers are likely to gather and mix with people from outside their household for prolonged periods, deploying the pass is the right thing to do. The pass has an important role to play in slowing the spread of the virus, so we reserve the right to mandate its use in future.
Next, I wish to update the House on vaccination as a condition of entry. We all know the benefits that both doses of a vaccine can bring. Data from Public Health England estimates that two doses of a covid vaccine offers protection of around 96% against hospitalisation. Today, we have new data from Public Health England that estimates that the vaccination programme in England alone has prevented 52,600 hospitalisations. That is up 6,300 from two weeks ago and is a fitting example of the protective wall that our vaccination programme has given us—a wall that is getting stronger every day. That protection has allowed us carefully to ease restrictions over the past few months, but we must do so in a way that is mindful of the benefits that both doses of the vaccine can bring. This strategy—this philosophy—will underpin our approach over the critical next few months.
This week, as part of our step 4 measures, we allowed fully vaccinated adults and all children to return from amber-list countries without quarantine—with the exception of those returning from France, because of the persistent presence of cases of the beta variant. From 16 August, children, under-18s and people who are fully vaccinated will no longer need to self-isolate as contacts, given their reduced risk of catching and passing on the disease. As I said when I updated the House on Monday, at the end of September we plan to make full vaccination a condition of entry to those high-risk settings where large crowds gather and interact. By that point everyone aged 18 and over will have had the chance to be fully vaccinated, so everyone will have had the opportunity to gain the maximum possible protection.
As a condition of entry to such venues, people will have to show that they are fully vaccinated, and proof of a negative test will no longer be sufficient. This is not a step that we take lightly, but throughout the pandemic, like Governments across the world—in Singapore, Australia, Germany and France—we have had to adapt our approach to meet the threats of this deadly virus. This step is no different. We will always keep all our measures under review, with the goal of returning to the freedoms we love and cherish.
We should all be proud of the enthusiasm for and uptake of our vaccination programme. Now, 88% of all adults have had a first dose and 69% have had both. That uptake means that the latest Office for National Statistics data shows that nine in 10 adults now have covid-19 antibodies. However, there are still many people who are unprotected, including 34% of people aged 18 to 29 who have not had either dose. Ahead of the summer recess, I would like once again to urge everyone to come forward and get both doses, to protect themselves and to protect their loved ones and their community.
Our battle against this virus is not the kind of battle where we can simply declare victory and move on with our lives. Instead, we must learn to live with the virus, doing whatever we can to slow its spread while we maintain the vital defences that will keep us safe. That is exactly what this Government will do and I commend the statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let us be frank: it was a shambles yesterday. It was an insult to the House and a let-down for health and care staff.
Ministers have been dragged kicking and screaming to this 3% settlement. Can the Minister accept—and does he accept—that it is not an NHS-wide settlement, as it does not cover the health and care workforce who do not fall under the pay review body? For example, it does not cover our junior doctors who have had an intense year caring for sick patients on ventilators, who have been redeployed to other sites across the NHS and who have seen their training disrupted. Will the junior doctors get a pay rise, especially given that the pay review body, in paragraph 10.6 of its report, urges the Government to recognise the role of doctors who are out of scope? Will all health staff who work in public health receive the settlement? Care workers are obviously not covered by the pay review, and we know how valuable they are, so will care workers finally get the real living wage that they deserve?
How will the pay settlement be funded? NHS trusts do not even know what their budget will be beyond September. The Health Secretary has said that the pay settlement costs £2.2 billion, so where is that £2.2 billion coming from? Is he expecting trusts and general practice to find it from their existing budgets? At a time when the NHS is in a summer crisis, with covid admissions increasing and more patients on ventilators in hospitals, with operations being cancelled again and waiting times growing because of the pressures the NHS is under, rather than getting a funded settlement for the NHS we have seen this week briefing and counter-briefing from the Health Secretary, the Chancellor and Downing Street about what may or may not be coming for health and social care.
The NHS needs more investment now to cope with the pressures that it is under. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will break their manifesto pledge to increase national insurance, or is the Business Secretary correct in what he said this morning? He said:
“I don’t see how we could increase national insurance”.
The Prime Minister promised, on the steps of Downing Street two years ago this Saturday, that he would have a social care plan, but this is not a plan for health and social care; it is a Government in disarray.
That brings me on to the so-called pingdemic, with the problems of isolation. The problems of isolation that we are seeing are a symptom of what happens when Ministers allow infections to get out of control. The Government are apparently U-turning today and agreeing a list of workers who could be exempt from isolation, based on a negative PCR test. With infections running at more than 50,000 a day, and possibly on the way up to 100,000 a day, can the Minister absolutely guarantee that PCR testing capacity will be available to cope with the inevitable increased demand this summer?
If the Minister wants to avoid shutting society down, he needs to bring infections down, so why have the Government ruled out extending statutory sick pay to the lowest-paid, and what is he doing to drive up the vaccination rate among younger adults? He knows that allowing infections to rise among that cohort sets his vaccination programme back, given that somebody has to wait 28 days post-infection for vaccination.
Today the Minister has repeated his support for vaccine passports. Can he explain why he thinks it is safe to go out clubbing into the early hours this Friday, but in September it is only safe to go out clubbing if everybody is double-jabbed? Can he confirm when the relevant statutory instrument will be laid, and when the vote will be on introducing those passports?
The Minister has a proposal for nightclubs in September, but does he have a proposal for schools in September? A million children have been off school recently, so, as we asked him on Monday, will he use this summer to install air filtration units in schools in time for September, and is he considering bringing mask-wearing back in schools?
Finally, Mr Speaker, may I, like the Minister and others across the House, thank you, and all the staff especially, for the extraordinary work that you have put in, in these last 12 months, to ensure the smooth running of Parliament in these most unprecedented of circumstances? I hope you are all able to have a suitable rest over the summer recess.
Nadhim Zahawi
The right hon. Gentleman asks who is included in the 3% pay rise recommended by the independent NHS Pay Review Body. They are the 1 million NHS staff, including nurses, paramedics, consultants and, of course, salaried GPs. The junior doctors he mentions have a separate, multi-year pay rise over three years, amounting to 8%.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the capacity for testing. I looked at that before coming to the House, and the capacity currently for PCR tests is not 600,000 but 640,000 a day, according to the latest data that I looked at. He asks about schools. There will be two supervised tests for schools. He knows that in Monday’s statement we announced our acceptance of the JCVI guidelines on vaccinating vulnerable children, vaccinating children who live with vulnerable adults, and vaccinating those who are 17 but within three months of their 18th birthday. The JCVI will keep under review the vaccination of healthy children as more data becomes available from countries such as the United States of America and Israel.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a question around the covid vaccination pass and nightclubs, other crowded unstructured indoor settings such as music venues, large unstructured outdoor events such as business events and festivals, and very large structured events, such as business events, music and spectator sport events. They are the ones that we are most concerned about. We have seen other countries, whether it is Holland or Italy, opening nightclubs and having to reverse that decision rapidly. What we are attempting to do, and the reason we have the covid vaccination pass in place, is to work with industry while we give people over the age of 18 the chance to become double-vaccinated. It would be hugely unfair to bring in that policy immediately. Giving people until the end of September is the right thing to do, while at the same time allowing businesses to open safely, using the app now—because the app went live and the industry is very much engaging with it.
There are no easy decisions on anything to do with this virus. That is the one thing we have learned. The most effective tool we have against the virus is, of course, the vaccine programme, followed by the tool of self-isolation. If we want to get back to normal and get our lives back, we need to transition this virus from pandemic to endemic—from pandemic to manageable menace—as quickly and as safely as possible. If we release all restrictions now, including self-isolation, which I am sure a number of colleagues will ask about today, we risk the number of infections, which the shadow Secretary of State worries about as I do, rising rapidly. That could risk the transition of this virus.
We are working flat out with industry. I commend companies such as Lidl, which knows it is under pressure but will work through it with us. We will allow critical, frontline and key workers and health and social care workers to get back to work if they take a negative test, as I announced on Monday. By 16 August, everyone who is double-vaccinated will be able to do that.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
May I start by wishing you and your family a ping-free summer, Mr Speaker? Thank you for upholding the values of this House over the past few months.
The Minister of State will have heard of YouGov, which said this week that a tenth of the people who had the NHS covid app have deleted it, and that a further fifth are considering doing so. Given that he made his living from listening to public opinion, does he not think it is time for the Government to listen to public opinion and immediately scrap the 10-day isolation requirement for double-jabbed people who are pinged, in favour of having to isolate until they take a negative PCR test? Otherwise we risk losing social consent for this very important weapon against the virus.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would briefly like to ask you about the issue we were not able to ask Ministers about in the House yesterday, which is the decision on NHS pay. I support the decision to accept the pay review body’s recommendations. It is the right thing to do, but it costs £1.5 billion. Can the Minister confirm it will not be paid for by cuts to other parts of the NHS budget? If it is going to be funded through a new national insurance rise for health and social care, as The Times says today, will he confirm that the funding for social care will be ring-fenced, so that we do not have a situation in which social care, once again, loses out because of pressures in the NHS?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman said “you,” but I was not responsible for the decision yesterday.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will take those questions in reverse order. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), for his always diligent and thoughtful questions. As he will know, we gave the NHS in England an historic settlement in 2018 that will see its budget rise by £33.9 billion by 2023-24. We have provided over £27 billion to support the NHS in England since the start of the pandemic, including £9.7 billion so far for 2021-22. We will continue to make sure the NHS has everything it needs to continue supporting its staff and providing excellent care to the public, throughout the pandemic and beyond.
My right hon. Friend specifically asked about social care, and I know the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are committed to making sure we deliver on our social care promise by the end of this year.
Public compliance is incredibly important, and I thank each and every person who has come forward and got themselves protected. Over the past few days, we have seen an almost doubling of the number of people going on to the NHS website to book appointments. There has almost been a doubling of appointments, too, which is incredible, considering where we are at the moment—we are almost touching 90% of all adults. These are the hard yards, and people are still coming forward. There are no easy decisions on this, as I said in answer to the shadow Health Secretary. We know that our most effective tool is the vaccination, but the second most effective is self-isolation. We are attempting to transition this virus from pandemic to endemic status. If we allow all these things to happen too rapidly and people then decide not to self-isolate, we run the risk of infection rates running away with us and challenging the strategy of our being the first major economy to transition. So we are working with business, and we are working flat out with the frontline critical infrastructure and key workers to get that guidance out. I am sure that colleagues in this House will be the first to receive it—I will make sure of that, even during recess.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
I wish you, colleagues and all the House staff a safe and happy summer recess, Mr Speaker. Clearly, vaccination is critical to fighting this pandemic. We all need to encourage uptake among younger adults, but is the Minister in a position to guarantee sufficient supplies of Pfizer or Moderna vaccines to vaccinate them before the end of September? Whether this is done legally, as in the case of care homes staff, or through excluding people from social activities, does he recognise that making vaccination mandatory can increase distrust among those who are hesitant and drive them to become outright vaccine refusers? Despite the talk about caution, covid cases in England were already surging when the Government ploughed ahead with lifting all legal restrictions on Monday. Although vaccination has reduced the hospitalisation rate to between 2% and 3%, the Secretary of State suggested that covid cases could soar to 100,000 a day, which would result in 2,000 to 3,000 admissions, which is similar to what happened in the first wave. Does the Minister really not recognise that that would put health services under enormous pressure and cause the patient backlog to grow further? Are the Government even considering the impact of uncontrolled virus spread on vulnerable people, the incidence of long covid or the risk of generating yet another variant, with even greater vaccine resistance than delta? Finally, what contingencies are being put in place in case during recess the Government need to reintroduce covid restrictions, as has happened in Israel and the Netherlands?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady makes a number of important points, especially the final one, where she reminded the House, as I did in my statement, that a number of countries have opened up and then had to reverse some of their decisions, which is why we are being very careful to ensure that this transition is successful and then that transitioning the virus from pandemic to endemic status is as successful as possible. She asked about children’s vaccination. She will know that the Scottish Health Minister, Humza Yousaf, has accepted, as the Welsh, Northern Irish and ourselves in England have done, the JCVI guidelines on vaccinating vulnerable children, children living with vulnerable adults and those approaching their 18th birthday. If the JCVI goes further, as it is reviewing more data on vaccinating all children, I assure her that we have available the supply of Pfizer and Moderna to undertake that, while we also continue to deliver on the double vaccinations of all adults by the end of September. She asked about the immunosuppressed and of course the guidelines have gone out on the precautionary measures that immunosuppressed people would take; similar to the rest of the country, they should be careful and wear masks in crowded indoor spaces—there is advice on ventilation as well. The JCVI has gone further in its interim advice for our booster campaign, where it has placed the immunosuppressed at the top of the priority list. That campaign will begin in early September—that is the operational target we are working to for beginning boosting and of course co-administering, wherever possible, the flu vaccination.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Given the massive opposition that there is among those who operate nightclubs and events, the decision of the Government to make the introduction of covid identity cards voluntary is probably a sensible one, but may I explore with the Minister what he means when he says, “We reserve the right to mandate their use in the future”? We might have hoped, Mr Speaker, that the right that the Government sought to reserve was the right to seek the permission of this House to make their use mandatory in the future. I hope that this was just a small piece of ministerial arrogance that led the Minister to mis-speak, but I would like his assurance that we will be given the opportunity to express a view on this before the mandatory use of covid identity cards is introduced.
Last week, I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care a whole range of questions about the practical consequences of this voluntary scheme. I asked what constituted large events, who would be the judge of what they were, what was meant by encouraging businesses, and what would be the consequences for any businesses that resisted the encouragement from the Government. The Secretary of State had no answers to those questions. Will the Minister today answer the questions, if not necessarily for the benefit of the people in this House, then at least with a bit of respect to those who operate nightclubs, big events, restaurants, bars and others who have absolutely no idea what is going to be required of them?
Nadhim Zahawi
It is unlike the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to accuse any colleague of being arrogant, and I certainly hope that I did not come across as such. He is always courteous and polite—I have certainly found him to be so over the years. He asks several important questions. On reserving the right, the Government will of course come back to the House if the decision is to mandate the double vaccination requirement for nightclubs, crowded unstructured indoor settings, large unstructured outdoor settings and, of course, the very large events such as business, music hall, and spectator sports events. In the meantime, we encourage the use of the NHS covid pass in facilities or at events where people are likely to be in close proximity to large numbers of people from other households. We are working with the sector. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), met people from the sector yesterday, as he does regularly. The sector itself will have seen what has happened in other countries such as the Netherlands. It is in the interests of all of the sector and of businesses to reopen and reopen permanently, and not have to open and close, open and close, which is why we are working with the sector in this period and giving people a chance to get their double vaccinations by the end of September.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Just on that last point about the decision, the statement is very clear that the Government have decided. It says, “We plan to make full vaccination a condition of entry”. My reading of that is that a decision has been taken, so the Government need to come to the House to ask the House’s permission to legislate; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was exactly right.
May I ask the Minister about the pingdemic? We have just had the data for last week. More than 600,000 people using the app were told to self-isolate. The Minister has set out clearly that, on 16 August, the right way to proceed is that those who have been double vaccinated will be advised to take a PCR test, and, if that is negative, they can then go about their business, reflecting the reduced risk of their being infected and therefore passing on the disease.
In a discussion this morning on the “Today” programme, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was told that businesses in a key sector were operating in that way now, with the advice from the app, and he was asked whether that was appropriate and safe. He said that it was not. If it is not safe now—I think it is safe—how does it suddenly become safe on 16 August? Given that it is safe on 16 August, because that is the Government’s policy, can we not just implement it now? The danger is that large numbers of people will either delete or stop listening to the app, and then, when we get to 16 August, they will not be getting the advice to take a PCR test, and we will have actually made ourselves less safe and less well protected. I urge the Minister to think again and to bring it forward now, because people will then be taking tests when they are advised to. If he does not do that, people will simply stop listening, which is very dangerous for public health.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s questions, as always: challenging but nevertheless the right challenges to think through. As I said, there are no easy decisions in what we are attempting to do. We will, I hope, be one of the first nations, certainly one of the largest economies in the world, that will see a transition of this virus from pandemic to endemic status—to manageable menace—through our vaccination programme, which is our primary tool.
The second most effective method is to make sure that people do self-isolate: I take on board his point and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). That is why we are working flat out with critical infrastructure and key workers—of course with frontline NHS and social care staff, as I announced on Monday—to make sure that people have the ability to do a PCR test and then follow it up with a week or up to 10 days of daily lateral flow testing instead of self-isolation for 10 days. The honest truth is that there are no easy answers, because the very clear clinical advice and evidence is that if we do not do this carefully and slowly, we could risk the transition of the virus.
On the requirement around nightclubs by the end of September, I assure my right hon. Friend that we will be coming back to the House to make sure that it has an appropriate say on the matter. As we have seen with this virus in other countries, it is the right thing to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for all that has been done on the covid-19 vaccine roll-out. The Northern Ireland Assembly’s Health Minister recently stated that at the end of July the closure of mass vaccination centres—for example, the SSE centre in Belfast—will come into force. The Minister in this House has today taken the opportunity through the press to urge people one last time to get the vaccine. Has he come to an assessment on the closure of mass vaccination centres in England, given the clear success of the vaccination process, and ever mindful that this autumn we will be doing a covid-19 vaccine booster process, which, along with the flu process, will add pressure to the health system? Will he ensure that there are options in place—for example, pharmacies and community centres—to bridge the gap?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Member for his excellent question. He is absolutely right. We are preparing a pretty ambitious vaccination programme, beginning in early September, for the covid boost. The interim advice from the JCVI could adjust as more clinical data comes through from the cov-boost trials that we are currently conducting. Wherever possible, we will co-administer flu vaccines at large scale. My big concern is that we have not had much flu circulating in communities and we could be in a position where in a bad flu year we could lose 20,000-plus people. Hence our ambitions are equally high for flu. We will look to co-administer wherever possible. We are looking to increase the number of pharmacies as well. We currently have over 600 pharmacies in the covid vaccination infrastructure, as well as the brilliant primary care networks, the hospitals and the vaccination centres. The cov-boost and the flu process will be equally ambitious as we look at the whole of the structure and how we utilise it, as well as making sure that GPs are able to get back to doing the work they need to do—looking after their patients.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I am seeing in Hyndburn and Haslingden that, as has been mentioned, there is a hesitancy in my age group to take up the vaccine. What work is being done with local authorities to target these groups and alleviate their fears, because the only way out is the vaccine and we really need to get that message across?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her excellent question and for the work that she does in her constituency to highlight the benefits of being vaccinated—and fully vaccinated. The work that has gone on in Hyndburn is tremendous. We are working with local government to ensure that the NHS has flexibility, whether that is to launch pop-up sites or to increase the hours of vaccination during this period of Eid celebration in order to encourage more of our Muslim fellow citizens to come forward and get vaccinated. Of course, we are ensuring that there is lots of messaging and that people are just pointed to information, including through hyper-local media as well as some of the media with which my hon. Friend’s generation will be more familiar than mine, such as TikTok, social media influencers and YouTubers. That is all happening at scale. It is great to see that the number of appointments booked under the national booking system has almost doubled in the last couple of days, but there are also the walk-in centres, where people can just walk in and get their jab without an appointment.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Mr Speaker, may I add my party’s thanks to you, to the House staff and to everyone across these islands who has worked so hard to save and preserve life during the pandemic?
I want to pick up on a vital component of vaccination that I believe the Government need to give great attention to. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention, and anyone who has attended the regular briefings that we have had around the virus will have seen in Professor Van-Tam’s heat maps the distribution and upward spread of the virus, whereby it seeds in the younger population and exponentially grows up through the ages.
I really want to ask the Minister why he thinks the JCVI are being extremely cautious in extending vaccination to 12 to 17-year-olds, given that the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has now been vaccinating that population in the States—with some concerns, but, I think, manageable numbers of concerns—and why we are not progressing more vigorously to vaccinate that population and are limiting it to those with underlying health concerns or those related to people with underlying health concerns. There is a fundamental advantage to vaccinating this group, because it will increase their wellbeing and improve their access to schooling after their holidays, but, more importantly, it acts as—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to be quicker if we can or nobody else is going to get in today; that is not fair to other Members. Questions in a statement have to be short. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to finish in a second.
Neale Hanvey
I will finish now, Mr Speaker; I apologise.
Does the Minister not see the advantage of delivering those vaccines now, and what do we do if we decide that that needs to go live during the recess?
Nadhim Zahawi
That is a very important question. The JCVI is constantly reviewing the data from other countries that are vaccinating all children of 12 to 15 years old. Its concern has been centred around vaccinating healthy children. There is a very rare signal of myocarditis on first dose. The JCVI is awaiting more data on second dose. It will continue to review that and will come back to us, and, of course, we will come back to the House.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In north-east Lincolnshire, the infection rates has been hovering at around 1,000 per 100,000 for the last couple of weeks, which is of obvious concern to my constituents. I am in regular touch with the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, which is doing an excellent job, but could the Minister reassure my constituents that if additional resources are required by the trust, the Department will provide them? The trust has had a big expansion in demand for A&E over the last few days and the trust management asks whether the Department could step up the campaign to encourage people to use the 111 service.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend’s constituency of Cleethorpes has now done 122,397 cumulative total of doses, which is a tremendous achievement. I will take away his request and come back to him once I have had the chance to discuss it with NHS England.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I must thank the Minister for our Friday mornings together. It is not just me; every Member of this House is grateful for that weekly fixture—the highlight Zoom-fest. Is he aware that there are already glitches in the shiny new NHS covid passport that he mentioned? Two of my constituents, Konnie and Charlie, have been going for a year for Novavax trials and now they are being treated as if they are vax deniers, with the texts they get from the NHS, and they are grounded. Another guy, Karl, returned to his native US to have his two jabs because he is not eligible for NHS treatment. He says that it is xenophobia that he cannot access events that Brits can. I am sure it is unintentional. People think that they are being punished for doing the right thing. Will the Minister rectify that?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am really grateful to the hon. Member for that excellent question, and I am grateful for her comments about our Friday morning meetings. Her constituents can rest assured that those who are in clinical trials, including the Novavax trial, will have their data on the NHS covid app as being fully vaccinated, whether they are receiving the placebo or the vaccine, across all trials. That is happening. I will take it offline to look at her constituents’ case to make sure that that happens for them, because I am assured that the system already recognises that.
By the end of this month, UK nationals who have been vaccinated overseas will be able to talk to their GP, go through what vaccine they have had, and have it registered with the NHS that they have been vaccinated. The reason for the conversation with the GP is to make sure that whatever vaccine they have had is approved in the United Kingdom. Ultimately, there will be a co-ordination between the World Health Organisation, ourselves, the European regulator, the US regulator and other regulators around the world. Because we are working at speed, at the moment it is UK nationals and citizens who have had UK vaccinations who will be able to travel to amber list countries other than France and come back and not quarantine. We want to offer the same reciprocity as the 33 countries that recognise our app, and that will also happen very soon.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Minister for working his socks off over the last year and doing such a tremendous job in vaccinating the nation. In Northamptonshire, the vaccine roll-out has been a tremendous success, with between 90% and 100% of each of the five-year cohorts above age 50 receiving both jabs, and over 67% of 18 to 24-year-olds already having received their first dose. Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the professionals and volunteers locally who have made possible that tremendous local success?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his work locally and for taking that local leadership, like many colleagues have, to get the message out that vaccines are safe and our way out of this pandemic. Of course I join him in congratulating the whole team—the professionals and the volunteers—on the tremendous effort they have made. The figure I have is 124,042 in the Northamptonshire sustainability and transformation partnership. Its numbers are tremendous; even among 18 to 24-year-olds, it is leading the way, at 67%. We want to get that number even higher as quickly as we can.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that the virus is now endemic; indeed, the Government of Singapore have acknowledged that too. Unfortunately, Government dither on that may have scuppered the vaccine pass. Has the Minister had any indication from its diverse opponents of how the country can otherwise take a risk management approach, rather than the risk avoidance approach that has led, for example, to the pingdemic, or the wild west approach advocated by some on his own side, leading to a possible further lockdown? Will he also indicate whether the Treasury is actually engaged in this debate on the side of the economy and public finances—or is it still in Yellow Submarine mode, disappearing under the waves?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s question. I would just remind him that the Treasury has put £407 billion to work to shelter the economy and people’s livelihoods and, of course, protect jobs. He raises a number of important questions about looking at other countries. As I said earlier, these are all difficult decisions, but I think we are making the right, cautious decision as we transition—I hope—and see this virus move from pandemic to endemic status.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend give me a better sense of the scope of how the covid ID card may be used in the future? Would it apply to the London marathon? Would it apply to political gatherings: would someone need an ID card to attend a political gathering, whether supportive of or in opposition to the Government? Could he please rule out its use in educational settings such as sixth-form colleges or universities, which should be excluded? The focus now is on young adults, and the ID card should not be a passport to education or a denial of education.
Nadhim Zahawi
On the last question, I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that in education or in any public buildings this will not be applicable. As to things such as the transport system or essential retail, that is our very strong commitment. Look, I keep repeating this message, but we know what we need to do. Part of what we are learning from the data here and around the world is about trying to work with industries, such as the nightclub industry and sports bodies, to make sure that we reopen fully as safely as possible and continue to be open. The worst thing for any industry or for any sport is to open and then, sadly, to have to shut down again, as people have seen around the world.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I listened very carefully to the Minister when he was saying that, for events where large numbers are likely to gather together and be mixing with people from outside their own household, deploying the pass would be the right thing to do. Given that, and to ensure that we keep in step with the public, do the Government intend that to apply here? Might they even reserve the right to mandate the adoption of the pass in this place, or is this another example of us and them?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. As I said in answer to the previous question, in public buildings such as this place, and of course in essential travel and essential retail, that will not be applicable. That is very clear.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
Some 22,000 people died from seasonal flu in 2017-18, and the modelling suggests that this year’s season will start early, be severe and affect younger people—a demographic that tends to go to mass events—than covid does. Have the Government also been considering mandating proof of flu vaccination, and can the Minister ensure that vaccination records are transportable between the NHS records of each of the home nations? That is not the case at the moment, to the huge frustration of those seeking second jabs or anticipating the need for the proof of vaccination that he has confirmed today.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question, and for what he has done during this pandemic in vaccinating and protecting people and helping with the covid vaccination programme. He raises an important question about flu, which I addressed earlier. I am concerned about the flu season, which is why we are being ambitious and looking to co-administer wherever possible. The operational plan is to go early—in early September—for both the covid boost and the flu campaign. However, he will know that flu is not in the covid category in that it is endemic. We are hoping to transition covid towards where flu is with an annual vaccination programme, but it is a very different virus to deal with.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
On the vaccine roll-out, I would like to ask for the prioritisation of two groups. First, can unpaid carers be prioritised for boosters in the autumn? The JCVI has not put them on the priority list, but they were put in cohort 6 for earlier vaccines. Secondly, can I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) in asking for a solution to be found for the wonderful volunteers on the Novavax vaccine trial? They now find themselves not able to travel as they cannot get a vaccine certificate and their vaccines are not recognised in the EU. Will the Minister prioritise boosters for unpaid carers to ensure that they are fully protected this autumn? Will he also enable those trialists who have received live Novavax vaccines to have vaccine certificates?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. The Novavax trial participants will have their vaccine pass in the United Kingdom. We are working with other countries to make sure that that is recognised, but as far as the UK is concerned, they will be considered fully vaccinated, whether they have had the placebo or the vaccine. On her very good question on the booster campaign, the JCVI’s interim advice is that phase 1 should be the old categories 1 to 4, plus the immuno-suppressed, and phase 2 should be categories 5 to 9, which include unpaid carers in category 6.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to everybody who is left, if we are short and quick on answers and questions, I will get everyone in? We are due to finish now, but I will give it a try.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
Will the Minister join me in thanking Sylvia, Fahad and all the fantastic local team who have vaccinated more than 47,000 people in Honley, Slaithwaite and other pop-up sites across Kirklees? Can he respond to one of the questions they are regularly being asked, which is about the rationale of the JCVI guidance that there should be an eight-week minimum interval between jabs?
Nadhim Zahawi
I certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking Sylvia, Fahad and all the local team on the extraordinary work they have done. The JCVI advice on the eight-week interval is based on real-world data that suggests that it offers the highest level of protection in terms of antibodies and T cells. Anything below that—I know a number of colleagues have asked me this question—would not be advisable.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Ministers should be aware of the fears of immuno-compromised people. Unlike the Health Secretary, I know that the Minister is aware of the OCTAVE study. Does he know when it will be published? Can we have some plans for antibody testing? Immuno-compromised people need to be allowed to make informed decisions. Has a ministerial directive been issued to the JCVI to investigate that? If people are seen to have low protection, what extra support are the Government looking to deliver for them?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s questions. She knows—she and I discussed this on Friday morning—that there is OCTAVE and OCTAVE DUO as well. I know that OCTAVE is to report imminently, and I will share that data with colleagues on our group even when the House is in recess. I will make sure that happens as soon as we receive that data. We want to make sure that people are protected. There was some very encouraging data from Public Health England on the immuno-compromised, with 74% production for some, not all, after two doses, but the hon. Member is quite right to point this out. We will look to vaccinate and protect them with a third dose—a booster dose—as the top of group 1 in phase 1 in September.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
Nobody underestimates the huge challenges the Government face or the great success of the vaccination programme, but does the Minister recognise the frustration of the many hundreds of thousands who have been double-dosed but are pinged and self-isolating—following the guidelines— when they learn of the data suggesting how many people are turning off or deleting the NHS app, with Ministers reportedly advising businesses that this is only guidance? Does he not share my view that surely what is right on 16 August for the double-dosed is right now? Will he agree to consider implementing the measure as soon as possible so that businesses do not have to close, the hospitality sector does not suffer, and many of us do not self-isolate unnecessarily?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point that he has made to me many times. It is important clinical guidance to people. It is important that people take personal and corporate responsibility, as we are seeing with some great companies, such as Lidl, which are coming under pressure at the moment because staff are having to self-isolate. As I said earlier, there are no easy decisions on this, but to be able to transition the virus from pandemic to endemic, we just need that careful, little bit more time until 16 August—it is not long to go—when everyone who is double-dosed will not have to self-isolate for 10 days.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
We all know that a negative test is a crucial risk indicator. NHS staff are off work, restaurants and pubs are being forced to close, and there are empty supermarket shelves. This is a time-critical problem in essential parts of society, so when are the Government going to publish a list of sectors where staff can use a negative test result so that they can go to work now? Making employers apply for an exemption is simply not going to be enough, and the economy and society simply cannot wait until 16 August.
Nadhim Zahawi
In the interests of time, I should say that I have addressed this question fully. Suffice it to say that I gently disagree with the hon. Member in that society came together, as we saw with the vaccination programme, with 80,000 vaccinator volunteers and 200,000 other volunteers. People are doing the right thing, as are corporates. We are working flat out in terms of the critical workforce, critical infrastructure and the frontline, and we announced on Monday that this would apply also to NHS and social care staff.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I applaud the vaccination programme, but a number of my constituents have received the AstraZeneca vaccine from batches made in India, which is not recognised by the European Medical Agency. Will my hon. Friend reassure those constituents that they will be able to travel to Europe—to France and Italy, for instance?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his championing of his constituents’ concerns. He is absolutely right to raise them, although I would say to him that the European regulator recognises all AstraZeneca Oxford vaccinations in the United Kingdom and recognises our pass. France has now issued clear guidance that it recognises all batches of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, as well as most of the rest of Europe, and our regulator and the EMA are working with the Italian authorities to get that right. Suffice it to say that I also had a vaccine from one of those batches and it is an excellent vaccine.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Today it was announced that Australia and New Zealand have withdrawn from autumn’s rugby league world cup, which we are proud to be hosting, citing safety concerns given the shambolic pandemic response by the UK Government. The New Zealand rugby league chief executive has said:
“The tournament organisers have moved heaven and earth to make this work, so it is not an easy decision, but the Covid-19 situation in the UK shows no sign of improving, and it’s simply too unsafe to send teams and staff over.”
Will the Minister therefore commit to meet rugby league MPs and officials to ensure that a safe and competitive tournament can take place with appropriate measures to protect and reassure team and fans alike?
Mr Speaker
Just for the record, I am meeting the rugby league chief executive in an hour’s time.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I know that this is something that you focus on and that is important to you and your constituents. I will happily do the same and meet them, and bring the relevant officials to ensure that we reassure them as well.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in thanking the many scientists and staff involved in developing and producing the covid vaccines in the UK, including the Wockhardt employees in my constituency, as their achievements have been truly world-beating and remarkable?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I would certainly join him in congratulating Dame Sarah Gilbert and her team and, of course, the team at Wockhardt, whom I know the Prime Minister has also visited and thanked on behalf of the whole nation.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), what does the Minister suggest that a constituent of mine who has had the Indian-manufactured Covishield jab should do if they are planning to travel to Portugal or Italy in the next two weeks?
Nadhim Zahawi
The MHRA, our regulator the EMA and, of course, officials are working with the Commission. Wherever we spot these inaccuracies we address them—we have addressed them with Malta and now France. I am assured, as of last night, that pretty much the whole of Europe, other than the Italian authorities—which we are working with—will accept the AstraZeneca vaccine from any batch, because all batches, all factories, are approved by our regulator before they enter the United Kingdom.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Today you could go to the Latitude Festival with a negative test or two jabs, and you could go to the open golf last weekend with the same, yet you cannot report for work in the NHS or put food on supermarket shelves. We are rightly worried about the 3 million healthy 18 to 30-year-olds who have yet to get a vaccine, but let us put ourselves in their shoes: they see us all get a jab and wonder what they get in return. So I ask the Minister: do we believe in our vaccine or not, and what is the scientific evidence to explain the difference between 19 July and 16 August when it comes to isolation for the double jab?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend, who always asks important yet challenging questions. The 18-year-olds can now look forward to travelling to 33 countries that have accepted double-jabbed Brits who can demonstrate that. If they have their jab now, they can go to those countries from mid-September. They can look forward to clubbing by the end of September as well—enjoying the Winchester nightlife. I hope I have made it clear to the House that giving ourselves that additional few weeks, given that self-isolation is probably the second most effective tool after vaccines, makes a huge difference as we transition this virus. It is not easy, but I certainly think we are doing the right thing by giving ourselves the space and time to transition this virus from pandemic to endemic status.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The app forcing self-isolation is making our country grind to a halt. Delivery drivers, shops, transport, hospitality, factories, and essential public and blue-light services are at breaking point. The Minister has said that there will be no more exemptions to self-isolating. The Business Secretary said the same just this morning. Then, just over an hour ago, he told the press—not this House—that he had changed his mind. Who are we to believe—this Minister or the Business Secretary?
Nadhim Zahawi
I think the hon. Lady has just demonstrated how difficult these decisions are. I would just say to her that we are working flat out, in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to work with business—whether it is the critical infrastructure that the Business Secretary spoke about, or any other part of the economy—so that we can safely return to a place where we open up, and open up permanently.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Redcar and Cleveland had the highest covid rates in the country, at more than 1,500 per 100,000, yet in the past 28 days we have not seen a single death from covid, such is the protection provided by the vaccine. We need more people to get the jab to ensure that our hospitalisations and deaths stay low, so will the Minister work with me and Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to ensure that we have the additional centres, supplies and vaccinators? Also, will he consider the chemical industry as part of our critical infrastructure, producing the pharmaceuticals for vaccines and the plastics for syringes, for exemption from the usual isolation rules, ahead of 16 August?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his championing of his businesses and his constituents. There is no shortage of the vaccine. I will happily work with him on the workforce and making sure that there is the resource to make it possible to continue to vaccinate at scale; and of course the industries that are delivering some of the essential products for the vaccination programme are incredibly important in that effort.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
In order to beat this virus, the Government must take care of not only their domestic responsibilities but their international ones. Will the Minister update us on what is being done to ensure vaccine supply to middle-income and lower-income countries, and update us on the international approach?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his excellent question. It is incredibly important, because we pledged to deliver 100 million excess doses, beginning with 5 million immediately and 20 million by the end of the year, and then the balance next year, as well as the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine being delivered around the world at no profit to AstraZeneca or Oxford. To update him, we have sent out our first deliveries of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, as per the Prime Minister’s pledge, and speaking to the Serum Institute of India, they are now not producing 100 million doses a month of that vaccine but are up at 200 million doses a month. It really is an extraordinary achievement by Sarah Gilbert and her team and AstraZeneca in saving the world from this awful virus.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
We were very grateful to the Minister for helping us to secure the Tunstall mass vaccination centre, which has delivered over 50,000 jabs into the arms of people and is the city of Stoke-on-Trent’s mass vaccination centre. As part of the autumn roll-out, when we will be getting a third dose into the arms of many residents, will the Minister confirm that the Tunstall mass vaccination centre will stay in place over the autumn and winter this year?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his effort in getting 116,657 jabs into the arms of his constituents and offering them that protection. I will certainly have a look at the vaccination centre as part of our infrastructure. We have a very ambitious programme to deliver to about 15 million people in the first phase and, with the second phase, a cumulative 32 million people. So we will be doing that at scale as well as, of course, flu vaccination wherever possible.
Mr Speaker
I suspend the House for three minutes for the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Speaker's Statement
Mr Speaker
Today is the last day when we are operating under the orders relating to the proceedings in the pandemic. May I first say a big thank you to all the Members and their staff, who have continued to serve their constituents and this country in these difficult times? We are grateful to those parliamentary staff who have enabled us to maintain our work throughout the pandemic. I would like to mention, particularly, the virtual Chamber team, who enable Members to participate remotely in the proceedings, and the broadcasting, digital and procedural support teams, who have helped to establish and maintain the pandemic operating model, working with my office. In particular, I would like to say a big thank you to Jim Davey and all those who have created and supported the temporary physical modifications we needed to make in and around the Chamber. As we come to the summer recess, I would like to express my thanks to the whole House and to all our staff for all they do to support us.
Business of the House
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing Monday 6 September will include:
Monday 6 September—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
Tuesday 7 September—Second Reading of the Elections Bill.
Wednesday 8 September—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 9 September—Remaining stages of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, followed by general debate on the legacy of Jo Cox. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 September—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 September will include:
Monday 13 September—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill.
I should like to take this opportunity to wish farewell to someone who has worked first in the House of Lords and then for the Government to support the legislative agenda. Talitha Rowland will be leaving her role as head of the Cabinet Office’s Parliamentary Business and Legislation Secretariat after the summer recess. For the past three years, in not always easy circumstances, she has been ensuring that this House has had a good, well thought through legislative programme. Her contribution as a civil servant to the business of this House has been formidable. It was, of course, Talitha and her team who worked so hard behind the scenes to prepare for the state opening and Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, delivered on 11 May.
So, having been busily digesting the end-of-term report cards prepared for my children by their excellent teachers, I thought I might attempt one of my own for the House on the progress made in delivering the Government’s legislative agenda. The Government remain committed to delivering their ambitious legislative programme, which will level up opportunities across all parts of the United Kingdom, supporting jobs, businesses and economic growth and addressing the impact of the pandemic on public services.
Between the end of the Easter recess and Prorogation, seven Government Bills received Royal Assent. Six Bills were carried over from the previous Session, including the Finance Bill, which has received Royal Assent and is now the Finance Act 2021, and 25 Government Bills are currently before Parliament, including the Health and Care Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill, the Building Safety Bill and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill. That is not to mention the more than 200 statutory instruments laid before the House since we returned from the Easter recess.
The Government’s legislative programme is about unleashing the potential that exists in every part of the United Kingdom. It is a principal function of Parliament to deliver for voters by making laws—a point that I hope is fully grasped by all those who have worked so hard to keep the House operating this term.
As we come to this recess, I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking all the members of the staff and, as we end the virtual proceedings, in thanking the virtual Parliament team—the broadcasting team—who, from a standing start, worked absolute wonders. It is worth remembering that when we went away for the recess at Easter 2020, people wondered how Parliament would be able to sit at all, yet we were back just a few weeks later. That was a terrific achievement. Keeping Parliament going, although it mainly seems seamless, in fact requires a great deal of work behind the scenes.
I also want to thank everyone else who works here for all they have done to keep the parliamentary show on the road. I thank the distinguished Clerks, who keep their knowledge for us and present it to us in a way that ensures that we legislate properly. I thank the Doorkeepers, those founts of knowledge—as long as the Whips are not listening, I advise any Back Benchers present that if they ever want to know whether there will be a vote on a particular day, they should ask the Doorkeepers, because they will tell you and they will almost always be right.
I would like to thank the cleaners. It is amazing that they have been here the whole way through the pandemic: they have been going round sanitising everything every single day, and they do so without our normally seeing them. They do their work discreetly and quietly and they deserve our gratitude. I also thank the facilities team and the catering staff—it is true that, like Napoleon’s armies, politicians march on their bellies, so we are very lucky to be so well catered for.
I thank the security staff, the police and Hansard—I am always grateful to Hansard because it takes the stuff that I unleash and turns it into pearls. I am very grateful for the grammatical enhancements, improvements and terminological additions that ensure that all our speeches are so elegantly phrased, although it is worth remembering that Dr Johnson got so fed up with writing better speeches for Whigs than they had actually delivered that he gave up reporting on Parliament. I hope that when my speeches are transcribed they will not have that effect on the current generation of Hansard reporters.
I thank everybody and wish everybody a most enjoyable recess.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I will come to my own thank you list shortly, but I turn first to his report card. He really sounds as if he has been marking his own homework—or perhaps he has been on a creative writing course, I don’t know. Contrary to what he says, the Government’s past year has been so chaotic that if I were going to give them a report that covered any more than the past week, we would have to sit through recess. If they wanted to be graded, it would be Fs across the board. It would take a lot more than summer school and their own lacklustre education catch-up plan before we saw any improvements.
The Government are clearly desperate for a summer recess, but I am afraid that for the rest of us it is another summer of chaos, thanks to them: 1 million children off school last week, businesses facing closure, supermarket shelves empty, millions forced to isolate over the summer— and they will not be able to do so from a country residence—and now more chaos in the sporting arena, as Australia and New Zealand have pulled out of the rugby league world cup on safety grounds. Can the Leader of the House please confirm that it will go ahead and it will be safe?
All this, and the Government still cannot make up their mind about whether to follow the NHS app or about who is exempt. On Sunday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor clearly thought that it was one rule for them and another for everyone else. The Minister for Investment wrote to businesses saying that the NHS app was an “advisory tool”, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said the same on Tuesday morning, but then No. 10 came out and said that it is crucial people isolate when told to do so. Yesterday, the Prime Minister—the Chequers one, Zooming in for PMQs—offered no answers, so for the avoidance of doubt, will the Leader of the House please clarify what the Government’s position actually is?
On mask wearing and social distancing, which is still Government guidance, people outside and inside this place have noticed the difference between the Government and Opposition Benches at Prime Minister’s questions. Clearly some people on the Government side do not seem to note that the Government’s own rules are encouraging us to wear masks and socially distance in enclosed spaces—it is clearly one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
Amid all this chaos, we must not forget that more than 150,000 people have died of covid. I met some of the grieving families yesterday and saw the photographs of 650 people—one for every constituency, just a fraction of the total number of deaths. The families are still desperately waiting for a public inquiry. The Government’s mistakes throughout the pandemic must never be repeated. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), certainly has the time to appear before an inquiry. Will the Leader of the House please schedule time for a debate on that in the first week back?
I turn to the Government’s missing-in-action social care plan. All we have had is rumours of a national insurance hike to pay for it. I have heard one argument that that
“will hit…public sector workers…and someone earning £32,000 will pay exactly the same as someone earning £132,000.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 667.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the Prime Minister. Why has he changed his mind? The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Health Secretary have not denied the reports of a national insurance hike, but there was more chaos this morning when the Business Secretary seemed to be saying that he did not see how there could be one. Two years after the Prime Minister first promised the social care plan, will the Leader of the House confirm when it will finally be published?
The Nationality and Borders Bill had its Second Reading this week. We have heard lots about a broken asylum system from Conservative Members, but they are the ones who have broken it. In the past year alone, 33,000 people were waiting more than 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim, and many were in my constituency—10 times more than in 2010. The appalling crime of people trafficking must be stopped, but the Bill will not do that. It fails on its own terms because there are no commitments on refugee resettlement or family reunion and, despite a lot of rhetoric, safe routes have not been properly reopened. The Dubs scheme closed after having settled just a fraction of the 3,000 children promised. In March this year, just 25 refugees were resettled—so much for safe and legal routes. We have already had the cuts to international aid rammed through. The Bill further undermines the UK’s efforts to tackle the forces of poverty, war and violence that drive people from their homes. It criminalises those who had no other choice. The Home Secretary should think again.
Over the past year, the Leader of the House has kindly committed to ensuring that Members receive timely responses to ministerial correspondence. I thank him for that, but so far there seems to have been little improvement. Will he commit to sorting it out by September?
Finally, I would like to wish Team GB the very best of luck as they begin their Olympic campaign in Tokyo. My constituent Lily Owsley will be playing for the women’s hockey team. We are all very proud of her, and I will be cheering her on.
I would like to thank all the wonderful staff who have kept this place going in exceptionally difficult circumstances. It has been a very difficult year, and I hope everyone can have a peaceful and safe summer.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady makes a very important point about the number of deaths from covid. It is right that the House should pause briefly to pray for the repose of the souls of those who have died, and to think of those who have lost family members and friends:
Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis. Requiescant in pace. Amen.
On the hon. Lady’s political points, it really is the pushmi-pullyu Opposition. We have complaints about the Government’s immigration policy from an Opposition who opposed the Nationality and Borders Bill. We have complaints that we are not being tough enough on stopping people coming into this country, yet our efforts to make it tougher are opposed.
This country has a proud record on ensuring that there are routes for refugees. We have settled 25,000 refugees over the past five years, and a further 29,000 refugees through family reunion. We have to make our borders safe. We have to have safe routes for those who have a genuine fear of persecution, but we have to stop the people traffickers.
The Opposition have become the party of people traffickers. They do not want to do anything effective, and they cry crocodile tears while opposing the Government’s efforts to be effective in dealing with our borders. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They are the ones who should be ashamed. They chunter on the Opposition Benches, but they could not even find enough speakers to fill up the time available for debate. We ended up with only Members on this side of the House speaking because the Benches on the other side were empty, aside from the most distinguished hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who he is always in his place and always doing his duty, unlike some others I could think of.
As we come to the summer, we still have an ongoing pandemic. Yes, the restrictions have been reduced, and yes, we are able to make decisions for ourselves, which is quite right, but it is also right that people who are pinged should isolate. That is the Government’s strong advice. If you are rung up by Test and Trace, Mr Speaker, which I hope you are not, it is the law that you must isolate. If you are pinged by the app, it is the strong advice of the Government that you should isolate. Advice and law are different, but the Government are right to give a very clear indication of what ought to happen.
On the wearing of masks, I have one in my pocket, along with a handkerchief. It is here in case the Chamber is full, but it is not. There is a good deal of space—an amazing amount of space—on the Opposition Benches, as some Opposition Members may have gone on recess early, but on the Government Benches even my hard-working, enthusiastic fellow Conservatives are not squeezed in, and nor were we at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. At a normal PMQs, we are squeezed in with hardly an inch between us, but yesterday there was space. It was therefore a reasonable decision for individual Members to take for themselves, in accordance with Mr Speaker’s guidance.
The hon. Lady asked for debates and, as she has an Opposition day coming up in the first week back, she will be able to choose the topics of debate as she wishes. She mentioned that the Australians and New Zealanders have pulled out of the rugby league world cup because they think they will lose. I must confess that it is rather sad. I always thought the Australians, of all people—one of the countries that we in this House love most—would never be ones to pull out of a competition. But they think they are going to lose, so they are staying at home. That is a pity, and I am sure the rugby league will run the competition with enormous effectiveness, ensuring that covid security is followed.
Finally, regarding gossip on social care, the Government have consistently said that it will be announced by the end of the year. Therefore, reading tittle-tattle and coming up with bits and pieces of gossip is not necessarily particularly helpful to the House.
Mr Speaker
I will just say that I am meeting the chief executive of the rugby league in about 10 minutes, and I just want to reassure the Leader of the House that the competition does need Australia and New Zealand so that we can beat them.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I echo your words, Mr Speaker, but very much include you and your brilliant team in the praise that has been handed out. This is the finest Parliament in the world and that is in no small measure down to the people who run it. I wish everyone a very happy summer.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on delays at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which are having an impact on drivers and businesses in general? The DVLA works terribly hard but I understand that the coronavirus pandemic has had an impact on staffing levels. Constituents are complaining about it. I hope that during the course of such a debate we would try to address those urgent issues.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, because it has been raised with us all as constituency MPs. The DVLA’s service is currently not good enough and it has been hindered, unfortunately, by industrial inaction by members of the Public and Commercial Services Union, which has made the problems of the pandemic worse, by the Welsh Government’s additional social distancing requirements, which have reduced the number of staff on site, and by an increased demand for its services, which has led to delays in dealing with paper applications. Her Majesty’s Government are working to put that right and the DVLA has, for example, leased an additional building to accommodate additional staff. Driving licence applications made on paper are likely to take six to 10 weeks to process, although there may be additional delays in processing more complex transactions, for example if medical investigations are needed. I will obviously pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Secretary of State and there will be the end of term Adjournment debate to raise any further issues of this kind later today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now go to Pete Wishart via video link.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
As you have rightly noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am participating virtually in what will be the last opportunity for me to make use of these simply amazing facilities. There was no way that I was venturing down to covid central this week in the middle of a raging pandemic. These facilities have been a great parliamentary innovation, allowing all Members to participate equally during the pandemic, and ensuring that all our constituents, regardless of where they are in the UK, have a voice and are being represented. It almost feels like democratic vandalism now to tear them down, but it also feels like madness to remove them when infections and hospitalisations are doubling weekly with the out-of-control Johnson variant. We have absolutely no idea where we will be when we come back in September.
Freedom day, of course, became farcedom day when the Health Secretary caught covid on freedom eve and half the Cabinet ended up as casualties of the pingdemic. This is the Government who could not organise a drunken event at happy hour in a nightclub where people may or may not need to be double vaccinated. Does the Leader of the House agree that the first thing we need to do when we return in September is have a debate to take stock of exactly where we are and what facilities we might require so that we can continue to represent our constituents?
With shops throughout the country reporting empty shelves due to a combination of covid, pingage and Brexit, a serious shortage crisis is coming and we might need at some point to recall this House. What provisions are in place if that is required, particularly as we might have a predicted 100,000 cases per day?
Let me follow Mr Speaker in paying tribute to the technical staff who delivered this facility at almost unprecedented speed. I wish all the staff—the Leader of the House has mentioned them all, although I do not have time to do so in the time available to me—a well-deserved break. We simply have an amazing team on this estate. I know that he is off to see the rugby league representatives, but I also commend Mr Speaker for his leadership during this past year. When this House needed someone to get us through, it got the man from Chorley. I thank all his deputies, including your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker, for all the work you have done to ensure that order continues in this House. We will see you all in September—have a great break, everybody.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Mr Speaker has been the pilot who weathered the storm, and we should raise a toast to him in that capacity. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has started his holiday early, and clearly seems to be enjoying it already from his fastness in Perthshire. I thought he might be in mourning today, because it is of course the anniversary of the battle of Falkirk in 1298, which was not one of the most glorious events in Scottish history. The victory of Edward I on that occasion is one of which we are all aware.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points on this House, let me say that this House works better when people are here; we do a better job of representing our constituents and of holding Ministers to account. Speaking as a Minister from the Dispatch Box, I can honestly say that remote participation is a doddle. It is so much easier than having that immediacy and spontaneity that we get from someone in the Chamber coming up and aiming to catch us out. Having the call lists makes life much easier for Ministers. We are here—I say this as a Minister, from the Dispatch Box—to make Ministers’ lives testing, so that we hold them to account to seek redress of grievance for our constituents, and to check that Government policy is as well thought through as it should be. That leads to better government, because policy is then better thought through, better known and better argued for. We have a duty to be back for the good of democracy. I am sorry to tease the hon. Gentleman for going on holiday a day early, but actually that is the effect of virtual participation.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Cash is used by many people to buy essentials, and constituents of mine such as Joseph from Drayton are very concerned that with the expectation now that people will pay with contactless cards, both their access to cash and their ability to pay with it will be restricted. My right hon. Friend will have seen the Telegraph Money “Keep Cash” campaign, which I warmly welcome. May we have a statement from the Government that makes it clear that people who want to be able to access and use cash will always be able to do so?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend, whose constituency I much enjoyed visiting last week. He has a fine and beautiful constituency, with some of the greatest technological innovation in the country going on in it. I am also grateful for his question and for his support for the campaign by Telegraph Money. I reiterate what I said last week to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight): the Government indeed recognise that access to cash remains important to millions across the UK, and we are committed to legislating to protect access to cash and ensuring that the UK’s cash infrastructure is sustainable in the longer term. So there is a one-word answer to give my hon. Friend: yes.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I am afraid to say that today is the second of two days running that are sad days for the Scots. As the Leader of the House has said, today is the anniversary of the battle of Falkirk, and yesterday was, sadly, the anniversary of the death of Robert Burns in 1796. Being a Scotophile, I know of these things. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the return after recess and for writing to Ministers in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on my behalf following last week’s business questions. Applications for Backbench Business debates continue to come forward, and I assure him that he will have willing takers for any time he can furnish us with after the recess. I also add my thanks to all the staff of the House for everything they have done in the last year to keep us all going. In particular, I thank our Clerk of the Committee and all the Committee staff who help the Backbench Business Committee to function so very well.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the distinction with which he chairs his Committee and manages to keep so many Members of the House happy, even with the difficult job he has of balancing the many, many requests that come for debates.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Button batteries are found in many household items, from hearing aids and LED lights to birthday cards. My constituent, Harper-Lee Fanthorpe, tragically discovered the devastating effects of ingesting a button battery when her life was recently cut short at only two years old.
In 2019, the US recorded 3,467 ingestions of button batteries, with 53% of those by children under six. The data in the UK is unknown, but button battery ingestions pose a significant and considerable health risk for children. The effects of ingesting button batteries and what we can do as parliamentarians to make them safer merit a full debate in this House, so will the Leader of the House ensure that parliamentary time is made available?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very important and sad issue, and I know that the whole House will want to send its condolences to Harper’s family.
The Government are working with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the British and Irish Portable Battery Association. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has produced safety messages on how to keep children safe. It is obviously important that children are kept safe and that this risk is understood more widely by parents. I note that my hon. Friend presented her Button Batteries (Safety) Bill yesterday, and it will receive its Second Reading, according to the will of the House, on the first sitting Friday after the recess. I will, of course, pass on her comments to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I once said in a debate on the 1950s-born women’s pension issue that wasps are a nuisance. They are pests and they buzz around. If we bash them away, they get angry, and when they get really angry they sting us. The WASPI women are nuisances; they are pests; they will not go away; and they are stinging. This week, the ombudsman found maladministration in how the Department for Work and Pensions treated those women. Today, the House rises for the summer recess with no statement on this issue or an opportunity for Ministers to be questioned. There is great interest and support for this issue across party lines. I am co-chair of the all-party group on state pension inequality for women, along with the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Will the Leader of the House please guarantee that, in the first week back, DWP Ministers will come to the House and make a statement specifically on this issue? If not, what mechanisms does he think will be available to ensure that we make it happen?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The WASPI campaigners—they are in all constituencies—have campaigned hard and long in the cause that they support, and, as with all our constituents, they do so with the right to do so as part of parliamentary accountability. The ombudsman’s report yesterday is part of a process. It is not the end of the process, as there is more to come from the ombudsman. It is worth remembering that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have supported the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions under successive Governments, dating back to 1995, and the Supreme Court refused the claimants’ permission to appeal. It was a move towards gender equality that was decided more than 25 years ago to make the state pension age the same for men and women, and that seems to me to be a good and justifiable policy objective.
As regards how to achieve this matter being debated on the Floor of the House, there is, of course, the pre- Adjournment debate later today. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman knows very well how to get debates in this House: through the Backbench Business Committee; Opposition days, of which one has been announced; and, of course, Adjournment debates.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I am working with South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, Business West, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, the Wildlife Trust, the Conservative Environment Network, and Onward to highlight the green skills emergency. We know that 3.2 million workers will need to boost their skills if the UK is to meets its 2050 climate targets. Will my right hon. Friend grant me time to debate green skills so that we can explore how innovative Stroud businesses are rising to meet this challenge and how others areas are doing the same to get what they need to go forward?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right in so much of what she says and is aligned with Government policy. The 10-point plan has laid the foundations for a green industrial revolution, creating and supporting up to a quarter of million jobs by 2030. It is innovation and technology that will deliver net zero while maintaining and, indeed, improving the public’s living standards. Our lifetime skills guarantee will equip people with the training they need to take advantages of opportunities as they arrive, and we will need engineers, fitters, construction workers and others engaged in harnessing British science and technology to create and use clean energy. We have done great things already of which we should be proud. We were the first major economy to commit in law to net zero by 2050, and we have managed to reduce emissions since 1990 while growing the economy. That is a fantastic achievement and must be the model for what we go on to do in future.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Next week will mark two years since the Prime Minister promised to build Northern Powerhouse Rail connecting Newcastle to the north’s other major cities, yet in the past few days the Government’s integrated rail plan for the north and midlands has been delayed yet again, and we have heard that construction on the eastern leg of HS2 has stopped. Delivering HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail in full, alongside upgrades to the east coast main line, are all essential parts of a transformational project to connect the country by rail. Please can we have a debate on this as soon as possible so that we can convey to the Government that building 21st-century rail links between London and Birmingham while passengers in the north are left behind makes a mockery of levelling up?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The integrated rail plan will soon set out exactly how major multi-billion-pound rail projects, including Northern Powerhouse Rail, will work together to deliver reliable train services. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has published the Williams-Shapps White Paper. The Government will make railways the backbone of a cleaner, more environmentally friendly and modern public transport system across the country, and £40 billion of taxpayers’ money will be devoted to that. The Government’s record on rail infrastructure is an excellent one.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
This morning I met the African Caribbean Leukaemia Trust, which will be running a campaign in the autumn to encourage black communities to donate blood. This campaign will be in honour of my constituent Richard Okorogheye, who sadly died earlier this year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a worthy cause, and would he consider a debate on how we can encourage black and ethnic minority communities to donate blood, organs and stem cells?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign that she is leading and supporting on behalf of the memory of Richard Okorogheye. It is an inspiring thing for her to be encouraging people of all races to give blood, because it is an essential part of a functioning health service. I congratulate her on the work she is doing with the leukaemia trust. I suggest that she carries on raising the issue in the House through all the usual mechanisms; Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates are the best first port of call.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I add my sincere thanks to all parliamentary staff across the estate, including our own staff, whether they worked remotely or not, for their incredibly hard work? They all deserve a very good break.
The Government say that they are committed to net zero, and that will require a doubling or tripling of the capacity of the UK’s electricity grid. The grid is all privately owned and these private companies look to Government if they are to invest. We need to achieve the network capacity for new renewables and installations, the replacement of fossil fuel transport with electric vehicles, and increased electric-powered heating. Can we have a debate in Government time, as soon as we come back from recess, on the Government’s plan and timescale to increase electricity grid capacity as a matter of urgency?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I reiterate what we have achieved already: since 1990, emissions are down by 44% and we have grown the economy by 78%. That has required changes in electricity supply which have been carried out very successfully. We are on the way to becoming the Saudi Arabia of offshore wind, which is a great achievement. We will not have any camels wandering through the offshore wind turbines, because camels do not manage to walk on water, but we may have porpoises and heaven knows what sorts of sea creatures and sea urchins frolicking through them. We have done a lot. We have more to do—of course we have—but it is all about growing the economy and making our constituents’ standard of living higher while at the same time making energy production cleaner.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House agree that, while it is rightly a matter for the Boundary Commission, it is important that constituencies reflect the history and geography of this great nation? Let me highlight just one example—the communities of Pulborough, Coldwaltham and Amberley. Despite being in the Arun valley and sometimes sitting literally in the middle of that river when it floods, as it too often does, they would find themselves in the constituency of Shoreham, 40 minutes’ drive away. Does he agree that local residents should take advantage urgently of the opportunity to write to the Boundary Commission, which, in fairness, has said that it would welcome such representations by residents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Boundary Commission is independent, and it is important that boundaries are equal, but the Boundary Commission will not have got everything right. I cannot pretend that I am best pleased that the report for our area—I am looking at the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)—keeps on referring to Avon. Avon was abolished in the late 1990s. What sort of planet were the people writing the report on, thinking that that excrescence still existed, and chopping up the historic counties of Somerset and Gloucestershire and thinking that Dorset is more important? Dorset is a lovely place, but it is certainly not more important than Somerset. So there are issues, and I think it is very sensible that people should put in their suggestions, both for and against, but I must say that I am particularly irked by the Boundary Commission thinking that Avon still exists. It really ought to be a bit more up to date—and I am not the most modern person in the world.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I recently met Adam, who owns and runs The House of Botanicals, an award-winning small business in my constituency. The reason I met Adam is that exports to the continent that were taking just a couple of days are now taking almost six weeks. The Leader of the House was, of course, one of the leading proponents of leaving the European Union, but what message does he have for a business in my constituency that is being battered by his Brexit?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Brexit has already proved to be a great success. We are already doing extremely well by not being tied in, for example, to the European Medicines Agency, which the Opposition would have liked but which would have prevented us from getting our vaccine roll-out going so quickly. Businesses have to meet the requirements of foreign Governments. Therefore, if the French have decided that they wish to be difficult, which is not an unprecedented habit of the French, then that is a matter that the hon. Gentleman should take up with the auld alliance.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Southport is under attack from the vindictive policies of Labour-controlled Sefton Council, which is trying to impose a cycle network on my constituency. Residents, businesses, disability groups and safety campaigners are against it. Revenues are already down because of an existing scheme, and the inaccurate data used to support this scheme is truly shameful. Will my right hon. Friend make time available to debate these schemes, which I know concern many across the House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hear gossip that my hon. Friend is actually working in collaboration—whisper it quietly—with the Liberal Democrats in his area against these schemes. It shows how completely lunatic they must be that they have created an alliance between my hon. Friend and the yellow peril. I congratulate him on his broadmindedness. We have to remember the convenience of motorists and the need to have capacity on the roads for motorists, and cycle lanes need to be safe and take into account the views of locals. I understand that my hon. Friend has extended the consultation period to 25 July. I am sure that many people will want to send in their views to this terrible socialist council.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I have asked the Leader of the House this question before, but I will ask it again. Hammersmith bridge is still closed to vehicles, which is pouring between 500 and 4,000 extra vehicles a day into Putney, increasing congestion and air pollution. The £141 million bill to restore that historic suspension bridge is unaffordable for Hammersmith and Fulham Council and unaffordable for Transport for London; only the Government can now fund it. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available to debate the ownership and funding of all London’s bridges, so that we can get the capital city moving again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to campaign for this, but wrong to focus on the Government. The Conservative candidate, Shaun Bailey, had a proposal for dealing with it really quickly and getting on with things, had he been elected. Unfortunately, a socialist Mayor and a socialist council cannot run a whelk stall, let alone keep bridges open.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that many of us in this House are looking forward to the possibility of catching up on some reading for pleasure during the recess, and with this in mind I have been working with the UK Publishers Association to compile a summer recess reading list for parliamentarians and note that your own submission is “God save la France” by Stephen Clarke, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s is “Scoop” by Evelyn Waugh, the choice of the Speaker of the House is “The Prime Ministers” by Steve Richards, and my own is David Baddiel’s “Jews Don’t Count.” Will my right hon. Friend welcome the publication of the reading list and provide us with his own book recommendations?
Mr Rees-Mogg
“Scoop” is such a wonderful and amusing book, so I am very tempted to crib from the Prime Minister, but, as I expect is the case for many Members, I have a number of books on the go, some in Somerset and some in London. I would particularly recommend “The Anglo-Saxons” by Marc Morris which is a terrific read. I am currently also reading Ellis Peters’ “The Holy Thief”, one of the Cadfael novels, so that is not a bad choice for those who like a whodunnit from the middle ages, and in the middle ages theme there is also Walter Hilton’s “The Ladder of Perfection”; it is perhaps not the most popular book in the world at the moment, but it is still in print and has been since the middle ages. But over the summer how can one resist reading anything other than P. G. Wodehouse? So I will give two suggestions: “Love among the Chickens”, Wodehouse’s first novel, which explains the complexities of compound interest, to anyone who is unaware of how compound interest works, in relation to the breeding of chickens; and, as always, there is “The Code of the Woosters”, and I am particularly thinking of that at the moment because in one of London’s leading silver stores a Schuppe cow creamer is on offer, and I must confess I am quite tempted.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
Forest Hill in my constituency is one of the highest points in London yet there are multiple flight paths over the area, meaning my constituents are subject to incredibly low flying aeroplanes. As we move out of lockdown and airports bring forward expansion plans again, we will have more noise, pollution and disturbance for our constituents. Please may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport because communities up and down the country are being blighted by this?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not unsympathetic to the hon. Lady because as airports get back to normal there will of course be more flights, but this has to be balanced: flying gives an enormous number of people an enormous amount of pleasure as they go abroad on their holidays, but there is some disadvantage to it. The House has legislated for the expansion of Heathrow airport, but it is a private project that is in the hands of the private sector. As with so many things, there are competing interests, but I would not wish to see the airports remaining as unused as they currently have been.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I am sorry I am not in the Commons today to thank the staff personally and also particularly to thank Mr Speaker for putting Parliament first, but unfortunately I, like many others, have been pinged.
Yesterday there was a statement updating the House on the NHS. The Minister refused to comment on the pay rise for NHS staff; in fact, she said that discussions were still going on. Yet just a couple of hours later the Government announced the pay rise to the media. Yet again the Health Department has shown contempt for Parliament; yet again Mr Speaker has told off the Health Department; and yet again a Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to apologise on its behalf. The Leader of the House is an exceptional Leader of the House and parliamentarian; he must be as concerned about this as I am. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement on this in the first week back after recess, and if he fails to do that, will he consider summoning the Health Secretary to the Bar of the House to apologise?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The last person summoned to the Bar of the House—the gift of Jamaica, if one inspects it closely—was an editor of the Sunday Express, Sir John Junor. He had had the temerity to say that Members had been abusing petrol ration coupons, and the House was very upset about that. Unfortunately, it made the House look ridiculous, which is why we have not done it since. So I am not going to take up my hon. Friend on his suggestion, but I do take what he says very seriously.
Yesterday, the fact is that the decision had not been completed through Government channels at the point at which the statement was made, but a written statement was laid in the House with the information concerned. It is sometimes the case that a statement by the Government that is being made at one point has other information that is still in the pipeline, and I know the House is aware of this. However, I take what my hon. Friend says seriously. I am concerned about issues—because of the pandemic, so for excusable reasons—of responsiveness to correspondence and written questions, so I am aware that this is a problem. I will of course pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
In recent weeks, nations across the globe, from China to Germany, have been hit by flash flooding, while here at home we have endured a summer heat wave, and parts of the UK have recorded their highest ever temperatures. The Leader of the House must agree that we can no longer sit back and ignore the impacts of climate change—a topic close to my heart given the impact of the devastating flooding that hit my constituency of Pontypridd last summer. Will he therefore join me in supporting the need for a debate in Government time on the devastating impacts of climate change and its links to flash flooding?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I reiterate the sympathy that everyone in this House feels for people whose homes are flooded? Even a year later, people are probably still suffering from the effects of that, and it is the disruption, the loss of treasured possessions and all that goes with flooding that makes it so difficult for people and their families. The Government take climate change more seriously than I think any predecessor Government—we are the first major economy to commit to net zero and have continued ambitious climate change targets. We also recognise that the way to deal with this is through technology that will improve people’s standards of living, and to ensure that the technology is there so that people can do more, but cleaner.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
May I welcome the decision by the Government to implement a single unitary local authority in the existing county of Somerset geography? This is a fantastic opportunity to improve economic development, placemaking and planning, service delivery and value for money for local residents. The single unitary proposal was clearly superior. Will my right hon. Friend please make time for a debate on how all parties can now come together to implement this in the most expeditious way to transform outcomes positively for local people and interact well with neighbouring areas?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the proposals approved by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is of course only part of Somerset that is included in this. The former county council area will become a unitary authority, but it does not, for better or worse, include the whole of the historic county. From a personal point of view, it is a sadness that the whole county is still suffering from the vandalism of the 1974 local government changes. However, his idea that we should all work together is a very beneficial one, and I think one that will be well received by all parties across both the old county council area and the whole historic county of Somerset—God’s own county.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) [V]
The Leader of the House will be aware that cuts in fire and rescue services across the country have caused deep concern over many years on all sides of the House. In my case, we have lost 50% of our pumps in Leyton and Wanstead, and crewing per pump has also fallen from five to four and in some areas from four to three. Now, with the notably warmer weather, this is causing great anxiety. Could we have a statement from the Home Office in the near future?
On the subject of summer reading, or at least the Wodehouse summer reading, may I make two recommendations of my own? They are “Uncle Fred in the Springtime” and “Leave It to Psmith”, which are two of the very few books I have ever read that can make you laugh out loud.
Mr Rees-Mogg
“Leave It to Psmith” was my recommendation last time, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a book that does make one laugh out loud. “Uncle Fred” is one of PG Wodehouse’s greatest, although least known creations.
As regards the serious issue of fire brigades and their crewing, the number of fires has gone down in this country pretty consistently. We are very safe in terms of fire outbreaks, and the resources in the fire brigade need to be proportionate to the risk, but I will, of course, pass his comments on to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
Parliament created the Greater London Authority deliberately with an elected Mayor and an elected London Assembly to act as a check and balance on the operations of the Mayor—a constitutional function. The current Mayor, for financial reasons of his own making, has arbitrarily decided to vacate the purpose-built City Hall, which is iconic in London, and move the Assembly’s scrutiny staff functions to a building in the east part of the capital—out of sight and perhaps out of mind—that has been described as “too small” and “unfit for purpose”, while he retains offices in central London for his own political appointees and staff. Can we have a debate on the governance of the Greater London Authority so that we can discover whether this behaviour by the Mayor is consistent with the intentions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was himself a distinguished member of the Greater London Authority. I cannot promise him a debate, because if we were to set out a debate on the failings of the Mayor of London, I fear I would have to announce business on that subject for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We would have even lost private Members’ Bills on the week that we are back.
We were lucky in our Mayor between 2008 and 2016. We had the greatest Mayor that London has ever seen, who knocked Dick Whittington into a cocked hat. Since 2016, things have gone sadly downhill. We have a socialist who is, as I said earlier, incapable of running a whelk stall—that stall that is so famously run by many competent people who are good at running things, but he cannot. He has failed in so many ways. He has failed in terms of planning and getting the number of homes built in London. He has failed in terms of Transport for London. He has failed in terms of bridges, so that part of Putney is disrupted by excess traffic. I am afraid that it is only a Mayor with that sort of record who would try to get rid of his scrutinisers. I note he has one rule for himself and one rule for his scrutinisers. There is a word for that, but it might be unparliamentary.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
This time last week, I shared in the Chamber just a small snippet of the racial abuse that people of colour receive on social media. I, along with many colleagues, have previously asked for a debate in the House to discuss racism on social media. That request has been effectively ignored. Can we have a clear yes or no from the Leader of the House? When we return from recess, will he make time for a debate within Government time to discuss this matter? It is simply not enough for the Government to claim they are not racist; they must actively be anti-racist. On book recommendations, I suggest “The Boy at the Back of the Class”, by Onjali Raúf. It tells a child’s perspective of the refugee crisis. It might be an enlightening read for many on the Government Benches.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Following our exchanges last week, I wrote to the Home Secretary to inform her of what the hon. Lady had said to ensure that the Government know some of the shocking abuse that hon. Members are receiving. Yesterday, the House voted to put forward its members for the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, which will be the main way of dealing with online abuse. The process in the Joint Committee will be to consider the Bill line by line to ensure that we get these laws right.
The Prime Minister has already said that people who use racist abuse online in relation to football should expect bans from football matches, so the Government are acting. In terms of debates, Backbench Business debates and Opposition day debates—we had an SNP Opposition day debate recently— are available, where Members can raise this issue. The Government’s programme is pretty full with legislation, but there are many other opportunities for debates.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the Leader of the House for not being present in person to ask my question; I was asked to self-isolate last Friday. As we approach recess, may I offer my personal thanks to Mr Speaker, all his team and all House staff for the amazing support given during these fraught times?
A feature of my Dudley North constituency is the strong and humbling commitment of so many individuals towards supporting disadvantaged people. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising Paul Gough at the Priory Park boxing club, Wade Cooper at the wellbeing centre in Upper Gornal and so many others for the amazing work they do in their local communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I join my hon. Friend in very much commending the fantastic work that Paul Goff and Wade Cooper do in supporting young and the most disadvantaged people in their communities. Similar activities go on in my constituency, and I know how important they are in helping people who have had a difficult start to life. We should be proud of people like Paul and Wade whose heroic work to help others is such an important part of life in our communities and our constituencies.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
On summer reading, may I recommend that Ministers read Members’ correspondence and respond to it? The latest figures show that across Government just 70% of responses are achieved within target. Ironically, the Cabinet Office, which compiles the figures, achieved only 58%, but the prize goes to the Department for Education, which managed to answer a pathetic 17% of Members’ correspondence on time. What can the Leader of the House do to help Members debate how they get timely answers to their correspondence? When will the Education Secretary be carpeted in the headteacher’s office for being the biggest dunce in the Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman has come up with the best summer reading list of all of us and makes his point well. I am concerned about this issue and have taken it up in Government with the previous Cabinet Secretary and with Ministers. It is a matter of the greatest seriousness that letters should be answered, and answered promptly. I will help any individual Member in getting answers to letters that are overdue. I have had some success with that. I fear that if I were completely overwhelmed by Members asking me to get a response from another Department, that system may not work so well, but, as long as it is a manageable number, I will do my best. I absolutely will take up his point with the Department for Education, because 17% is not where the figure ought to be.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I speak in my capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, alongside the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), from whom we have heard. I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House emphasised to his colleagues in Government the need for them as quickly as possible to outline the action they will take in the light of the ombudsman’s report on the communication of changes to women’s state pension age. That should include how they will address the systemic shortcomings that date from 2005, the finding of maladministration and the failure to comply with the civil service code. Will he also ensure that they follow the ombudsman’s advice to be proactive in considering both the impact of those failings on hundreds of thousands of women and what remedies would be appropriate, with that work taking place in parallel with the ombudsman’s further investigation as well as the separate work programme that the APPG will be instigating?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is an effective campaigner on this issue and is right to raise it. The Department for Work and Pensions will of course look carefully at the ombudsman’s report, which has only just been published, but it is, as I said earlier, part of a process and there is considerable commitment to the fundamental principle that it is right that there should be equality in the retirement age. This was accepted 25 years ago and I do not think that anybody is any longer arguing that there should be a different retirement age for men and women. The legal avenues have proved successful for the Government: both the High Court and Court of Appeal have supported the DWP’s actions since 1995, and the Supreme Court refused the claimants’ permission to appeal. Yes, of course, the Government will listen carefully to further information that comes forward, but the basic principle is a fair and just one.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On 8 July, civil violence and unrest became rife in South Africa after former President Jacob Zuma started to serve a 15-month prison sentence for contempt of court. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has strong economic, historical and cultural links and contact with South Africa—there is a special relationship. Nelson Mandela’s election as President of South Africa offered hope; today, South Africa is in danger of slipping back into chaos. I know that the Leader of the House and others present share my concerns, so will he say what we in this House can do to offer support to save democracy and stability in South Africa?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We have been thanking people for their attendance and work for the House, and we ought to thank the hon. Gentleman, who is the most assiduous attender and is a model to all Members of Parliament in the seriousness with which he takes this Chamber, which is the beating heart of our democracy. I wish him an enjoyable summer, although I have a nasty feeling that he will suffer from what I believe is known as cold turkey during the month of August.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue—he often raises issues that no one else in the House raises but that are of fundamental national and international importance. I am grateful to him for that, because this should be the Chamber that debates such issues. Her Majesty’s Government are obviously concerned by the recent violence in South Africa, which has sadly resulted in the loss of life, injuries and significant damage to buildings and businesses. The Government continue to monitor the situation closely and our high commission remains in regular contact with the South African authorities.
Her Majesty’s Government strongly support President Ramaphosa’s emphasis on the importance of the rule of law and the South African Government’s determination to restore calm. The South African Government have put in place a number of measures that have restored calm, including the deployment of the South African national defence force to support the police.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, this country is a friend of South Africa and, as a friend, the UK works closely with the South African Government, businesses and civil society on a shared agenda of security, health, economic and social issues, and will continue to do so. I will of course pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I wish that today we could all be at the Royal Welsh Show in Builth Wells in my constituency to celebrate the very best of Welsh farming and hospitality, but the rural community is deeply unhappy after the First Minister of Wales laid the blame for rising cases of bovine tuberculosis at the door of farmers by saying that they were deliberately moving infected cattle round the country. He also ignored the concerns of pubs and landlords when he told the Senedd that he was “not an agony aunt” for the hospitality sector. The First Minister clearly does not want to represent rural Wales, so will the Leader of the House please grant time for a debate on the ways in which the UK Government do want to support rural areas like mine?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I, too, am a rural MP with dairy farmers among my constituents, and they tell me, and have told me for some time, that TB is passed around not by farmers but by badgers. That has been the cause of TB in dairy cattle, certainly in Somerset and, I believe, in other places as well. It is shameful to blame the farmers, who may lose their whole herd with an outbreak of TB. There is not only a financial cost; most farmers have a feeling for their animals, so it is a personal distress as well as an economic cost.
To be so frivolous about the hospitality and tourism sector when it has been so hard hit by the pandemic is really very poor. The sector has suffered more than many other areas of the economy. I hope that Welsh publicans will decide to toast Conservatives rather than socialists as they try to get back to business and that they have noted what the First Minister had to say.
We want to work as a United Kingdom Government and to ensure that, as a United Kingdom Government, we level up the whole of our great nation and that that includes those parts with devolved responsibilities, because there are policy areas that are the responsibility of central Government.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
May I add my thanks, as you did, Mr Deputy Speaker, to everyone in the House who has kept us going throughout the pandemic, with all the challenges that we have faced? My thanks go to everyone. Yesterday, the Government sneaked out their response to the Cumberlege report in a written statement. In that response, the Government have refused to implement many of the report’s recommendations, most importantly those relating to redress for those affected by Primodos, sodium valproate and mesh. The Leader of the House is well aware of Primodos, as he has been a long-standing supporter of our campaign. Does he think it fair that, despite the Government apologising for their wrongdoing, they will not compensate those families, who continue to suffer and struggle through life? Will he convey to the Secretary of State for Health that this is not acceptable, and that we will not let go of this until we have justice for those victims?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Lady on receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Bolton? That is a well-deserved accolade for a most impressive constituency Member of Parliament and campaigner on the subject of Primodos. As she rightly says, I was a member of her all-party parliamentary group on oral hormone pregnancy tests when I was not in government, and the campaigning that she has done has been absolutely formidable. Working alongside her was, to me, one of the really important things that I have done as a Member of Parliament. There would never have been the Cumberlege report without the hon. Lady’s campaign, and there would never have been the written ministerial statement without the work that she has done. I will pass on what she has said to the Secretary of State for Health, and I will add a little note pointing out that the hon. Lady is a very effective campaigner.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, add my thanks to Mr Speaker and every member of staff of the House who has enabled us to continue to function through the pandemic? But of course, as we have now protected the vulnerable and, increasingly, every adult through vaccination, we can thankfully go back to something close to normal in September. I welcome the Leader of the House saying that it was every Member’s job to test Government Ministers, and I can confirm that I will continue to do so. I enjoyed being tested when I was the Minister, and good Ministers bringing forward good policies have nothing to fear from that.
The Leader of the House will be aware that I raised a point of order earlier this week because a definition in the statement from the Health Minister appeared at least to raise the possibility that Members would be required to show proof of vaccination before attending the House later this year. That would clearly be an outrage. It is our job to come here to represent our constituents, so can I ask the Leader to confirm, first, that the Government—the Executive—have no power to limit the right of Members to come here, and also that the Government will not attempt to legislate to put in place any restrictions on our ability to come to this place to serve and represent our constituents?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend touches on one of the key constitutional rights that we have as Members of Parliament, and it is of great antiquity. Unmolested entry to Parliament, whether Parliament is sitting or not, as long as it is not dissolved, has been our right since 1340, and the reason that it is our right is that we are here to hold the Government to account. There have been occasions when Governments have not wanted people turning up, and Pride’s purge obviously comes to mind, when force was used to keep Members out. That right is a very precious one, and it is not a right on our own account. It is not because of who we are or what we are; it is because of who we represent.
We represent 70,000 people—sometimes a few more, sometimes a few less—who have a right to have redress of grievance sought for them and a right to have the Government held to account on their behalf, and for no expenditure or taxation to be agreed without the agreement on their behalf by their representatives. No Government could get rid of this by any means other than primary legislation. Primary legislation can, of course, do anything, but it would require primary legislation to change any condition of membership. That is why, for example, the Valuing Everyone training could not be compulsory in this House: we cannot add new conditions of membership without legislation. Otherwise, the Government could decide that we needed, I don’t know, to have passed a maths exam before we come in or that we should have good handwriting, or heaven knows what obstruction that could be put in our way to come here to do our constitutional duty. We must protect that right—it is absolutely fundamental—and I cannot think that any Government, and certainly not this Government, would try to take away fundamental constitutional rights.
Point of Order
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek guidance from you on what options are open to me. I regret that I was not able to raise this with the Leader of the House personally beforehand, because this relates to something that has happened in the course of the last hour. Unfortunately, and I hope that the Leader of the House is doing this unintentionally, he made use of an extremely offensive racist term—I find it really difficult to understand, but I am sure it may be possible that he was not aware that it was—in relation to the Liberal Democrats. It would be really helpful if he could reconsider his words. He has spoken powerfully and correctly over the last few months about the scourge of racism and his commitment to ending it. I would like to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, what guidance you can offer to Government Ministers, Front Benchers and to all of us here about how we can be more temperate with our language. This use of casual racist phrases, however unintentional, has a corrosive impact on the fight against racism, which I know the right hon. Gentleman shares as an aim.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think that every Member needs to redouble their efforts as far as that is concerned. I do not know a single racist Member of this House, to be honest. I think the Leader of the House is indicating that he may wish to directly respond to the issue at hand.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I have used a term that is offensive, I apologise profoundly. I had absolutely no intention of using any term that was offensive. I do not actually know what term I used that was offensive, so if out of ignorance I have, I apologise.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much for that statement. May I say as well that I will pass on all the thanks to the Speaker’s Office that I have heard today during business questions? I, too, would like to add my thanks to all the staff who have worked tirelessly and beyond the call of duty during what must be the most difficult time in the 29 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, and particularly to the broadcasting team, who have been quite simply beyond amazing in ensuring that the democracy that we all cherish has not been tarnished and has been allowed to carry on during the covid pandemic. I thank each and every one of them.
I suspend the House for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes.
Awarding Qualifications in 2021 and 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the arrangements that have been put in place for awarding qualifications this year and next year.
Fairness to students was at the heart of the decision that a national exam series this summer could not go ahead, and fairness will remain our guiding principle in 2022. I believe and this Government believe that, all other things being equal, exams are the fairest way to assess students, but we cannot ignore the fact that covid-19 has caused disruption to education throughout the year as we took steps to reduce the spread of this virus, protect our NHS and save lives. It would simply have been unfair to ask students to sit exams as they would in a normal year, which is why in 2021 students will receive grades decided by the people who know them best: their teachers. To ensure fairness, that applies to GCSEs, AS-levels, A-levels and the vocational and technical qualifications that are most like those general qualifications and that lead to similar outcomes and destinations for students.
There was widespread support for our approach because it was the fairest approach. In January, we launched a joint consultation with Ofqual on the methodology for determining grades. It was the largest consultation in the Department’s history, with more than 100,000 responses from students, parents, teachers, school leaders and other stakeholders. We considered those responses very carefully.
Supported by teachers, parents and students, the approach taken means that every student has the best possible chance to show what they know and can do, enabling them to progress to the next stage of their education, training or employment. We took this course of action because teachers are the people who have the best understanding of their pupils’ performance. Teachers were given flexibility to choose from a range of evidence to underpin their assessments, including coursework, in-class tests set by the school or college, optional questions provided by exam boards, and mock exams.
Importantly, teachers assessed students only on what they had been taught, with students able to see the evidence used to assess them before their grades were submitted. Schools and colleges received guidance, support and training on how to do so fairly. Exam boards also issued grade descriptors pegged to performance standards from previous years to help teachers to make sure that their assessments were fair and consistent. Although teachers will determine grades, headteachers and principals have to sign off all grades, and there have been further quality assurance checks by exam boards to provide meaningful assurance of the system and root out malpractice.
I am pleased to update the House by saying that more than 99.9% of all teacher-assessed grades have now been submitted for this year. After submitting teacher-assessed grades, the exam boards asked all schools and colleges to submit evidence, a sample of which was checked to ensure that the process by which grades were awarded was correct and that they represented a reasonable exercise of academic judgment. More than 90% of that evidence was submitted within 48 hours.
I am pleased to report that the process of evidence checking is almost complete. As of 21 July, 99.5% of centres have submitted the evidence requested. Where the evidence has raised questions, centres have received a virtual visit and, on some occasions, have been asked to review grades. Once the quality assurance process is complete, the exam boards will go through the process of final checks ahead of the issuing of results to students in August.
Teacher-assessed grade results will be issued on 10 and 12 August, and we want all students to feel proud of their achievements this year. These results are meaningful qualifications, and they will help young people go on to the next stage of their lives. Although I hope all students receive the grades they need to progress, any students who feels disappointed when they open their results will have many options open to them. Students should talk to their school or college, university or prospective employer to discuss these options. They can also make use of the exam results helpline run by the National Careers Service.
It is only fair that, where students wish to improve their grades, they have the opportunity to sit an exam this autumn, as was the case last year. Exam boards will offer autumn exams in all GCSE and A-level subjects, and in maths and science AS-level subjects. These exams will take place over October, November and December.
We have also set out an appeals system for this year, should students believe a grade is wrong. Students can ask their school or college to check for errors first and, if necessary, submit a formal appeal to the exam board—as in any other year, grades can go up or down on appeal.
This approach, taken together, is the fairest for every student, and it retains faith in our grading system. This approach gives universities and employers the confidence they need that students have achieved grades that align with their ability and their work. Ultimately, the grades that students receive will do what they have always done: they will be young people’s passport to the next stage of their lives.
As we look forward to results day, I would like to thank all universities and colleges for their commitment to ensuring that students have access to the opportunities needed to succeed. I know that universities across the country stand ready to put students’ interests at the heart of decision making, and to ensure they have the time to carefully consider their options and make the best choice for the future.
As I have said, all other things being equal, exams are the fairest way of assessing students, and it is our firm intention that exams should go ahead in summer 2022. The Department and Ofqual launched two joint consultations on 12 July on proposed adaptations to exams and other assessments, to recognise the disruption to education that the 2022 cohort has faced as a result of the pandemic.
For GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels, we are proposing a package of measures that includes four elements. In those GCSE subjects where it is possible to do so without undermining the assessment, we propose that exam boards should provide a choice of topics on which students will be assessed. In all other examined subjects at GCSE, AS-level and A-level, we propose that students and teachers should receive advance information about how the content of exams will be focused. We propose to reduce the burden of non-exam assessment in some subjects. Finally, we propose that students will be allowed to have access to support materials in the exam room in a small number of GCSE subjects.
For vocational and technical qualifications, the consultation sets out a range of proposed measures for those qualifications that are included in performance tables, including adaptations such as streamlining assessments, early banking of assessments and providing revision guidance. We are working with Ofqual and wider stakeholders on contingency plans to ensure that students are able to receive grades that are fair, even if further disruption occurs.
In putting together these proposals, we have been guided by the overarching principle of fairness. The proposed measures on which we are consulting are intended to help students progress to the next stage of their lives, and to succeed when they are there. We look forward to receiving views on the proposals and plan to announce final decisions on adaptations, as well as further details about contingency plans, in the autumn term.
I know that students who will take these exams next summer have faced a huge amount of disruption to their education this year. In addition to these measures, we are already investing huge sums to help them catch up so that they are ready to sit these exams. That 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 on any lost education and to make provision available to ensure that they do so. It is why we are targeting support for 16 to 19-year-olds to those who need the most support through the 16 to 19 tuition fund, giving disadvantaged students access to one-to-one and small group tuition.
This year, the fairest possible approach to awarding qualifications has been to empower teachers to decide the grades that allow students to move on with their lives, whether that be in education, training or work. None of this could have been achieved without the hard work of our headteachers, teachers and wider education staff, to whom we all owe a great debt of gratitude. I also thank parents and students who have shown patience and flexibility over the past 18 months. I commend this statement to the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
On the final day before the House rises for recess, I pay tribute to teachers, school leaders and support staff in every part of our education system for all that they have done this year and will be doing over the summer.
Last summer, the Government’s incompetent eleventh-hour cancellation of exam results and the chaotic arrangements for awarding qualifications created confusion and huge distress for thousands of young people. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have had a full year to learn from their mistakes and to get things right this time, but that time has been squandered. For months, school leaders, teachers, teaching unions and the Labour party, among others, warned of the need for a plan B if exams could not go ahead this year, yet it took until January, even as some young people were actually sitting their BTEC exams, for Ministers finally to announce that exams would not happen this year. That has resulted in concerns about fairness.
The Minister boasted about catch-up support, but this year, more than 560,000 year 11 pupils will be leaving school having received no support to recover lost learning. Even those pupils who did are likely to have received less than an hour of tutoring a fortnight, despite missing well over half a year of face-to-face schooling. Does the Minister believe that he has done everything in his power to ensure that this year’s process is as fair as possible? Will he outline what discussions he has had with universities, colleges, employers and training providers about how all pupils will be able to progress on the basis of their results this year?
I am glad to hear that the overwhelming majority of grades have been submitted. Can the Minister confirm that the work will be fully completed before the end of term? How many grades have been or are likely to be changed in the quality assurance process? I welcome the fact that the appeals process will be free, but to work for pupils, it must be accessible and it must be quick. Can he give me a cast-iron guarantee that all appeals will be processed in time for pupils to take up a place at university, at college, in an apprenticeship or in employment?
Education staff have worked incredibly hard to make work a system that the Government chaotically imposed on them. Will the Minister tell me what support staff are receiving now and what support they will receive over the summer, both professional and personal? Does he really believe it is right that schools will receive the same rebate from exam boards as they did last year, even as the workload of teachers has rocketed under this year’s system? Will he consider following the example of Labour in Wales, which is providing additional financial support to schools to recognise this?
Young people, families and education staff are worried about qualifications this year, but next year will be just as challenging. Once again, the Minister and Secretary of State have had plenty of time to plan before the start of the new academic year this September, yet they have only just launched a consultation, only days before the start of the summer holidays, which is an insult to education staff who desperately need and deserve a break.
Will the Minister tell us why greater topic choices will be available only for some GCSE subjects, and is he not concerned that providing advance notice of exam content, rather than building in greater optionality, could simply embed unfairness, whereby pupils who have spent more time than others on a given topic will do better simply through chance?
Is the Minister really sure that now is the right time to return to national published league tables, unchanged to reflect the disruption that has continued in this year and remains likely next year? Can he say with certainty that league tables will fairly and accurately reflect school performance? I am glad that he acknowledged the need for contingency measures. Will he tell me when they will be in place and when schools and other settings will know what they are?
In his statement, the Minister thanked education staff across the country, but teachers and school leaders will find his gratitude hollow after the shameful way in which he snuck out a real-terms pay cut to their salaries last night. Can he confirm that at least 94% of teachers face a real-terms pay cut as a result of that announcement? Instead of saying that he is grateful with one breath while slashing pay with the next, will he apologise to teachers, pupils and families for the shameful way in which the Government have treated them as an afterthought throughout the pandemic?
No one wants to see a repeat of last year’s exams fiasco, but once again the Government are making policy late and failing to listen. Today the Minister must reassure anxious pupils and parents that every young person will get the support they need this summer and next year, that staff will be supported and that every student will be treated fairly.
Nick Gibb
I realise that the Opposition have to have a critique, but at every stage we worked methodically with Ofqual, the exam boards, stakeholders and the teachers’ unions to ensure that we devised a process for awarding grades in 2021 that was the right approach. We worked carefully and methodically with Ofqual and the exam boards, learning from what happened last summer, to determine the right adaptations for the 2022 exams in order to ensure that they are fair given all the disruption that students have suffered. We wanted to launch the short consultation before the summer break, which we did on 12 July. We want to confirm the position early in the autumn term, so that teachers know at the earliest point in the next academic year the structure for exams in 2022.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of the appeals timetable. For priority cases—where students have missed out on their firm university choice and wish to appeal results—students should request a centre review by 16 August. For non-priority cases, students should request a centre review by 3 September. Centres will need to submit priority appeals by 23 August. Students will be informed of the outcome of priority appeals in most cases by 8 September.
The hon. Lady asked about exam fee rebates. The exam boards have all confirmed that they plan to provide rebates to schools this year. Some have made announcements on the rebate already. The Department will be providing funding to exam boards directly to support the appeals costs and any autumn series losses they make. This will enable the exam boards to pass more funding back to schools via rebates.
The hon. Lady mentioned performance tables. There will be no performance tables in 2021. In 2022 there will be performance tables for GCSEs and A-levels, but not for primary school SATs, given that adaptations cannot be made in that regard.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of teachers’ pay. We do know, and I acknowledge at every possible opportunity, that teachers and support staff have worked incredibly hard over the last 16 months, adapting schools to covid and learning and preparing to teach children remotely for the first time. Teachers are very much on the frontline in the fight against the pandemic. In the September 2020 pay award, teachers received an average increase of 3.1%, with starting salaries rising by 5.5%. The cumulative pay award for teachers since 2018-19 is 8.5%. The pause on pay rises this year is across the public sector, except for health, and is designed to help address the public finances following the financial response to the pandemic. Of course, the pay pause does not prevent pay rises as a consequence of promotion or performance-related pay.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I quickly take the chance to thank Mr Speaker, you, all the staff of the House of Commons and the other Deputy Speakers for the incredible way in which Parliament has gone on and enabled people who have been shielding to participate? It has been a miracle. I would have liked to say that had I been called in business questions to the Leader of the House.
Of course, we all want exams to take place, but given that we know that 1 million pupils were not in school this week and that 93,500 children have hardly returned to school since schools reopening on 8 March, what analysis did the Department make of the lost learning of pupils—particularly pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom have not yet benefited from the catch-up programme—who have not been in school for one reason or another in exam years before setting out the policy that the Minister has announced today?
My worry about the approach the Minister set out is that requiring exam boards to provide advance information about exam content and support means that the Government are in essence reducing a 100 metre race to a 50 metre race while keeping all the pupils at the same starting point whatever their disadvantage. The pupils who have experienced the most lost learning will still be the most disadvantaged compared with those who were in school more at the time. Could he at least consider ensuring a level playing field and taking a more nuanced data-driven approach that takes into account the fact that millions of children have experienced lost learning? That could be done by increasing the time allowed to do the exams or adjusting the grade weighting to reflect the number of days that pupils have lost.
Nick Gibb
My right hon. Friend’s thoughtful question raises an important point. We did consider a range of alternatives to the proposal on which we finally consulted on 12 July. We worked very closely with Ofqual and the exam boards, and optionality and advance notice disproportionately help students who have had more time out of school compared with those who have remained in school the most, who will have covered most of the curriculum. It helps those pupils. That is also why we are allocating more than £3 billion to catch-up, and the recovery premium and the 16-to-19 tuition fund are deliberately targeted at students and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I ask all Members to focus on shorter questions, as we have two other pieces of business before we get on to the general debate.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
Last month, the Secretary of State said:
“We very much hope and intend for exams to go ahead in 2022”.
That was a statement not exactly brimming with confidence. As the school year draws to a close, more than 1 million school pupils in England, including a third of all secondary school students, are absent because of covid. Are the Government confident that the decisions they have made recently will not affect the ability of schools to reopen safely in October or to stay open safely for the whole academic year, and that young people sitting exams will not be let down for a third year running?
Nick Gibb
There is a clear plan that exams will go ahead next year. A large proportion of the pupils who are not in school at the moment are out as a consequence of self-isolating because they have been a close contact of somebody who has tested positive for covid. From 16 August, anybody under the age of 18 will not have to self-isolate as a consequence of coming into such contact. They will be asked to take a PCR test, and when students start school in September they will be asked to take two lateral flow device tests on school premises in that first week of term.
We are determined to do all we can to identify asymptomatic cases of covid, and all the measures in schools—including ventilation and hygiene—will remain in place despite the move to step 4 to ensure that we minimise any risk of transmission of the virus on school premises. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we are also working on contingency plans should it be necessary to cancel exams next year because of the direction of the pandemic. Our very firm plans are to proceed with exams, because they are the fairest way of assessing young people.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that exams are the fairest way not only to assess the pupils’ ability in their subjects but to give them certainty about how they will be assessed? The rigour of the tried and tested exam system will help avoid the sad cases of anxiety and mental health challenges that far too many of our young people have suffered given the disruption of the pandemic.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right. When we considered the raft of options, we took that into account. Some adaptations may appear on the surface to be fair, but because they are so different from what has happened in the past teachers are not used to teaching to that approach and students are not used to taking exams with it.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Can the Minister promise the House that on results day it will be him, the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister who will take responsibility for what happens, instead of pushing the blame on to hard-working teaching staff?
Nick Gibb
We have been working very closely with the education sector, the teaching unions, Ofqual and the exam boards, and we have, I believe, devised the fairest approach to ensuring that students are able to receive their grades, have their qualifications, and, most importantly, move on to the next stage of their life. That is what we are all seeking to do. There are rigorous quality assurance processes at every stage, from within the schools to the exam boards, and they are designed to ensure that grades are awarded fairly and consistently.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
I thank all the teachers and staff in Dudley South and across the country who have gone above and beyond throughout this pandemic. Clearly students completing qualifications this summer have had their studies disrupted hugely, but those who will sit exams next summer have also faced massive disruption and could be competing against others who were awarded grades this summer or last summer for college and university places. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that students completing courses next summer will not be at an unfair disadvantage?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why we have set out in the joint consultation document with Ofqual all the adaptations to exams next year, taking into account the fact that most students will have suffered some disruption to their education by next summer. The issue of grading is a matter for Ofqual and decisions about grading will be made in the autumn term.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Despite warning after warning, this Government have let covid disrupt the education of millions of children this summer. Young people have had to endure so much this year. Does the Minister not recognise that young people need certainty over the next few years, not more U-turns, for the sake of fairness, their planning and their mental health? Assessing their whole learning journey through a range of different teacher-based assessments with robust moderation will bring that certainty, not the final exams.
Nick Gibb
I understand the point the hon. Member is making but I have to say I disagree. I believe very firmly, as do the Government, that exams are the fairest method of assessing pupils’ attainment. It is also a workload issue for teachers. Throughout the pandemic, as we have devised a system to ensure that young people can move on to the next stage of their lives, we have always taken into account the workload implications for teachers and schools.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I agree with what he said and what he just said about exams. I pay tribute to teachers in Newcastle-under-Lyme who have gone above and beyond this academic year, as I know they will next year, to help pupils catch up with lost learning. Can he confirm that the measures he has set out will not be putting any undue additional pressure on teachers?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Teachers, support staff and headteachers have worked incredibly hard in schools and colleges during the pandemic, making sure that schools are covid-secure, adapting to remote education, teaching both remotely and in class, and keeping schools open throughout the whole period for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. We do absolutely have teacher workload at the forefront of our minds as we devise policy.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My local schools have collated and moderated hundreds of pupil grades, while facing a mental health crisis and catch-up, with none of the assistance from the exam boards that the Minister spoke of—presumably they have all been on full pay throughout. Can he guarantee that the A-level students of next year who missed their GCSEs last year will have in-person exams? Can he also guarantee, for a profession that in west London has significant staffing gaps and faces burn-out, that teachers can now have five weeks completely offline, or are they going to have nasty surprises as they did last year? His boss, again absent, seems to think that the holidays have already started.
Nick Gibb
Teachers have been very well supported by the exam boards, with guidance, training and grade descriptors. We want to try to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support teachers through this process. We know that, despite all that support, it has been a big task for teachers to get these grades, and it is a remarkable achievement that a very high proportion were delivered by schools on time by 18 June. That training and those grade descriptors have ensured, I believe, that we will have consistency and fairness in how grades are awarded in 2021. For 2022, it is our very firm plan that exams will go ahead, because, as I said, it is the fairest way of assessing young people.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement that students will be examined only on what they have actually been taught, in recognition of the acute impact that this year has had on their studies. Both students and teachers need certainty. Will he ensure that teachers will have the materials and resources they need to give their students that confidence?
Nick Gibb
Yes. We have set out in the consultation document on 12 July all the different options for the different subjects. For some subjects the adaptation will be optionality of choice of questions, whereas for others it will be advance notice or formulas and aids in the exam room to help students. This is to give students confidence that, despite all the disruption they have had over the past 16 months, they will still do well in that exam. We will respond to the consultation in the autumn so that, as my right hon. Friend requests, teachers have the certainty they need to teach the remainder of the curriculum.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Students and teachers in Luton North are deeply concerned by the Government’s plans to cut BTEC qualifications. The Association of Colleges warns that the plans risk closing down routes for training to work for many working-class young people, but should we expect anything else from a Tory Government who do not know what levelling up is, let alone have the ability to deliver it? BTECs are valued, successful and popular at Luton sixth forms, so will the Minister confirm whether BTECs will continue to be funded? If so, for how long?
Nick Gibb
This is all as a result of the consultation on level 2 and level 3 qualifications. There will be a process that exam boards, with employers, will go through before decisions are taken.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to exams going ahead in 2022. Does he agree that they are particularly important for disadvantaged students, as we know from a number of studies that their potential is often underestimated by their teachers and it is only with their exams that they show what they are capable of?
Nick Gibb
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very good point, and his example is one reason why exams are the fairest system of assessing students. But we are also aware that disadvantaged students have suffered disproportionately compared with the average in terms of disruption to their education, which is why the recovery premium and the 16 to 19 tuition fund are designed for and targeted at students from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
As the Minister implied, students currently in year 10 have arguably been hit harder than any other cohort, having missed most of year 9 and had a hugely disrupted year 10. So is it not ridiculous to reintroduce performance tables, given the massive disparity of the impact of covid on different schools and different pupil cohorts? He said that fairness is the guiding principle, but how can the Government possibly build fairness into performance tables for 2022?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As he acknowledged, there are no performance tables in 2021. In 2022, there are no performance tables for standard assessment tests, but there will be performance tables for GCSEs and A-levels. By 2022, we will not have had performance measures from secondary schools in either 2020 or 2021. These are qualifications for young people that really matter to their life chances, and we are able to make adaptations to them, as I have explained. There is also the notion of comparable outcomes, so they will be a fair reflection of schools’ performance. Parents do need to have that data and that information when making a choice of secondary school for their children. By contrast, in primary schools we have not been able to make adaptations to the SATs in 2022, so we did not feel it was fair to continue with performance measures for the 2022 SATs.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I thank all the heads, principals, lecturers, teachers, staff and, indeed, pupils and students across Harrow for all their work during the pandemic. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving an early indication of what is going to happen next year, but we know that the teacher assessments may, in some cases, produce unusual and strange results. Will he come back to the House in the autumn to report on the number of appeals, on the number of individuals who have opted to take the examinations and on what the impact of that has been? Then we can all learn from the experience of teachers and lecturers during the pandemic.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will of course be able to publish data on the number of entrants to the autumn series. Undoubtedly, Ofqual will be publishing details of the appeals process. I assure my hon. Friend that the quality assurance process is rigorous. The exam boards have carried out a check of each school and exam centre’s approach to assessment and internal quality assurance. Headteachers have to sign a head of centre declaration form, to confirm that the grades submitted are fair, accurate and in accordance with the processes they have agreed. Schools submit a sample of evidence of how they determined those grades, and the exam boards will review centres whose grades are significantly out of line with previous years. They will challenge schools where the evidence does not support the grade awarded. I hope that quality assurance process will provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
In my recent visits to secondary schools in Twickenham, year 10 and 12 pupils told me how anxious they are because of the lack of clarity on exams in 2022—whether they will even go ahead, how they might be assessed and what they might be assessed on. Teachers told me that, with all the disruption, they want to focus their precious face-to-face teaching time on parts of the syllabus that will definitely be assessed next year. Can the Minister please commit to putting pupils, parents and teachers out of their misery by providing a clear steer on 2022 assessments, and not sometime in the autumn but by the beginning of September?
Nick Gibb
We published the consultation, jointly with Ofqual, on 12 July, and it sets out our proposals for how we will conduct exams in 2022. The Secretary of State has made it very clear that our plan is for exams to go ahead, and we want schools to teach the full curriculum. The purpose of the adaptations is to make the exams as fair as possible for students and to give them confidence in taking those exams, given the disruption they have suffered over the past 16 months.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is likely that this summer will see a huge rise in grade inflation, beyond what we saw last August. This benefits nobody in the long term, particularly those in future exam cohorts from disadvantaged backgrounds in places such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. Can my right hon. Friend explain how grade inflation will not be baked into the system, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), in the 2022 exams and beyond?
Nick Gibb
Parents and pupils can have confidence that the grades awarded this summer will be valid. They are supported by detailed guidance, as I said in answer to a previous question, and there is a robust quality assurance process. We trust teachers’ judgment, as they are best placed to understand the content that their students have covered, their students’ performance and how it compares with other students this year. Grading is a matter for Ofqual, and some decisions will be made about that in the autumn term.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal hard work and fortitude as schools Minister throughout the pandemic. He has done a fantastic job. Will he join me in congratulating all the students and teachers in Kettering on their efforts to keep education going over this very difficult period? When it comes to A-level exam students in 2022, will he bear in mind the important point that normally, when a person takes their A-levels, they have taken GCSE exams two years before? This cohort of A-level students will never have taken exams. Can he confirm that, all things being equal, we will be back to normal in 2023?
Nick Gibb
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments, and I join him in paying tribute to teachers and staff in schools in Kettering—indeed, throughout the country—for what they have achieved during the pandemic and for the way that they have managed to cope with the teacher-assessed grading system this year, which has been very well handled. He raises an important point that, of course, this year’s year 12 have not taken GCSEs. All this was taken into account when we devised the adaptations that we have proposed for 2022, and I can give him the assurance that we will return to normal in 2023.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
As teachers and students across the Aylesbury constituency begin their summer holidays, I thank them all for their incredible efforts this year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in doing so, and will he reassure them that the plans he has announced today will not penalise them for the disruption that they have suffered, but will mark an important step back to an exam regime that is both rigorous and fair?
Nick Gibb
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to teachers and staff in schools in Aylesbury, who I know have worked as hard as teachers throughout the country in making sure that children can catch up as swiftly as possible on lost education. He is right that we want to get our exam system back to normal as swiftly as possible, but I believe that, given the disruption that students have suffered over the past 16 or 17 months, the adaptations that we proposed, together with Ofqual, in the consultation document that we published on 12 July are the fairest approach to exams in 2022, as a stepping stone to full normality in 2023, which I know will please my hon. Friend and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to the questions asked.
Personal Statements
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Speaker has granted leave to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) to make personal statements following the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in its second report of Session 2021-22. I remind the House that there can be no debate arising from such statements.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) [V]
I wish to apologise to the House. Yesterday, the Committee on Standards adjudged that I and four other MPs were wrong to write a joint letter to two senior judges, copied to the judge who was hearing a case, which was followed by further letters to the Lord Chief Justice and the case judge, judged to try to influence the way personal references in court cases were made public. I now know it was improper to do so. I regret that and repeat and emphasise my apology.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much, Mr Holloway. I now, via video link, call the right hon. Bob Stewart. [Interruption.] Hold on, Bob; we cannot hear you. [Interruption.] No, we still cannot hear you. Do you have someone to help you? Can you unmute your microphone? [Interruption.]
We will suspend at this moment, as we would have done before the next business, and then come back, hopefully, to Colonel Bob for his statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Let us see whether a miracle has happened and we can hear Colonel Bob Stewart.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the miracle has happened.
Bob Stewart
I want to apologise to the House. Yesterday, the Committee on Standards adjudged that I and four other MPs were wrong to write a joint letter to two senior judges, copied to the judge who was about to hear a case, followed by further letters to the Lord Chief Justice and the case judge, which it concluded were an attempt to try to influence the way references in court cases were made public. I now know that it was wrong to do so. I regret it and I repeat my apology to the House.
Post-pandemic Economic Growth: Levelling Up
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on the third report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s inquiry into post-pandemic economic growth. The report focuses on levelling up.
In the 2019 Conservative party manifesto, the Prime Minister said:
“We have mapped out a fantastic programme for the years ahead: to unite and level up, spreading opportunity across the whole United Kingdom.”
Since the election, however, the Government have failed miserably at translating the political slogan “levelling up” into a real programme for government. Although the Prime Minister said that he had a map for levelling up, it seems that either he has lost it or he is not willing to share it with us. That is important, because the promise of levelling up was a major part of the Conservative party’s success at the last general election, yet so far we do not have any clear answers on what the Government think levelling up is, how it will be paid for, who is responsible for delivering it or what a successful delivery of the levelling-up agenda will mean for people in their day-to-day lives.
Crucially, the Government have failed to set out how the special focus on levelling up will differ from the normal day-to-day functions of government and whether funding for the levelling-up agenda will equal or exceed the funding to local communities that has been cut following Brexit and the previous period of austerity. In the Committee’s year-long inquiry, we took evidence from many stakeholders, including the Government and a number of their Ministers, to ask many of those simple questions. Unfortunately, answers were not forthcoming.
We therefore concluded that levelling up, in our view, is about a more equal distribution of economic and social opportunities across the United Kingdom. We agreed that that is a laudable aim, and one that has been pursued by many Governments of different colours over many years. We took evidence from local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, city and regional mayors, powerhouses and Ministers, as well as businesses, local chambers of commerce and academics. In considering their evidence, we have made several recommendations to the Government.
First, the Government should urgently publish the promised levelling-up White Paper, which we understand will incorporate the devolution White Paper, so that we can be clear on how they define levelling up, what the priorities are and which tiers of local and regional government will be responsible for delivering it. Secondly, they should work with the Office for National Statistics, the cities and local growth unit in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the National Audit Office to agree a set of metrics for the routine reporting of progress in delivering levelling-up priorities. Thirdly, they should establish the functioning of a Cabinet Committee on levelling-up that collaborates with devolved regional and local leaders. Fourthly—this is important—the Government should recognise that inequality exists across the whole of the United Kingdom, including within cities, so levelling-up priorities should not be focused only on some regions or sub-regions of the country. Lastly, they should ensure that each region in England has the capacity to bid competitively for Government funding, given that some areas in England—for example, those with metro mayors—have a greater capacity to engage with Whitehall than others.
Devolution in England is inconsistent, and some areas perform better than others irrespective of whether they have multiple tiers of local or regional government. If, therefore, the Government are committed to levelling up insofar as it relates to empowering local communities, I encourage Ministers to be bold and progressive in the devolution sections of the levelling-up White Paper expected later this year. Ultimately, the Committee concluded that the lack of clarity in what levelling up means and how it translates into specific policy initiatives and strategies risks its becoming an “everything and nothing” policy, not owned by any particular Minister or Department and without any means of evaluating or assessing its impact or efficacy in improving people’s lives. It seems as if Ministers are trying to hide the fact that they do not have a real levelling-up policy by saying that every other policy from Government, be it about bus stops or football pitches or the obesity strategy, is in fact levelling up. The Prime Minister’s spokesperson in response to my Committee’s report said that more detail would be forthcoming in the levelling-up White Paper later this year. The imperative is therefore on the Government to hear our request, as well as those from others, and step up with the level of detail expected of any competent Government in delivering on their manifesto commitments.
Everyone on the Committee agreed that sharing economic and social opportunities more fairly across the country is a good thing, and we want the Government to succeed in delivering on their promises and improving people’s lives. In the meantime, we will continue to scrutinise the Government and hold Ministers to account, but ultimately, if they do not step up, it will be for the British people to decide whether their promises have been delivered. I thank all the witnesses who gave oral and written evidence to our inquiry, my parliamentary colleagues on the Committee and, as ever, our excellent Clerks. I commend the report to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will now call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and will then call Darren Jones to respond to them in turn.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that, as the Government better define levelling-up, they should not lose sight of the leading role and ideas of the private sector, including those announced yesterday in the Richard Koch breakthrough prize, which can supercharge growth in left-behind Britain, such as “zoom towns”, distributed policy making, reinvigorated provincial stock exchanges and—the overall winning idea—a people’s rebate?
Darren Jones
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is great to see you, as a fellow member of the Committee, in the Chair. Congratulations on your appointment.
I am always grateful for the counsel of my Committee colleague, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). We agree that delivering meaningful economic growth for people across the country requires a growing economy that is free to innovate and to make profits. I support many of his points about ensuring that we have a successful, inspirational, innovative economy that delivers for people and businesses across the country.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement. Clearly, the main focus of this report was on aspects of levelling up as it applies to England, but the agenda is being applied across the whole United Kingdom. Can the Chair of the Select Committee tell us what he thinks of a situation where substantial amounts of public money are being spent within the devolved nations on areas of service that quite clearly fall 100% within the competence of the devolved national Parliaments and Assemblies, but where decisions are being taken with no consultation whatsoever with those devolved Administrations? Is that something that he would find acceptable?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We looked briefly at the role of the devolved Administrations and concluded that pretty much everybody agrees that a more equal distribution of economic and social opportunities for people across the country is something that everybody supports, irrespective of place in the country or political party membership. We did also point to a recommendation where devolved Administration leaders, alongside local and regional leaders, are engaged in a Cabinet-level discussion on the levelling-up agenda in Whitehall, because, together, all of us would wish to achieve these outcomes and we should therefore all be working together to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his statement and his Committee on its report. I note that, in paragraph 66, the Committee recommends that
“the Government establish a Cabinet Committee to oversee the co-ordination and delivery of the levelling up agenda across Whitehall”.
Why did his Committee recommend a Cabinet Committee and not a specific Cabinet Minister responsible for levelling up, as suggested by some of the Committee’s witnesses?
Darren Jones
It is a discussion that we had in some detail on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman will know that the distinction between a Cabinet Committee led by the Prime Minister and a Cabinet member delivering on behalf of the Prime Minister is perhaps important, but we concluded that, given the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to this issue and his personal desire to want to lead it, he therefore ought to chair the Cabinet Committee that he has suggested should be put in place. Importantly, given that levelling up relates to lots of Departments, there needs to be a cross-departmental function, which, ultimately, is why we landed on a Cabinet Committee as opposed to a specific member of the Cabinet leading on levelling up.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Time and again, I have urged Government to fairly fund areas most in need, not create competitions that are often won by Cabinet members representing wealthy areas. We must have a fair levelling-up fund based on need, with power going down to local communities that know best. Does my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, agree that this damning report shows that the Government should be focused on genuine efforts to tackle deep-rooted inequality rather than continuing with these failed competitions and wheeling out hollow soundbites?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. This issue of competition versus collaboration in bidding for funding was a really important part of our inquiry. I referenced in my remarks today how some areas of the country are better equipped and resourced at engaging with Whitehall to receive funding. There is a root problem here in that we do not understand what the Government’s levelling-up priorities are, what funding is then being allocated to solve them, and what data are being used to ensure that funding is distributed in a fair and equitable way—where it is needed, not necessarily, perhaps, where the loudest voices or the political priorities are placed. That is the bedrock of our report, which, I think, would go some way to solving the problems that my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
Has the Committee looked at how, quite often, a range of interlocking opportunities for levelling up require joint working between agencies and businesses, and at how having one single voice, as we are now in the process of establishing in Somerset, can unite all the work that has gone on—whether through the local enterprise partnership, the county plan, the priorities, the local industrial strategy and now the skills agenda that the Government are championing, which I welcome. How much does the hon. Gentleman think that these things need to be integrated when the Government are thinking about how to champion them?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I would make two observations. First, we recognised an inconsistency in the tiers of local and regional government across England. I have mentioned that we spoke to powerhouses, metro Mayors, city mayors, local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, chambers of commerce and others, and evidently that means there is an inconsistency across England.
The other thing we found was that in areas where there is a sense of co-ordination between those different tiers, with a single voice focusing on priorities that matter most to those local communities, they tended to be more successful in being able to bid for funding and to deliver on levelling-up agendas. That is why I say that, in the levelling-up White Paper later this year, the devolution aspects are really important to ensure that there is a consistency and an equality of opportunity for regions across England in order to bid for funding and support as part of the levelling-up agenda.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Congratulations on being in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is quite clear to the Committee that levelling up is really just a political slogan. There are no clear ways of measuring outcomes, and there is no clear avenue or looking ahead on funding streams. Of real concern to me is this phrase, “levelling up across the UK”. The Chair will understand that the Scottish Parliament is there for a reason, which is that Westminster was not delivering for Scotland or the other devolved nations.
At the moment, the way the levelling-up funds are going to be distributed is by the UK Government’s withholding the equivalent in Barnett consequentials to allocate that amount directly to Scottish local authorities, pitting them against each other. Convention shows that it should be the Scottish Government, in conjunction with local authorities, who decide their priorities. Does the Chair agree that, as a Committee recommendation, the UK Government should be working with the Scottish Government transparently on the allocation of funds, and should let the Scottish Government distribute these funds by the conventional method?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member is a hard-working member of the Select Committee, and he will know that we are only able to delve so far into the functioning of devolved Administrations. However, we did conclude in our inquiry that leaders in the devolved Administrations should be around the table with local and regional leaders in discussions with Ministers in Whitehall, so that we do have a joined-up and collaborative approach to delivering on a shared objective to level up the whole of the United Kingdom.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee on this very serious report, which shows undeniably that the Government lack any clarity as to what they mean by levelling up. In fact, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said this week:
“One of the things about ‘levelling up’ is…it’s quite a sort of ambiguous phrase—it means whatever anyone wants it to mean”,
but clearly that should not be the case.
It is at least welcome that there is now political consensus that for too long the UK has been scarred by deep regional inequalities. The single biggest challenge for levelling up is that people have to leave their regions and head south to get good work. This has to change, and it can only happen by making the quantity and quality of jobs in regions our priority. Levelling up must be about investment to combat those inequalities, including between regions, within regions and between socioeconomic groups across the whole of the UK.
Can I ask the Chair, first, what his Committee’s conclusions were in relation to fair funding for levelling up, particularly in the light of how the levelling-up fund’s piecemeal funding does not make up for the failure of austerity over the last decade, with services decimated as £15 billion of cuts have been made to local government? Secondly, on extending democratic power, what is his Committee’s view on how we should reach consensus on which tiers of devolved and local government should have responsibility for achieving those important shared levelling-up outcomes, because quite clearly this can no longer be done from the centre?
Darren Jones
I thank the shadow spokesperson for those points, and for her kind remarks about the work of my Committee. On the funding allocation, of course the issue here is that if there is not a clear strategy about what levelling up is and therefore clear funding allocated to it, it is unclear what funding is being made available above and beyond the day-to-day functioning of government, and indeed in comparison with historical funding cuts through periods of austerity and following our withdrawal from the European Union. Because of that lack of clarity, we have no answer as to how local communities can fairly bid for funding for the levelling-up agenda, above and beyond what already exists through the day-to-day work of government.
On democratic engagement in defining local economic areas, that of course is a very difficult issue. It is one we did not delve into in any great detail in our own inquiry, not least because it goes a little beyond the remit of our Select Committee powers. However, we do recognise that there needs to be more consistency across England in democratic structures so that there is an equality of capacity to bid to Whitehall for funding in advance of—this is my personal view—a more devolved level of decision making and funding across England in the years ahead.
Backbench Business
Government Response to Covid-19: Public Inquiry
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the Fifth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of Session 2019-21, A Public Inquiry into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, HC 541; and calls on the Government to provide an updated response to that set out in the Committee’s Fourth Special Report of Session 2019-21, A Public Inquiry into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic: Government’s response to the Committee’s Fifth Report, HC 995, setting out how the Government intends to implement the Committee’s recommendations, to ensure that the administrative arrangements necessary to set up the public inquiry committed to by the Prime Minister to the House on 11 May 2021, in particular the appointment of an inquiry chair, take place in a timely manner and no later than the end of this year, and to agree: that the Government’s preferred candidate to chair the inquiry should be subject to a pre-appointment hearing by the relevant select committee for the sponsoring Government department.
It is a privilege to move the motion, in the name of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, into the very important subject of the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic and the promised public inquiry.
We, as a Committee, have taken evidence from some very well informed help, if I may put it that way, and we have brought our deliberations forward in the reports under discussion today. We thank our witnesses who gave evidence—Emma Norris from the Institute for Government, Dr Alastair Stark from the University of Queensland, Jason Beer, QC, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Sir Robert Francis, QC, Dame Una O’Brien and Baroness Prashar of Runnymede—and all those who submitted written evidence to the inquiry. I also thank fellow Committee members for their well-informed deliberation on these matters.
We are all used now, I think, to public inquiries as a routine part of the UK political landscape, and it is clear that the issues with which we have been grappling over the past 18 months, and the very difficult measures that the Government have taken to combat the pandemic, are very much the right subject for a public inquiry. However, although we are used to public inquiries, there is very little guidance about how public inquiries should be established, Chairs appointed and terms of reference agreed, so, in the absence of such guidance, our Committee has happily stepped into that void with a view to taking discussions forward.
The Prime Minister has committed in principle to establishing a public inquiry, and in May 2021 he suggested that it should be established in spring 2022. The first message that the Committee would like to give is that that timetable really ought to be brought forward, for the simple reason that it takes a number of months before an inquiry can get under way in terms of establishing its secretariat and so on. I guess one issue that we were keen to grapple with is that the farther away from events an inquiry is established, the less we can learn in a timely fashion. So we would strongly encourage the Government to think about how they can be setting up that inquiry from now. It really should not get in the way of the fight against the pandemic, especially given where we are with regard to vaccination.
Obviously, we need to be very sure about the purpose of the inquiry. As a Committee, we were very keen to ensure that the inquiry should be about learning lessons, not apportioning blame. The facts of the matter are that the Government, and all our public services, were dealing with unprecedented challenges, and there can be no right or wrong answers when the evidence on which you seek to make decisions is changing before your very eyes from day to day. Ultimately, it will come down to a matter of judgment exercised at the time.
I really hope that we can enter the inquiry very much in that spirit, because although I have not agreed with every aspect of the Government’s decision making on this matter, I absolutely recognise that everyone involved in that process was doing so honourably, with the best of intentions. We are not going to be honest about lessons learned unless we can approach the inquiry on that basis. We in this place need to give some very clear messages that we are doing so in the spirit of learning.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I commend the Committee for its thoughtful and thorough report.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady just said about one of the recommendations, and I understand about learning lessons; that is often what Committees do. I would challenge any Member, particularly Members who have been in this House for a long time, to remember the lessons learned and recommendations from the mad cow disease inquiry; my guess is that nobody will.
We already know that there have been heroes and villains over the last 18 months, and I would hope that any inquiry would identify those heroes and villains. Mistakes have been made in some cases because mistakes were bound to be made, but some mistakes have been made wilfully and we need to know who was responsible for them.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly, where there is wilful bad behaviour it should be exposed, but we need to set the tone: this inquiry is about how the Government and society have dealt with a very difficult set of issues. The heroes and villains to whom he refers will find a way of being outed, if I can put it in such a way, without it being the entire focus or ethos of the inquiry.
We obviously need to be very clear about the inquiry’s terms of reference, to inform what the focus will be, and about how the various themes that could be looked at will be examined. The chair will obviously be a very important appointment. This is by tradition the choice of the relevant Minister, but, again, respect for and the authority of the inquiry will be very much set by who the chair is. The Committee was very attracted to the idea of a chairman and panel approach, recognising that some of the issues that will be considered by the inquiry are broad ranging so it would be right for the chairman to have access to appropriate expertise in various areas. The Committee also felt that the appointment should be subject to a pre-commencement hearing with the relevant Select Committee, given the very high level of parliamentary interest in this inquiry. That would be an unprecedented step, but, again, in terms of setting the tone of how the inquiry will be progressed, it could be a very important innovation, and I hope the Government will consider that.
One of the issues that needs to be considered by the inquiry is of course the response by the Department of Health and Social Care in terms of management of risk of transmission and so on, but we need to consider in the round the tools adopted by the Government to deal with that, including the impact on liberties and the impact on our economy. There will be obvious consequences in the longer term for the nation’s wellbeing in the round. We also need to consider the wider behaviour of public services in that regard.
There also needs to be a way of considering the impacts in the devolved nations, including whether this should be a UK-wide inquiry or there should be separate inquiries; quite possibly there should be a combination of both.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Will the Committee also be considering whether the ministerial code has been broken, either by deliberately misleading the House or other actions?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I would clearly expect any inquiry to consider such matters, but there are other ways of bringing complaints forward about breaches of the ministerial code, and any action taken on that is of course a matter for the Prime Minister.
As I have mentioned, in taking forward the public inquiry we must work on the basis that everyone did their best, making decisions based on information known at the time. I would expect an inquiry to consider whether the impacts of policy interventions on individual liberties were proportionate and whether they were effective. We need an examination of the tools employed and whether they were effective in delivering the outcome intended. For example, we had a whole programme of local lockdowns, as you will be well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, but was it a legitimate tool to close down legitimate business activity when the areas of mass infection had high housing density and multigenerational households, and was that the right tool? Again, we need to consider that to ensure that the Government properly assessed the balance between economic harm, liberty and health.
I imagine that any inquiry will find that the development and deployment of vaccines has been an unqualified triumph. In terms of lessons learned, we need to learn from the good things as well as from things that did not go quite as well as they should have. We need a proper examination of how test, track and trace took so long to get off the ground, because that really was not an unqualified success, and we need to consider whether the balance was right between the centre and local government. We also need to consider the issues around the supply of personal protective equipment. Having reacted to the suggestion that there were huge shortages, the fact of the matter is that we now have massive stockpiles and there are considerable costs to the taxpayer of maintaining those stockpiles. Again, we need to properly consider how those decisions came to be made.
I invite the House and the Government to consider the reflections of Bishop James Jones following his distinguished chairmanship of the Hillsborough inquiry. He talked about:
“The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”.
I think that phrase is a very convenient way of expressing how institutions of the state can often operate to protect their own reputations at the expense of the public, whom they are meant to serve. This is a really important principle to consider, given that the inquiry will judge not just lives lost, but the impact on business and jobs, as well as the wider impact on health and the harm that has been caused by the decisions taken over the last year, even though they were perhaps the best decisions that could have been made. It is a behaviour that public institutions can fall into unless we in Parliament give them proper challenge.
Perhaps another of the lessons we need to learn about the last year is that quite often Parliament has not played its full role in scrutinising decisions made by the Government. We have often been asked to give retrospective authority to decisions, and I hope that we all share the view that parliamentary scrutiny actually makes for better decision making.
I will leave hon. Members with a final thought. Our liberties are not in the gift of Government—they are ours. It really is down to consent given by Parliament on behalf of the public to ensure that those liberties, when we do surrender them, as we have in the last year, are not taken for granted by Government. In that regard, considering the behaviour of all our state institutions over this year is a very important job of scrutiny that the new inquiry would have to do to make sure that the shift towards state power that we have witnessed over the last year is not one that becomes permanent.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I want to focus my comments on page 1 of the report—in particular, the fact that the Government accept that there will be an opportunity to look back at some undefined “appropriate time” in the future. I raise the concern that at some “appropriate time” in the future does not deal with the problems that we know exist already today. That underscores the necessity of building public confidence in the decisions that we make in this place by holding an inquiry as quickly as possible. We already know from comments today that public confidence is waning and app usage has dropped off, and other compliance concerns have been raised. At no time is that more important than in the grip of a public emergency such as the pandemic.
The Government have repeatedly called for the House to get behind their plans. However, the message that they give has been mixed and the information that has been requested to enable Members like me to get behind those plans has often not been forthcoming. Observant Members will have noted that my efforts to seek transparency in respect of the surveillance and testing of covid have largely fallen on deaf ears. In July 2020, at nadir regarding the number of cases following the first wave, I first raised my concerns with the chief medical officer. More recently, I raised concerns about the sensitivity of Innova lateral flow devices to the delta variant—on 29 June and again on 6 July in a follow-up email. On each occasion that I raised my concerns with the Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), I was advised that information would be forthcoming, but I have still not received those data.
So concerned was I that I wrote a piece, published in The Scotsman yesterday, that raised the concerns on which I have not been able to get answers from the Government. Last night, The Scotsman took down that article after legal representatives of Innova intervened with quite wrong accusations that I was comparing lateral flow devices to PCR tests. I made no such assertion or comparison. Innova questioned the US Food and Drug Administration’s decision, which I will not go into, given the time I have, but which is pretty well set out in various articles, including in The BMJ.
That there was such action—when I cannot get an answer from the Government, when I have raised my concerns in this House, and when I have written a piece for a reputable newspaper and the contractors the Government are working with seek to shut the conversation down—is an unacceptable position for any democracy to find itself in. I feel I am being prevented from carrying out my role and that the Government are preventing me from properly scrutinising their actions. We need urgent action to change that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I be one of the many to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on being pinged into your position at such short notice?
Let me pick up on the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) about his being unable to do his job. Collectively, Parliament is doing a great deal of scrutiny of the whole covid pandemic.
Neale Hanvey
I agree that scrutiny must be done, but if I cannot get a sensible answer from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, am given glib replies and am not provided with the information that I have rightly requested, that makes scrutiny almost impossible.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I have recently served on the Public Accounts Committee, I am Chairman of the Liaison Committee and I have served as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I see the Science and Technology Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee and other Committees of this House doing a great deal of really drilling-down scrutiny, so it is not as though no scrutiny is taking place.
I suspect that during this debate we will hear a mixture of the Opposition claiming it is an outrage that there is not an instant, fully comprehensive public inquiry lining people up against the wall to be shot and the Government saying there is not possibly any time for any of this. I have some sympathy for the Government’s position. A senior permanent secretary told me that Secretaries of State regularly complain, “Where is my permanent secretary?”, and it turns out they are preparing to go before another Select Committee. So much scrutiny is going on that is already almost impeding the Government in what they have to do.
We have to remind ourselves that a public inquiry is only a means to an end. The overriding aim of any public inquiry—this is a case in point—is that it should be part of a process that will restore justified public confidence in our system of government, which would satisfy the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. We must therefore prioritise: it is going to be an enormous undertaking. A lot of it should be set aside for the future and we should concentrate on what is most urgent.
What lessons need to be learned now to prepare better for the next pandemic, which could be imminent? Why was our response so slow to build? Why, like so many Governments around the world, did we continue to pretend that there was not going to be an impending emergency? That happened not just in this country but everywhere. What planning had been done and why did it prove so ineffective? What new, permanent machinery of government and capability does there need to be to address the failings so that early indications of a pandemic threat lead to timely and effective action? What parliamentary Committee should oversee all this and hold the Government accountable?
The role of Parliament is to stop the Government fudging the terms of reference, to guarantee the independence of the chair and to prevent the Government from kicking all the difficult issues far into the future. Under my chairmanship, we looked at the Chilcot inquiry. So often, inquiries are actually a means of delaying scrutiny and delaying a reckoning on the issues, as opposed to learning the lessons.
I just add that the public would expect wilful wrongdoing to be punished—backward accountability, I call that—but not an inquiry to apportion blame, least of all for party political reasons. What the public want is honest and open truth about what has happened, which will not happen if witnesses are seeking to avoid blame, so I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said about making sure that the inquiry is not about apportioning blame.
The purpose of an inquiry like this is to establish truth so that we can hold those in power accountable for what they will do in future to make sure things are better planned and turn out better. That is what I call forward accountability, and I think that is what Select Committee scrutiny in this House should be about.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for introducing this debate this afternoon. She has very well summarised the report by the Committee, and I completely agree with everything that she says. I just take the opportunity, if I may, to thank the Clerks, the Committee staff and the witnesses who attended the Committee for their help in putting this report together.
The Government are right to commit to a public inquiry, and the report that the Committee produced is wide-ranging. I will limit my remarks to the scope of the inquiry, the power of the inquiry and the establishment of a secretariat. Coronavirus has been very broad; it has affected every aspect of our lives, so careful thought needs to be given to what an inquiry should cover. The Committee’s report has recommended, as my hon. Friend identified, a focus on learning lessons as the primary purpose, rather than apportioning blame. I was struck by Lord Butler’s evidence to the Committee. He referred back to the Scott inquiry and said that the terms of reference had been extended so far that it took three years to complete the report, which was far longer than necessary to determine the original question.
As a Committee, we also considered what powers the inquiry should have. The report recommends that it should be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Committee heard arguments for and against a statutory inquiry. Sir Robert Francis, who chaired the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, said he valued the non-statutory basis of the inquiry, because it allowed him to speak to people privately. We heard also from Dame Una O’Brien, who is the former permanent secretary at the Department of Health and was secretary to the Bristol inquiry. She said that the full statutory powers will ensure that all material is handed over, especially WhatsApp messages and texts outside the departmental system. As recent events have shown, that will certainly need to be the case with any coronavirus inquiry. It makes the case for a statutory inquiry very strong.
I was surprised to hear that there is no standing secretariat for public inquiries. They are established from scratch. Sir Robert Francis told us how it had taken six to nine months from his appointment to the start of the inquiry to get going. He started with a blank piece of paper, and there was even a four-month process to go through tendering to appoint a firm of solicitors to the inquiry. There is a strong argument for putting together an inquiry sooner rather than later, to allow that important preparatory work to be undertaken.
I have seen the Government’s response to the report. I see that in many respects the Government notes the recommendations. I have seen, however, that sadly they have not accepted recommendation 5, on the timing of setting up the inquiry. While that is unfortunate, I look forward to seeing the Government’s plans for the inquiry develop so that in time the Government, the national health service and society as a whole can learn the lessons from this terrible period.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The covid-19 outbreak has been one of the most significant and consequential periods of our lifetimes. It has led to a tragic loss of life in this country and around the world. We salute the fortitude and courage of the British people and the bravery of our NHS and key workers, which means that we have now passed the peak of deaths and hospitalisations.
I am very pleased that this inquiry will have full powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 and will have the ability to compel the production of relevant material and to take oral evidence in public under oath. I support this approach, rather than having a non-statutory inquiry, as it allows statutory safeguards to be put in place and ensures that it is carried out to the highest standard.
I must emphasise, however, that the pandemic is not over. The threat of new, more transmissible covid variants remains, as is only too clear to us all, and the Prime Minister has warned of a likely surge in cases this winter. That is why the right time for an inquiry is spring next year. I understand calls for an inquiry to be held sooner, but this timetable will avoid inadvertently distracting those whom we continue to need this year in the fight against the virus. Furthermore, lessons are being learned all the time by the Government and health authorities during the pandemic, and measures are being implemented accordingly. So we are dealing with an organic, rather than static, response to the crisis.
I fully support the approach of the Committee’s report, which makes it clear that resorting to blaming individuals is not conducive and we should be looking to learn lessons to guide our response to future pandemics and to the ongoing covid-19 pandemic. As other speakers have said this afternoon, this inquiry should be forward looking in its approach. It is, of course, vital to ensure the impartiality of the chair and that the inquiry will have the widest possible consultation and engagement. Having the highest levels of confidentiality is also of particular importance, particularly when we are looking at the personal experiences of people who have suffered as a result of covid-19.
As a Welsh MP, I am particularly interested in how the inquiry interacts with the devolved Administrations, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). We need to ensure that the inquiry can take into account the full scope of the UK response to the pandemic, in my constituency, in the rest of Wales and in the rest of the UK. The report recommends that each of the devolved nations must
“establish its own inquiry. This is because most aspects of the response to the pandemic are devolved matters but doing such also ensures proper attention is granted to each of the nations’ response”.
The problem is that so far the Welsh Government have refused to hold their own inquiry. If the UK Government are prepared to incorporate a thorough assessment of the handling of the pandemic by the Welsh Government and by the other devolved Administrations in their inquiry, as part of a truly UK-wide approach, that would have my support, not least because it would be a welcome recognition of the vital importance of the Union of the UK in fighting covid, particularly in the development and roll-out of the very successful vaccination programme. But this approach must not inadvertently result in the Welsh Government and the other devolved Administrations being less rigorously assessed in the inquiry. With power comes responsibility for all Governments to account fully for their actions in an open and transparent way.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I would like to start by reading out a testament from Jane Roche from Castle Vale in my constituency. She lost her father and sister to coronavirus last year. She says:
“Losing my amazing Dad, Vincent Pettitt, and my amazing Sister Jocelyn Pettitt just 5 days apart has been the hardest thing to deal with in my life so far, and I am still grieving and will always grieve for them as they didn’t die in a natural dignified way with their family around them, telling them how much we loved them. We were such a close family.
My Dad was such a lovely man, no fool and strong in every way, I always felt loved and protected by him, he was so funny and had a very dry sense of humour, always making people laugh, his will to live was amazing, he fought other illnesses but always fought on.
My Sister was beautiful inside and out, very kind and loving, a wonderful Mother and Grandmother and her 3rd Grandchild was due to be born a month after she died so she never got to meet him and she was really looking forward to it. I feel robbed of Dad and my Sister as they were snatched away by Covid-19.”
She goes on:
“Only someone who has lost their loved one to Covid would understand how I feel, and unfortunately there are thousands of us. I feel heartbroken and I always will, I feel anxious most days and cry most days, and I miss them so very much…I need the Public Inquiry to happen this year, dragging it out until next year only makes me angry and the grief is made worse by thinking that nobody cares about all the people that have died from Covid…This has changed my life forever, I always feel like something bad is going to happen as I would never have expected this double tragedy last April. I will never get over this.”
The voice of the relatives; the voice of loss; the voice of pain—a voice that should be listened to.
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate from across the House of Commons and those who participated in the work of the Committee, leading to the recommendations before us. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who chairs the Committee; the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who gave a comprehensive report today; and Members, including the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who have made contributions on the importance of learning lessons now if we are to avoid mistakes in the future.
The Committee’s report calls for a public inquiry into the Government’s response to covid-19 to begin immediately. We owe it to the families that this happens. The covid-19 public inquiry should be a landmark event in our nation’s history.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I thoroughly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, which underline the importance of giving settlement to the aggrieved and bereaved. That is an important role for a public inquiry. Does he also agree that the vast task that the public inquiry will represent means that it needs to be segmented, and that there are urgent bits that need to be done now and other bits that could be done later? Will he join me, and perhaps work with some Select Committees, to come up with some terms of reference for which parts of the inquiry should start now and would not disrupt what the Government need to carry on doing at this very pressured time, but would enable us to start the learning process on the urgent matters?
Jack Dromey
The hon. Member makes a good point that a sensible debate can and should take place on how the inquiry can commence immediately and then be conducted in stages. Surely the first priority is learning lessons from what has gone wrong in order to avoid that in the future and to avoid us seeing yet more people die needlessly. That approach is sensible. Exactly how the public inquiry is conducted should form part of the debate.
Over the past year, the country has experienced tragedy and human suffering on a scale not seen since the second world war. No one could have imagined that 130,000 lives would be lost to this terrible virus, which has turned whole lives upside down as family and friends mourn the loss of loved ones. That is why this debate matters and why a public inquiry is so important. All Members across the House will have heard heartbreaking stories from their constituents over the past 18 months, like from Jane, who quite simply says, “I want to know why my dad and sister died. What were the mistakes that were made?”. She always asks, “How can we ensure that no one else in future suffers the loss that I have suffered?”. It is therefore vital that the covid-19 public inquiry has the confidence of the bereaved families, such as Jane.
The Committee’s report is a vital contribution to ensuring that the Government get the process right. In the time since the report was published, the Government have announced that a public inquiry will take place. However, that should not be a reason to be relaxed, because I am afraid that the Government’s approach to the inquiry thus far falls far short of what the Committee recommends should be expected. As a consequence, the Government risk the trust and confidence of the bereaved families if they do not place them at the heart of the process going forward, about which I will say more later.
I wish to focus on three key areas highlighted by the report in which, frankly, the Government’s approach is lacking: first, the timetable for the inquiry to begin; secondly, the selection of the chair and the terms of reference; and thirdly, the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations. On the first point, the Government have set a timetable for the inquiry to commence in the spring of next year. That is simply too far away. Everyone understands the challenges that the country had to face during the first wave, but the Government’s failure to learn the lessons of the first wave has already left us with an even more tragic second wave during last winter, with too many lost lives and our stretched economy under even more strain. Then, this spring, we have had the debacle of the borders policy, with the delta variant sweeping through the country and a third wave developing and cases now rocketing.
It is therefore critical that we learn the lessons that need to be learned now. The Government cannot kick the can down the road to next spring. I stress again that we need to go forward to the next stages. We know that the Government have conducted internal lessons learned reviews. What are these reviews? Why will they not publish them? What is there to hide? The Committee recommends that such in-house assessments by Government Departments should be handed to the relevant Select Committees and the summaries also made public, and that has got to be right. Surely, on a matter so important to the future preparedness of the nation to rise to the challenge of coronavirus, the Government should publish these reviews now.
I now turn to the selection of the chair and the terms of reference of the inquiry. Paragraph 24 of the Committee’s report is clear that the setting up of the inquiry’s secretariat and administrative functions must begin “immediately” as
“delaying the set-up will inevitably delay the inquiry’s ability to start work in earnest”.
The Committee is absolutely right. I completely agree, and we have been clear, that the work must commence now and that it must be transparent and in consultation with the bereaved families. Just how long do the Government expect the families to wait for this process to begin? Other family members have said to me, “Jack, justice delayed is justice denied. We, the bereaved families, deserve better than this.”
I understand why the Government do not wish to redirect officials and frontline staff on a wholesale basis from the work of combating the pandemic, but surely the consultation with the bereaved families and other stakeholders on the selection of the inquiry chair, its secretariat and terms of reference can and should begin now. The Committee highlights that consultation with the bereaved families could make a “significant contribution” to the inquiry. I absolutely agree. The House will therefore want to hear from the Minister how much progress has been made on consulting the bereaved families on these matters.
Yesterday, dozens of members of the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign came to London. It was heartbreaking to walk down row upon row of photographs of loved ones who had died. They wanted to bring home the impact on them, the relatives and the bereaved, but they also wanted to know, in telling their often heartbreaking stories, why no one was talking to them. One mother whose grandmother had died said, “Why is it that they are not talking to us?” She wanted to know why the Government had not contacted relatives’ organisations, particularly the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign, to start to engage in a dialogue going forward at the next stages. It is inexplicable and absolutely unacceptable.
I share the concern of the relatives over the foot-dragging by Ministers who have avoided repeated requests to meet the bereaved families and hear their concerns. I can give an example that I have been engaged in personally. Before resigning, the former Health Secretary was good enough to agree at the Dispatch Box last December to meet families from Birmingham, yet not once did he or his office contact them or me to make the arrangements, despite numerous phone calls and emails from us. Not once. He had lifted the expectations of dozens of relatives that they would at last be involved in dialogue and consultation, but the door was shut in their face. I hope the Minister can now give a clear assurance that the bereaved families will be consulted on the chair and the terms of reference.
Finally, there is the question of implementing the inquiry’s recommendations. The hon. Member for Thurrock, in a powerful contribution, mentioned Bishop Jones, the Hillsborough inquiry and the mistakes that were made before fully exposing the truth of what happened. That point was well made. We cannot let this be a public inquiry whose recommendations are quietly shelved or swept under the carpet. The national trauma that the country has endured over the past year demands more. Despite the crisis last year, this country has achieved great things, but a decade of austerity weakened the foundations of our country and undermined our national defences against the pandemic.
We cannot simply go back to business as usual when the pandemic subsides. Lessons must be learned. The Government should therefore make a clear commitment both to set up the inquiry and to engage with it. It is only by beginning the inquiry that we can learn those serious lessons to avoid future tragedies. Without that, we cannot build a better future for our country, built on the strength and resilience we tapped into to get through the hardest of times. Only then can we be ready for whatever challenges come next.
In closing, I refer once again to those who should be at the heart of the covid-19 public inquiry: those who died and their families. On both sides of the House, right hon. and hon. Members have been meeting bereaved families over the past year. Those meetings have been some of the most difficult and emotional I have ever been involved in. The families simply want to know why their loved ones died, when many of them should not have. They want the right lessons to be learned so that no one else has to suffer the loss they have suffered. That is a noble aim, and it is one that the Government must rise to in setting up the public inquiry. We owe nothing less to the bereaved families.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations.
I have answered many debates on the pandemic from this Dispatch Box, and it has always been right to start by thinking of all those who have lost so much and who have been through such pain and distress in this cruel pandemic, which has even denied people the ability to grieve properly. Inquiries have many purposes, as the chairman of the Hillsborough inquiry ably stated. They are a stepping-stone to closure for families, although the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) is right to say that they bring no comfort for their loss.
It is incredibly important that we place those individuals and others, such as NHS and care staff who have given so much during this crisis, at the heart of the inquiry. Having had the privilege of being the sponsoring Minister for the infected blood inquiry since February 2020, I know how it can be done well. I have just announced the compensation study, which will involve a consultation on the terms of reference for that study with those affected by infected blood. That is how we do things, and I would give people comfort by saying, “Look at how we do these very sensitive inquiries. Look at how we can do them really well.” We want to do the covid-19 inquiry really well, and we will place those affected at its heart.
I want to answer the many points that have been raised by hon. Members and put on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made contributions, and I thank the Chair, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and the Committee for their work. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for opening the debate.
Clearly, the Government agree with the Committee that there needs to be a statutory inquiry, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that in a statement to the House on 12 May. The public inquiry will be established on a statutory basis with full powers under the Inquiries Act 2005.
Several Members have raised the timing of the inquiry, and I agree with many of the comments that have been made. We want to do this as swiftly as possible, but not to the detriment of the pandemic response. Several Members have recognised that this would place a significant burden on the whole of Government, our scientific advisers, our NHS and many others.
Although we want to start the inquiry in the spring—on the timetable, given what I have said about the work that needs to be done to set the inquiry up, I hope that I will be able to give hon. Members some comfort that that will start very shortly—of course we do not want to wait for that before commencing other work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), the Chair of the Liaison Committee, has suggested, we need to learn lessons now to enable us to continually improve our response, not just to this crisis but to other threats that may be out there. And we have continually learned—not just in Government, but ably supported by the excellent work of this House and its Committees, as well as the National Audit Office and many others.
We are already taking important steps to improve our resilience, which is why last week we launched the call for evidence to inform the development of a new resilience strategy. That call for evidence starts a proper national debate about what effective resilience should mean for us all, and will allow us to move towards a whole of society approach to resilience and build resilience into our everyday lives.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am fully aware that the Government are learning lessons as quickly as possible, but they are underpowering their ability to strengthen public confidence. This just looks too much like the ordinary activity of Government. For example, if the call for evidence was going to be independently assessed—not by a statutory inquiry but at least by an independent chair, supported by a panel of independent people—and a report more independent than just a Government White Paper was going to be compiled, and if the panel was going to be able to take evidence from victims and others who have participated in the crisis, not necessarily Ministers and Government scientists, would that not strengthen public confidence that there was an element of independence injected into the process and that things were being done that they were not aware of?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. Leaving the inquiry to one side for the moment, the call for evidence and, indeed, all the work that we have done improving not just our risk register but our risk assessment tools, because we recognise that we need to reform the methodology that sits behind it, are with external partners. For example, on the risk assessment, we are using various external stakeholders—with engineering skills, for example—to kick the tyres on our methodology, and it will be much more open and consultative than any previous process.
I will move on to how the inquiry could be established. Many Members have commented on having a panel. Clearly, some inquiries have taken that model. That is a very good point, and it is one that I know my colleagues are listening to. We have not rested on those findings; we have established many things to improve our response. I will go into this in slightly more detail, as many Members have raised these points. We have established a joint organisational learning system, jointly managed by the emergency services interoperability principles team and the civil contingencies secretariat. We established the UK Health Security Agency in April this year. We have a new situations centre. We have the Boardman reports, the first of which set out 28 recommendations that the Department is committed to implementing in full. The second report, which is a wider review, has identified a further 28 recommendations for improvements to procurement in Government. We are also steadfast in our commitment to intensify international co-operation. We want to reflect on the central role that the World Health Organisation has played over the course of the pandemic in achieving resilient healthcare systems.
We are seeking to implement improvements to systems and processes so that we are better prepared for any future crisis, whether it is a health issue or any other. Those improvements need to be embedded into the development of new capabilities such as the situations centre or the launch of the catastrophic emergency planning programme. With regard to those on the frontline, particularly local resilience forums, a huge amount of learning has gone on. We are currently funding a pilot to build capacity in local resilience forums. They are on the frontline. They should be in the driving seat for local decisions, and we want to build their capacity in that respect.
I very much welcome the Committee’s conclusions, and also the views of other Members of the House who have said that the inquiry should be forward-looking and primarily focused on improving our policy. I know that many are in agreement on that.
With regard to the chair of the inquiry, the Committee recommended, as we have heard, that the Government give proper consideration to a non-judicial chair. There are many ways that that could be set up. There could be a panel to sit alongside the chair. What is critical is that there is a genuine breadth of experience. While not wanting to slow the inquiry down, we really do need it to be led and supported by people who have that expertise.
The Government are extremely grateful to the Committee and this House for their thoughtful considerations on these issues. I hope that some of what I have said may provide reassurance to all those who have been affected by these terrible events. Retaining their confidence, and the confidence of all who have been involved in this crisis, is vital if we are going to get a good result in this inquiry. I want to assure Members that we will also be working with the devolved Administrations in this regard.
Jack Dromey
I welcome the Minister’s comments about the importance of engagement with the families. Will she agree to meet the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be happy to meet anyone who has been affected. I am not the sponsoring Minister for this inquiry. However, I have always found in my engagements with victims in inquiries where I am the sponsoring Minister that they are incredibly helpful in making sure that we are doing the right thing. I may not be the Minister whom it would be most beneficial for that campaign to meet, but the hon. Gentleman certainly has my assurances and my commitment to ensure that the inquiry is the best it can be.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Will my right hon. Friend place on the record who is the sponsoring Minister?
Penny Mordaunt
At the moment the Prime Minister is the sponsoring Minister. Clearly, he will want to delegate some functions to other Ministers. I tend to do a lot of this work in the Cabinet Office, and I stand ready to play my part, but the Prime Minister himself is taking the lead. I think that is very understandable given the nature of this inquiry. In closing, I wish all colleagues well for the recess.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. There is a great degree of consensus: we all want this inquiry to be very much focused on learning lessons. I guess the real issue of contention is timing, more than anything else. That reflects the tension between doing the job properly and thoroughly, and potentially making timely reflections so that we can act quickly. I want to associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). We need to focus on the outcome of the inquiry to get it right, and that outcome must be confidence—confidence from the public that we have learned those lessons and confidence across the system that we have taken steps to ensure that we deal with such issues more effectively in future. In that regard, I welcome the tone with which my right hon. Friend the Minister addressed the issues we considered today. I hope that that reflects how the Government take this issue forward.
It will take time for the inquiry to get up and running, so the sooner we can get on with making the appointments and setting the approach the better. It will be some considerable time before the inquiry starts to impact on those parts of the Government that are dealing with the pandemic now. I hope that we will be able to reflect on that again in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the Fifth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of Session 2019-21, A Public Inquiry into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, HC 541; and calls on the Government to provide an updated response to that set out in the Committee’s Fourth Special Report of Session 2019-21, A Public Inquiry into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic: Government’s response to the Committee’s Fifth Report, HC 995, setting out how the Government intends to implement the Committee’s recommendations, to ensure that the administrative arrangements necessary to set up the public inquiry committed to by the Prime Minister to the House on 11 May 2021, in particular the appointment of an inquiry chair, take place in a timely manner and no later than the end of this year, and to agree: that the Government’s preferred candidate to chair the inquiry should be subject to a pre-appointment hearing by the relevant select committee for the sponsoring Government department.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I shall now suspend the House to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Point of Order
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the recent dramatic developments in the rugby league world cup, with Australia and New Zealand pulling out of the competition, will the Minister come to this Chamber to make a statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member, who raises an interesting point and gave me prior notice of it. I have not been given notice that the Government will make a statement, but there is time yet. I have to say that I never thought I would see the day when rugby union players looked tougher than rugby league players. Rugby union is sending players here, yet Australia and New Zealand seem to have bottled it. Perhaps they are afraid of the competition. However, I thank the hon. Member for her point of order, which is now on the record for all to see, including those in New Zealand and Australia.
Summer Adjournment
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I should advise the House that there will be a three-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches after the opening speech. I call Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and add my congratulations to you. At this juncture, I would normally be sitting at home or in the Chamber watching and hoping that someone would thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating the debate, but for me to do that seems hardly appropriate.
Dunston coal staiths in my Gateshead constituency are, at over 600 metres long, a huge timber construction dating from 1893. They were significantly renovated for the Gateshead garden festival in 1990, when they were on show for all to see and really looked splendid. Sadly, in recent years, this significant monument to Tyneside and the coal industry’s industrial heritage has been subjected to several arson attacks. From the structure, as much as 140,000 tonnes of coal per week were shipped to places further afield, along with coke from the coking works at Norwood in Team Valley and the Redheugh gas works nearby. So, when someone says, “That would be like taking coals to Newcastle,” they probably mean Gateshead.
The Dunston staiths, at almost 130 years old, are a spectacular part of our industrial heritage and need to be rebuilt and refurbished, but heroic local fundraising efforts are hardly scratching the surface to repair the damage. The staiths should be rebuilt and maintained properly, but it will take Government support to do that properly. I really look forward to the day when I can meet the Minister from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to discuss how we will do that for this important industrial structure.
Earlier this week, my attention was drawn to a letter to the Chancellor, written with extreme concern, about the proposal to withdraw the £20 per week uplift to universal credit. That will impact disastrously on 34% of all working-age households across the north-east of England, where households already languish well below the national averages for individual and household income. The letter was signed by, among others, nine chief executive officers of citizens advice bureaux in the north-east region, the director of the North East Child Poverty Commission, the Bishop of Durham, the regional secretary of the TUC and the chief executive of the North East England chamber of commerce. Their appeal should be heeded, or the slogan of levelling up will start to ring very hollow indeed among the poorer people of the north-east of England.
It was hoped that last year’s stalled takeover of Newcastle United would rescue the club from the clutches of the current owner, Mike Ashley. The issue has been referred to arbitration. Many of my Newcastle-supporting constituents have contacted me and colleagues, desperate for a positive outcome. Sadly, with the proposed takeover having already gone on for 15 or 16 months, we heard earlier this week that the arbitration hearing has been adjourned until early 2022. Meanwhile, it seems that Richard Masters, the chief executive officer of the Premier League, has point blank refused to answer questions, severely calling into question the Premier League’s transparency, integrity and capacity to act honestly on behalf of its main customers, the fans of clubs across the country.
The fact that the Premier League’s administrators took in the disgraceful “project big picture” and the proposal supported by six clubs to help form a European super league raises questions about who the administrators are working for in reality. Again, it is clearly not football fans—the paying customers. The fan-led review of football governance is under way, and it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so let us not spurn it.
I am afraid to say that, particularly here in the north-east of England, the pandemic has not gone away. In my constituency’s hospital, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, we currently have more than 50 covid-positive patients and, sadly, in the seven days to 15 July, four died. Between 600 and 1,000 people per 100,000 population are testing positive in every part of the LA7 area—Northumberland, Durham, and Tyne and Wear—so I urge my constituents and the people of the north-east to do not what they can or are told to do, but what they should do and help keep themselves, their families and their communities safe.
I urge all Members and all staff across the House to stay safe and have a good summer—they all deserve it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). Before we rise for the summer recess, I think it important to cover a number of issues.
As those who follow these debates know, no speech from me is complete without mention of Stanmore station. I am pleased to say that the Mayor of London’s planning application is coming before Harrow Council’s planning committee on Monday. He wants to build thousands of flats on the car park and remove car parking spaces for commuters. I am pleased to say that the officers of Harrow Council have recommended refusal; I trust that the councillors of Harrow will turn down this ridiculous application, and indeed call on the Mayor of London to withdraw all these plans for removing car parks across London. A similar application was refused for Canons Park station and could now go to appeal, having been turned down by the planning committee earlier on.
I wish to raise some international and local issues in Parliament. The first, of course, is the election in Iran of the mass murderer Ebrahim Raisi as President. He needs to be brought to justice at the International Criminal Court. I call on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to make representations to make that happen.
Secondly, I have been told today that the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), has reached 297 members. This is the longest-running scandal that the Government are having to deal with. I call on them to come up with the £2.6 billion that has been promised to the Equitable Life policyholders to fully compensate them.
I have been a champion for the homeless over my time in Parliament, and I am delighted that this week our all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness has published a report on the need to continue with Housing First and assist those who have no roof over their head but who need a network of support and help.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, which has launched a report that says that unless the Government take action, we will not achieve a smoke-free 2030. I call on the Government to implement our report’s recommendations.
In the autumn, when we consider the Building Safety Bill, I look forward to appropriate amendments to enable the Bill to be passed and protect leaseholders.
I hope that this will be the last time that I have to address the House virtually; I look forward to coming back physically in September. I send particular good wishes to all the people on the virtual team who have done such a magnificent job to enable me to participate in debates. This is Captain Bob, signing off to ground control.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Throughout this pandemic, we have seen the Government award almost £1.5 billion to Tory friends and donors; send covid patients into care homes, leading to thousands of deaths; fail to equip our heroic health service with adequate PPE, then deny health workers a fair pay rise; row back on manifesto promises to pensioners, our armed forces and foreign aid; deny refuge to children fleeing conflict and persecution; repeatedly ignore the crisis in adult and children’s social care; exclude 3 million people from financial support; be shamed into feeding hungry children; silence any dissent and clamp down on freedom of speech, proposing to jail journalists who print the truth; and disfranchise millions from voting in future. Recently, we heard the Prime Minister tell us all that we need to simply accept that more people are going to die. If anyone is not deeply frightened or concerned about the trajectory in which the Government are taking our country, they have not been paying attention.
In spite of the Government, we have seen communities like mine in South Shields do the exact opposite. In the pandemic, we have fundraised and delivered food and essentials to our friends, neighbours and wider community. Stuart Hatton provided online ballroom dancing lessons, Stevey Sullivan held “Storytime with Stevey” and Shah Lalon Amin delivered free curries every single night. South Shields Volunteer Life Brigade, Women’s Health in South Tyneside and North East Animal Rights kept on with the volunteering. South Tyneside council staff, my amazing team and other keyworkers went above and beyond every single day. Our Port of Tyne secured us as the base for the biggest offshore wind farm in the world. Richmond and Westoe Taxis offered free taxi transport to elderly and vulnerable people to help them shop for essential supplies. Our pharmacists filled the gap left when GP surgeries were shut and they made sure that essential medication was delivered across the constituency.
Communities across the country, including mine in South Shields, have shown the absolute best of our country. My constituents make me proud every single minute of every day, but I have never felt more proud of them than I have done throughout this pandemic. I have a simple message to the Government: do better, be more like South Shields.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I wish to raise a number of points.
There should be no disparity in care costs between private self-payers and council-placed residents. No one should have to give up their family home to pay for care. Political parties should agree on a way forward.
Too often, new housing developments do not allow for the immediate accompanying infrastructure to be built alongside them, making housing more accessible for people with disabilities. I am pleased that the Government are at last reviewing building regulations. Significant costs are created by switching from a gas to an electric boiler. The cost of environmentally friendly alternatives needs to be assessed if we are to meet our target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. We should look into using tidal power.
My constituents are worried about their safety because of jet skis in the water. Those jet skis must be used and managed responsibly. We urgently need to reduce the production of single-use plastic to cut the amount of waste we export abroad that eventually ends up in landfill. I am looking forward to propose amendments to the Environment Bill, which will see the Government publish a plan by September 2022 to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows.
As part of the celebrations for the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen, Southend will be bursting into leaf. Many trees will be donated by the embassy of the Maldives and by local businesswoman, Mrs Barbara Coxell, and will grace our parks, schools and churches. The United Kingdom will be the first country in Europe to ban the live export of animals for slaughter, and I look forward to seeing a ban on cages as well.
I have been contacted by a constituent expressing concern about how his case was dealt with by the pension ombudsman. It seems that, currently, there is not an effective system in place to make a complaint about the conduct of this body. We should change all that.
One of my constituents, Angela Greenwood, has written a book that explores the development of a thoughtful, understanding and relationship-based approach to working with vulnerable children. The contents of this book could not be more relevant now in the light of the coronavirus pandemic.
Last month, I helped to launch the public appeal for a permanent memorial to the great, late Vera Lynn in Dover. A memorial is the very least that we can do for this wonderful woman. I urge everyone to turn to the JustGiving page and give whatever they can afford.
As chairman of the all-party group for the Olympic and Paralympic games, I join everyone in wishing our athletes every success. Congratulations to my constituent, Kelly Swain, on completing a wing walk last month. She raised more than £20,000 for the charity, N.O.W’s the time for change, and she is now planning for a parachute jump next year. We must not forget the centenary of the Royal British Legion in September, and, of course, we must make Southend a city.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
In May, East Midlands Railway promised passengers in Nottingham and many other east midlands constituencies that the new timetable represented
“an exciting new chapter for train services in the region and will bring significant benefits to the communities we serve… helping people get to work and enjoy their leisure time”.
and provides a timely and welcome boost to our local economies. Hmm. After just four weeks of services beset by cancellations and delays, the train operator, with the blessing Transport Ministers, withdrew the new timetable, leaving us with fewer trains and worse services, just as people were starting to return to public transport. These services may not be restored until December. East Midlands Railway will rightly be penalised for failing to deliver the promised timetable from mid-May to mid-June, but seems to be set to get away with leaving my constituents with an inadequate timetable for the next six months. Why are Ministers not standing up for passengers’ interests—particularly when this Government put up fares by more than the rate of inflation in the middle of an economic downturn?
The operator will blame others for the reduced timetable, but I am afraid those problems are largely of its own making. I have been astonished to hear from railway staff across the region who have been completely demoralised, not least because they are the ones who, having worked on the front line throughout the pandemic, now face angry passengers complaining about the timetable. Why are Ministers not holding East Midlands Railway to account? What is the point of allowing the private sector to run our rail services when they do such a poor job?
The east midlands has suffered decades of underinvestment in our rail network. Successive Conservative Governments have promised big but delivered little. Midland main line electrification was promised in 2015, 2017 and 2019, only to be paused, delayed and scrapped when the election campaigns were over. The transport decarbonisation plan promises a rolling programme of electrification. The midland main line must be top of the list. But when will we actually get the cleaner, greener, quieter, faster, more reliable electric trains that we need?
Finally, can the Minister confirm or deny rumours that the HS2 eastern leg, including the East Midlands station at Toton, is about to be kicked into the long grass? That is the litmus test of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, and in the east midlands we will not stand for being failed again.
I take the opportunity to wish everyone a very happy summer recess—and if you get the chance to visit the newly refurbished Nottingham castle, I urge you to do so.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
As I have had the chance to digest it overnight, I can say that there was much to welcome in the Government’s Building Safety Bill, unveiled yesterday. I would like to thank my constituents in Portishead for taking part in the consultation; it seems that their voices were listened to. I particularly welcome the fact that there will be no EWS1 form for buildings under 18 metres, and that there will be increased duties on developers, construction companies, building owners and managers. Those who create the problems should pay to sort them out. I welcome the increased right of redress for shoddy workmanship extending to 15 years, and the increased right of building owners and leaseholders to seek redress through the Building Safety Regulator. I also welcome the potential for binding arbitration, to avoid disputes going to court. We will look for further detail during the Bill’s passage, but redress must not be determined by those who can afford to go to lawyers.
The issue remains, however, about the bills that are still dropping through my constituents’ letterboxes today. Even if the abuse of systems such as waking watch is redressed, we need to look at how to compensate leaseholders through the money already allocated by the Government. We in North Somerset will also be paying close attention to the forthcoming planning Bill. I will be looking to see that there is continued, if not increased, protection for the green belt. Green belt serves five purposes, according to the planning guidelines, including to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another, and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. In North Somerset, the application to build on the green belt at Chapel Pill Lane will be seen by residents over our whole county as an indication of the council’s approach, and I will not hesitate to ask the Secretary of State to call that application in if it seems that our rainbow coalition council is intent on vandalising the green belt, in clear breach of their election promises. We will also be looking, in the planning Bill, to see whether there are proposals on build-out. Many Members across the House feel that it is a scandal that big companies are building up land banks, then not building the houses for which they have permission, leading the Planning Inspectorate to instruct councils to release more land for building. This Catch-22 has to end. With all due respect to the Government, I would suggest that no build-out clause equals no Bill.
Finally, in wishing everyone a happy and safe recess, may I say how much I am looking forward to coming back to a normal Parliament in the autumn? Despite all the best efforts of those involved, this Parliament has not held the Government to account in the way that it should; the Government need to be held to account. It will be wonderful when we get back to having a length of time in which to develop arguments greater than the attention span of the average “CBeebies” viewer.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) [V]
Like everybody else, in the limited time available to me I want to address a number of local and other issues that affect my constituents.
The first, the cladding issue, was touched on by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). I have been contacted by more than 150 constituents, which probably means nearer 300 people since many of them are families, who have been affected by the cladding scandal. A number of blocks in my constituency are entirely excluded from the Government’s building safety fund owing to their height, and, like many others across the country, individuals face bills of £15,000 to £20,000 to correct safety defects.
Even with the Government’s loan scheme, those bills will be charged against the property and therefore make it very difficult to sell when the owners choose or have to do so. I know of buildings put up over the last few years in my constituency whose materials were not compliant with the current or previous legislation, but evidence is very scant because the buildings inspectorate was being cut or in some cases being privatised. I would also like to ask that registered social landlords as well as leaseholders receive help from the Government in pursuing those builders, because at present they are struggling to do so.
The second issue I want to raise is sick pay. A quarter of workers receiving statutory sick pay—and there are a lot on SSP at the moment—are on the lowest rate of £96 a week. In my constituency in east London that is very low as housing and other costs are very high. One in 12 workers on the scheme are key workers, including carers, retail workers and teaching assistants, just the sort of people I represent. For instance, in Waltham Forest, one of the boroughs I represent, there are 4,200 people working in the care sector; in Redbridge that figure is nearly 8,000. These are just the sort of people who are subject to covid or to injuries, and so are just the sort of people who will end up on SSP. That is why I am supporting the TUC campaign and the campaign by unions to abolish the lower limit and put people who are on the current low limit of SSP on the living wage of £320 a week.
The last issue I want to raise is overflying, an environmental issue. London City airport has plans to expand which I fear will now be taken up so we will face increased overflying and therefore increased pollution—noise pollution and other types. More generally I have to say that we cannot carry on simply dumping more and more pollutants into the atmosphere while more and more planes are put up there.
Finally, in a rush I would like to thank the many staff in Parliament for all their hard work and making the past year and a half more bearable and workable, and wish everybody a happy and safe recess.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I shall not pretend to emulate the Member for the city of Southend, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), but I will do a quick scoot around a number of issues. Talking of scooting, constituents are raising issues about e-scooters, and I hope that when Transport Ministers review the regulations on the use of that mode of transport, they will consider vulnerable pedestrians in particular.
As treasurer of the all-party group on heritage rail, I draw the House’s attention to a report published a few days ago about the impact of heritage railways on tourism. Those with in particular a steam railway in their constituency should get visitors out there supporting it—and do not forget when passing environmental regulations that they do need a bit of coal to keep them in steam.
A couple of weeks ago I met representatives from the Royal National Institute of Blind People who made important points about the changes they would like to the voting system to enable the blind and partially sighted to fully participate and maintain the secrecy of their vote.
On constituency issues, I am pleased to say that the Humber ports got freeport status. Indeed, we scored highly in every category, and the advantages to the area are already being seen in increased investment and ever more inquiries. It is vital that the Government do not lose sight of their ambitions; let us be real free marketeers on this issue.
Fortunately, the Greater Grimsby town deal, which includes my constituency, was established three or four years ago. I can assure Members involved in the levelling-up agenda that these deals and all the associated issues connected to levelling up can be a great success story for our constituencies. The criticisms of levelling up are not fair, because the reality is that every area is different and these deals have to be tailor-made for specific areas.
The local plans will be crucial, but the reality is that people do not know what they are. There is a particular scheme that affects my constituency—the western relief road in north-east Lincolnshire. It has been in the local plan for many years, but only now that we are talking about the possibility of determining the route has it got through to people.
On devolution, we want three unitary authorities to cover the county of Lincolnshire.
Finally, thanks to all in the House and in my constituency who have been involved in fighting the pandemic. They have done a fantastic job.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The last 18 months have been a tale of the good, the bad and the ugly.
The good is that the people of Brent and elsewhere have joined together to form mutual aid groups, religions have come together to find common ground, and strangers are now firm friends. The bad is this Government’s catastrophic handling of the pandemic, the mixed messages, the corruption in plain sight, the authoritarian laws and the erosion of our democracy. And the ugly is that racism in society has reared its ugly head, spurred on by Government reports and the hyping up of the culture war and the war on woke.
While the NHS was coping with 130,000 people dying from the pandemic, the Prime Minister was making his mates rich. Cronyism is rife and old chums are given jobs regardless of their skillset—some a little bit on the side. This has been one big experiment for this corrupt, authoritarian, racism-laden Government, and I am not scared of saying it like it is.
The Government said we need to talk about class, so let us do it. Let us call out this toxic elitism once and for all. Byline Times, the Good Law Project, Novara Media, openDemocracy, Amnesty and Liberty have all exposed the Government, and the Government’s response is to spend public money defending the indefensible.
It is funny how there is no money for NHS staff, yet £1 billion of covid contracts have been awarded to Conservative donors. We were told that Ministers were not involved, but then the Good Law Project exposed emails from the Prime Minister’s advisers and the Home Secretary lobbying for money. The corrupt, authoritarian approach of this Government would be condemned and investigated if it were happening anywhere else in the world.
The 1% believe they owe nothing to society. They do not believe in the NHS, and they do not support it. This week I spoke to Orwell Foundation youth writer Manal Nadeem. She wrote:
“Let anti-racism be both common logic and law. May we have more accountability than apologies. May performative, placeholder posts be followed by policy… When the future arrives, let the minimum wage be a liveable wage… Let survival be a birthright... When the poor cannot pay with anything else, let us not ask them to pay with their lives.”
Poor people in our country have paid with their lives because the Prime Minister spent the last 18 months misleading this House and the country.
Peter Stefanovic from the Communication Workers Union has a video with more than 27 million views online. In it he highlights that the Prime Minister says: that the economy has grown by 73%—it is just not true; that he has reinstated nursing bursaries—just not true; that there is not a covid app working anywhere in the world—just not true; and that the Tories invested £34 billion in the NHS—not true. The Prime Minister said
“we have severed the link between infection and serious disease and death.”
Not only is that not true but it is dangerous.
It is dangerous to lie during a pandemic, and I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has not come to the House to correct the record and correct the fact that he has lied to this House and the country over and over again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure the hon. Lady will reflect on her words and perhaps correct the record.
Dawn Butler
What would you rather, Madam Deputy Speaker, a weakened leg or a severed leg? At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has lied to this House time and time again. It is funny that we get in trouble in this place for calling out the lie rather than for lying.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Can you please reflect on your words and withdraw your remarks?
Dawn Butler
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have reflected on my words. Somebody needs to tell the truth in this House that the Prime Minister has lied.
The Deputy Speaker ordered Dawn Butler, Member for Brent Central, to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of the day’s sitting (Standing Order No. 43), and the Member withdrew accordingly.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
On a lighter note, I hope that before the House adjourns today we can celebrate the colourful display that we can currently see in Parliament Square. Tomorrow is Historic County Flags Day. It has been celebrated for some days now, with the flags of the historic counties of England, Scotland and Wales in Parliament Square. The flags on display span the nation and also time. We can see old flags such as the St Piran’s Cross of Cornwall and the Warenne Checks of Surrey, which dates from the 13th century, as well as some more modern designs.
Many of those modern designs are thanks to the work of charities such as the Association of British Counties and the Flag Institute. I declare an interest as a former editor of the Flag Institute’s magazine. People at that charity, such as Graham Bartram and Philip Tibbetts, have worked tirelessly to encourage community groups and individuals to design flags, with Philip Tibbetts in particular criss-crossing the country. I congratulate him on his recent appointment as honorary vexillologist to the Court of the Lord Lyon.
One very good example of a modern flag design is the flag of Nottinghamshire, which was designed following a competition organised by Andy Whittaker of BBC Radio Nottingham in 2011. I am pleased to see that a decade later Leicestershire has finally caught up, and as the vice-chair of the flags and heraldry all-party parliamentary group, I was pleased to be in Parliament Square this week to attend the first flag raising of the flag of Leicestershire there. However, Leicestershire does not yet have its own day. I am pleased that Nottinghamshire County Council has today voted unanimously for 25 August to be Nottinghamshire Day. I look forward to seeing the flag of Nottinghamshire flying across the county, in the Houses of Parliament and, I hope, also across the country.
Although we are forever one United Kingdom, as we leave this place I hope that we can admire the diversity of our country, return to our constituencies and see all the best that there is in our counties—and I believe that the best of our counties are embodied in our county flags.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to reflect on what we have lost over the last year. For us in this House, it is the scrutiny of the Government, as the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) highlighted, but it is also the direct face-to-face contact with constituents. I have had the privilege of being out on my doorstep surgeries in recent weeks, which has reminded me—not that I needed reminding, but I feel that I should remind the House—of the very real housing challenge that so many of my constituents are facing.
We have a Government who are fuelling demand for housing through things such as stamp duty holidays, but who are doing nowhere near enough to increase supply. There are far too many people in my borough living in seriously overcrowded conditions. I have visited many in recent weeks, some of whom I have known for some time because they have been living in this situation for a very long time. Many have been forced into temporary housing accommodation. Only five or six years ago, they would have been told, “You will be there for six months and then you will get a proper home.”; now they are often there for years at a time. One woman was discharged from hospital with her baby to live in a room with her husband and toddler. Another woman, who works, is living with her seven-year-old, who has been off school and therefore home schooled in a hostel room.
Others are outpriced, such as the Homerton Hospital porter who brings home £1,300 net per calendar month and pays £550 a month for a room in a private rented house. It was £400 until the pandemic hit and his landlady had to put up the rent. He rented a room for himself and his daughter. When the rent went up to £550 a month, he could no longer afford to do that because it would have cost more than £1,000 a month, so they share a room. She is 17 years old. He is embarrassed by this, but there is no prospect of anything else. Although he is a health worker, he has no recourse to public funds because he is, legitimately and properly, going through the immigration system. With his salary he could never afford to rent a property privately in London, and with no recourse to public funds, he would not qualify for housing benefit and certainly not for the scarce social housing that we have. For many people, there is no prospect of renting or owning their own home, with the price of a typical two-bedroom property now at £750,000.
I also want to raise the challenge and cost of childcare, which is always an issue. Co-op providers, which I know from my work as a Labour/Co-op MP, and other childcare providers in Hackney and nationally are now seeing huge absences because of a ping by the app. In some cases self-isolation among staff has increased by a third in the last week alone, so will they be on this little list that the Government keep promising—which, I have just checked, is still not published—of key workers able to go back to work if they have double vaccinations? The impact is not just on the setting and the business or the co-op; the crisis is for children under five who are losing out and are severely affected by this pandemic, and of course it is about the impact on working parents. I pay tribute to the educationalists in my constituency, who have done so much to keep young people educated. We need to make sure that the catch-up is funded and we cannot afford to leave a generation behind. I hope that the Government rethink and come forward with a long-term plan for making sure that our young people are supported to catch up on the education they have had to lose this year.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I have spoken many times about my opposition to High Speed 2, a project ripe for scrapping, with post-covid rail demand uncertain, the unbelievable and still ballooning cost and further legs now deemed unachievable. Worst of all with HS2 is the destruction that it brings to my constituency and our environment and the real day-to-day human misery its construction is bringing. Likewise, although East West Rail enjoys broad support, it brings similar disruption and destruction to Buckinghamshire.
Already burdened with the toll of these state infrastructure projects, surely the principles of basic fairness and natural justice should exempt my constituents from any more big construction by Government—but no. Despite a massive cry of opposition from the villages of Edgcott, Grendon Underwood, Steeple Claydon and others—concerns that I have relayed to Ministers on many occasions—the Ministry of Justice persists in its plans for a new prison adjacent to HMP Spring Hill and HMP Grendon. I know how hard local residents, our parish councils and Buckinghamshire councillors, such as Angela Macpherson, Frank Mahon and Michael Rand, have worked to make the case against it at consultation stage. I pay particular thanks to Rod Baker, whose detailed analysis and presentations on why these proposals are so wrong have been second to none. However, it seems that the Government’s drive for a rapid increase in prison places has overridden our serious concerns.
This new prison is proposed in a rural area, served by rural, often unclassified roads—roads that cannot cope now, let alone with yet more construction traffic and thousands of vehicle movements once it is built. The proposals would take existing green space, so when planning reforms talk the language of brownfield first, surely Government projects must walk the walk of brownfield development. There are plenty of brownfield sites that this prison could be built on. That is before we get on to all the other legitimate planning concerns—there are too many to mention in the time I have this afternoon.
So as we depart for recess, my work will continue throughout the summer, working with my constituents to make the case for the planning application to be rejected. I call on the Government to think again and to introduce a new policy that exempts constituencies already struck with big infrastructure from any more. It is not too late on this particular one. Let us find a different brownfield site and give Buckinghamshire a break.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, after you helped me to set up my parliamentary office 25 years ago, I think, this month.
As we are thinking about what will happen after covid, a couple of my constituents recently asked me to raise in the House the question of why our area has been left behind. It is not only my area, but many other areas, and we are not just being left behind—we have been held back by successive policy failures. It is plain as the nose on your face that this is now an acute and chronic problem for the whole country, yet policy makers have simply turned their backs for so many years on so many communities.
There was rapid and unconstrained deindustrialisation; an economic system that generated colossal inequality. Just look at my constituency. The average wage is £5,500 per person less than the national average. It is a scandal. There are 4,200 children in poverty. Food banks are springing up everywhere, and it is not simply Hemsworth, is it? There are 14 million people now in poverty in our country, 7.5 million of whom are in work. We have the worst regional inequalities of any advanced OECD country. Social mobility has come to an end—that is according to the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission. We have a class system that is now clearly ossified. In a three-minute speech I can only hint at the powerful processes that brought all this about; I will come back to these issues in the coming weeks.
Our office has identified seven interconnected processes: austerity; unconstrained markets; the dominance of finance over the economy; inadequate investment; globalisation; the domination by commercial interests of too much of the public sector, including the Government themselves; and repeated attacks on organised labour, leading to a reduction of the wage share as a proportion of GDP. All these together form a single neoliberal policy consensus that is embraced by the British establishment and has done massive damage to our national interest.
Suddenly, Government Members are talking about levelling up—as if someone somewhere just woke up to what has been happening in plain view for more than a decade. So what should we do? First, let me say to the Government that market-led solutions are not a solution; they have been the problem, and so has austerity. The Government’s towns fund barely scratches the surface; it is purely empty sloganeering.
Let me say now to my own Front-Bench team and to our leadership: as all of us know, social justice is, as all of us know, right at the heart of Labour’s DNA. The country has drifted so far away from justice that it now requires big change. Timidity will not deliver what is plainly now in the national interest: only a radical and transformative politics in a dynamic campaigning party can lead to our national renewal. Nothing less will do.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I wish to take this opportunity to thank some people in my constituency. I thank Newbury Racecourse, which in January this year threw open its doors and saw 33,000 people troop through them—twice—to get their vaccination. I thank Dr James Cave and Dr Ellora Evans, who led the eight GP surgeries that participated, and I thank Beverley Sunderland, Jon Cross, Tim Marston, Graham Stanley and Mike Howie, who led the volunteers—people from every walk of life and every corner of my constituency who gave up their time to make things work like clockwork. I put on the record my thanks to them.
I also pay tribute to Ruth Saunders, who is not well known but at the tender age of 104 walked a marathon over consecutive days around the streets of Newbury, inspired, of course, by Captain Tom. She raised £50,000 for the Thames Valley air ambulance. She is now 105, and next week I will be presenting her with a Points of Light award from the Prime Minister.
In the limited time that I have remaining, I wish to talk about two environmental issues that affect my constituency. The first concerns public transport. It is my ambition to secure a bus route that will link Newbury and Oxford, stopping at the Harwell science park, the Milton business park and many other significant employers along the route. One of my favourite local anecdotes is about a farmer who many years ago used to have the brass neck to put a couple of his cows on the train at Didcot and take them off at Newbury. The sad thing about that story is that that train line is long gone—and so is the bus route that replaced it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) will correct me if I am wrong, but at the Harwell science park some 10,000 jobs are coming in the next few years. Talented apprentices from Newbury College are increasingly getting jobs there, but their only way of getting to work is to get two trains and a bus that takes more than an hour to go a distance of 14 miles—of course, they can get there in their cars. In the next year, I would like to see a bus route, preferably hydrogen, that is cheap, practical and environmentally friendly for Newbury’s workers.
Finally, I have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on chalk streams, and particularly the River Kennet, which flows between our constituencies. It is so alarming to see the state they are in and the effect of sewage, pollution and water extraction. The damage that is being done to them now puts those precious streams and the habitats they support at serious risk. In the coming months I will work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ahead of the Environment Bill’s return to this House, to seek to resolve that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I believe I have three minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will be unable to cover so much that could have been covered. I could have covered universal credit, the Government’s shoddy handling of the £20 uplift and their desire to plunge people back into poverty; covid and the Government’s sleaze and corruption when it comes to the multitude of contracts that have come out—friends or family members of the Government would of course have been on the VIP list throughout the pandemic; or Brexit and the destructive impact it is having on my constituency, the one constituency in the UK meant to be harder hit than any other in the UK. Indeed, I raised that issue with the Leader of the House earlier today in relation to a business in my constituency and the export challenges it is facing—it has gone from taking three days to export a good to almost six weeks. His shameful answer was, “Ask the French about it”. What an utter abdication of responsibility. Shame on him and shame on this Government.
However, in real terms the biggest issue—perhaps the biggest issue of our times—is not the pandemic, but climate change. As an Aberdeen Member, it would be remiss of me not to talk about energy. Aberdeen has faced the triple whammy of covid, Brexit and an oil price crash, which has painted into clear focus the challenge that is going to face my city in the future. What did the Government do? They did almost nothing. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to deliver their North sea transition deal. Where is the hydrogen strategy? Where is the commitment to a carbon capture and underground storage facility in the north-east of Scotland? Where is the desire to ensure that there is sufficient capacity within round 4 of the contracts for difference auction to ensure that Scotland does not lose out? That is an important point, because Scotland is going to lose out.
The great renewables robbery that this Government are undertaking is alive and well, because offshore wind projects in Scotland will have to pay to access the energy grid, whereas offshore projects in the south-east of England will be paid to access the very same grid. We face the highest grid connection charges in not only the UK, but the entirety of Europe. If this Government are serious about levelling up and about delivering for Aberdeen and for Scotland, that renewables robbery needs to end—it cannot continue.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
One aspect of my role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief is to represent the UK on the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which comprises 33 like-minded countries committed to championing FoRB. The UK has led the way in securing a statement from alliance members published today on the gov.uk website. Time precludes me from reading it all, but extracts read:
“We stand in solidarity with the victims of human rights violations by the Myanmar security forces. People of all faiths and beliefs have come together to condemn the military’s actions since the 1 February 2021 coup.
Faith actors have played prominent roles in the anti-coup movement, including by supporting human rights defenders and vulnerable communities. As a result, some have been subjected to inhumane treatment by the military regime. We remember those who have been killed and call for the release of all those unjustly detained…
We condemn any attack on places of worship… and support all”—
including faith communities—
“who pursue peace…in Myanmar.”
Such expressions of support mean a lot to people suffering on account of their faith or beliefs; they know they are not forgotten.
I thank the alliance member countries supporting this statement and our hard-working Netherlands chairman, Jos Douma, with whom it is a pleasure to work. I also thank my parliamentary FoRB team and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office FoRB team for their support for my role. This week, we celebrated the launch of new training materials for all FCDO staff titled “Religion for International Engagement” to bolster understanding of faiths and beliefs and make the UK stronger in its work as a force for good globally. For me it was a moving moment, having previously chaired a report by the all-party group on religious education calling on Government to improve religious literacy across departments.
Let me take my envoy hat off now and speak as co-chair of the all-party group on North Korea. We published an in-depth report this week on human rights violations in North Korea, to ensure that the 2014 UN commission of inquiry report remains a live document.
Our report updates the litany of atrocities meted out by the North Korean regime on its own people: murder, torture, sexual violence, rape, human trafficking, forced abortions, infanticide, slavery, persecution, inhumane punishments and more. Time precludes me from going into detail. I hope to secure an Adjournment debate. The full report can be found at appgnorthkoreainquiry.com, but I urge colleagues today to support the early-day motion I have tabled this afternoon. I thank all those who helped produce this report, particularly the inquiry’s lead adviser, Dr Ewelina Ochab.
Turning to Nigeria, we must not forget the victims of horrendous violence there. We hear of attacks, of the complete breakdown of law and order, and of rural communities suffering. Here is one quote from a reliable source:
“These continued attacks are causing horrific suffering and long term instability… The village was attacked again last night, more homes burnt down and a third church set on fire. No government security forces to protect the village. Several people hacked to death and bodies burnt.”
In response, I cannot improve on the well-chosen words of the Bishop of Truro:
“So, what is happening in the Middle Belt?... I would argue strongly that…it’s about much more than faith, but it’s not about less than that.”
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
I want to repeat my thanks and appreciation to all those who have helped deliver the covid vaccination programme. It has been a pleasure to volunteer at some of those local vaccination centres and see how much patients—young and old—appreciated their vaccines. None of that would have been possible without all those doctors, nurses, pharmacists, staff and volunteers who make a difference every day.
I also thank the many community groups in Dudley South that have supported people throughout this pandemic, such as Lions boxing club in Brierley Hill, which offers top-quality training for people of all backgrounds locally, and the “Black Country Blokes” podcast, which is based out of that boxing club and is helping men to talk about and address mental health. Congratulations to Kev Dillon, who helps run both groups, on his recognition as a Birmingham 2022 home town hero. We look forward to the Commonwealth games coming to the west midlands next year. Grassroots coaches and volunteers like Kev do so much to make it so special. Applications for the Commonwealth games volunteering programme are now open, and I hope that my constituents in Dudley South will take full advantage of the incredible opportunities on offer.
As we look forward to a time after covid, we must build back better and deliver better opportunities for our children and for the next generation in places such as Dudley South. I have started work on my seventh annual jobs fair for this September, to help people back into jobs and develop their skills for new careers. I thank the Department for Work and Pensions and local staff for all their help and support in organising that event.
Delivering a brighter future for the next generation is not only about jobs and prosperity. It was a pleasure to meet Dudley’s Members of the Youth Parliament, Jake Cartwright and Laiba Kiren, to talk about protecting our global environment, and in particular tackling plastic pollution. That is a major challenge that our generations must take up in order to leave a better world for those who follow.
Our local environment is also important. The new planning framework must help bring derelict brownfield sites back into productive use, while allowing communities to protect valuable green-belt sites such as those at Holbeache and the Triangle in Kingswinford, without worrying about decisions being overturned by the inspector. The draft Black Country plan is wrong to include those two sites, and communities need to be supported in getting them replaced with better alternatives. Levelling up means making sure that people in Dudley have equal opportunities, as they would elsewhere in the country. If we succeed, Dudley has a future that is every bit as bright as our proud heritage.
With apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), Dudley borough is the clear choice to become a new city to mark Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee next year.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Last year on 16 July, similarly at the end of term, I asked the Leader of the House in business questions for a debate on human rights abuses in Kashmir. Over a year on, no Government time has been provided for a debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) held a Westminster Hall debate on it in January, and that is the only debate that has taken place on the issue. Members from all parts of the House will have constituents, as I do in Luton South, who have family and friends in Kashmir, and our constituents need the Government to be involved in ending human rights violations and tackling the impact of the pandemic.
On 5 August, it will be the second anniversary of the Indian Government’s Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, which unilaterally revoked article 370, replacing the autonomous state of Jammu with two territories governed directly by Delhi. The following Indian army-imposed lockdown and communications blackout in Jammu and Kashmir have had a profound and far-reaching impact on every aspect of life in Kashmir, including health services, school closures and press freedom. Human rights abuses must be confronted at the international level through diplomacy. At 72 years, the situation in Kashmir is the longest unresolved conflict on the agenda of the United Nations, and there needs to be a concerted effort from the UK Government to bring about an international, multilateral response.
I am proud that the Labour party will always uphold international law and stand up for human rights and the rule of law. It is a basic, fundamental human right that Kashmiris are empowered to decide how they are governed and by whom. Kashmiris must be able to express their right to self-determination. I want to reiterate my call for a debate in Government time on how the UK Government can take further action to support multilateral efforts to end human rights abuses in Kashmir.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite everybody to come and visit Luton this summer, and join the herd to follow the big trunk trail, which is a beautiful, free, fun, family-orientated trail of 40 beautifully decorated elephants through our town centre and our beautiful parks. This is part of the fundraising for our local hospice, Keech hospice, as it celebrates its 30 years. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate both the Luton Council of Faiths and the Luton Irish Forum on receiving the Queen’s award for voluntary service this week. They are a fantastic asset to our town, and I am delighted for them both.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by wishing you and all colleagues a very happy summer recess?
We have come a long way this year in the fight against coronavirus, and as a former NHS worker myself, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to all NHS staff at St Helier Hospital in Carshalton and Wallington, but also all NHS staff in places such as pharmacies—they include Reena at S. G. Barai Pharmacy, who gave me my first jab only a few weeks ago—and Matron Wendy Dyer and all the volunteers across the borough for everything they have done at the vaccination centres, as well as local community leaders who have been encouraging people from all backgrounds to get the vaccine, volunteers who have stepped up to help others throughout the pandemic and all the other frontline workers who have kept going in difficult times.
It is the honour of a lifetime to represent my home town of Carshalton and Wallington in this place, and everything I try to do in this Chamber addresses the concerns that constituents have raised with me. In fact, I am told by Hansard that this is my 100th mention of Carshalton and Wallington in this place in the last year and half. These 100-plus contributions have been about some of the most pressing issues raised by my constituents.
These are crime and antisocial behaviour issues, including catalytic converter thefts, the antisocial use of vehicles on Roundshaw Downs and in Hackbridge, and the antisocial behaviour in and around our town centres. These are public transport issues, such as the need to invest in unlocking the Croydon bottleneck scheme to unlock congestion on the railways and allow more trains to run through to suburban London, including to Carshalton, Wallington, Hackbridge and Carshalton Beeches stations.
These are issues involving the local economy, such as helping our small businesses through this difficult time and accessing Government support to ensure that our local high streets can be a place for businesses to thrive in the aftermath of a pandemic. These are issues relating to the local environment, such as championing better recycling, standing up for our parks and open spaces against the threat posed by the Lib Dem-run council and, of course, standing up for residents living in the shadow of the Beddington incinerator, who are concerned about air pollution.
These are schools and education issues, such as ensuring that every local schoolchild has a good or outstanding place to go to and standing up to the council on education, health and care plan failures. But, of course, these are issues involving St Helier Hospital and local healthcare, including delivering the £500 million commitment from this Conservative Government to improve Epsom Hospital and St Helier Hospital, and to build a third, brand-new hospital in Sutton, protecting A&E and maternity services in our borough.
However, this is only the beginning, and throughout the summer recess and beyond, I will try to do my best to continue to champion those issues that my constituents care most about.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
As we adjourn for summer recess, one of the most important pieces of legislation that we must consider is the Health and Care Bill, which had its Second Reading last week. The Bill has profound implications for the quality and availability of healthcare for all of us, and implications too for the staff who work in the NHS. It is a matter of very real concern that the Bill removes the requirement for social care needs assessments of vulnerable patients to be carried out before a patient is discharged from hospital. This will put patients at risk and leave families to pick up the pieces, and those without family at risk of isolation and lack of care.
The Government’s plans will lead to a postcode lottery as each integrated care board develops a different plan for its area, and strict financial limits will lead to increased local rationing of care. The Bill provides for the deregulation of NHS professions, and this has the potential to impact on the status and, over time, the level of expertise of the people who work in the NHS, which we value so highly. It is also likely to lead to a downward spiral in the pay and pensions of the workforce, and a reduction in the quality of services that patients can access.
The implications for NHS staff are immense. Professor Kailash Chand, an honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association, has said:
“The core thrust of the new reforms is to deprofessionalise and downskill the practice of medicine in this country, so as to make staff more interchangeable, easier to fire, more biddable, and, above all, cheaper.”
The introduction to the NHS constitution states:
“The NHS belongs to the people.”
It is an important principle, and one that the Government’s Bill threatens to tear apart. Big business will be able to sit on ICB decision-making boards and provide services, embedding conflicts of interest in the system and opening the door to widespread cronyism. The Bill will also remove the procurement of health services from the scope of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, so we will see a regulated market become an unregulated market, with contracts handed out without the stringent arrangements that one would expect in the awarding of public money. Instead of respecting the fact that the NHS belongs to the people, the Government are handing it gift-wrapped to big business. The vision of a comprehensive, universal national health service that is valued so highly is torn apart by the Health and Care Bill.
I pay tribute to the many NHS campaigners around the country who are working so hard to defend our NHS and to keep our NHS public. I hope that hon. Members who voted for the Bill on Second Reading will have time to read the analysis of its impact beyond this place and reflect on just how damaging the changes will be for their constituents, themselves and the future of the national health service.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
It is an absolute honour to be called to speak in this debate. This has been an extremely difficult year for many, with lockdowns, social distancing and not being able to be with friends or family. It has been a year in which many people have been quietly working in the background to keep the country running. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all those people in my constituency who have kept the town, the country and international business going.
Our NHS staff and care workers have our thanks and gratitude, but I would also like to especially thank the school and college teams: the teachers, support staff, cleaners, cooks and caretakers. I thank our port and logistics workers who have kept products safely moving in and out of the country, our food producers, and our shopkeepers, who have been staying open every day to ensure that we have access to goods and supplies.
I also thank the energy workers who have kept the country running. While many people will remember the last year and a half as a year when people worked from home, in constituencies like mine there are many people who do not, such as those who maintain and operate the UK’s wind energy supplies, and 70% of the fish we eat in the UK is processed in Great Grimsby. Many of my constituents have never actually stopped going into work. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all of them for continuing to go into work for us all.
This debate allows me to tell the House about the progress in Grimsby since the general election. The levelling-up agenda and the Prime Minister’s 10-point green plan have encouraged more than £300 million-worth of private investment to come into the area. Greater Lincolnshire local enterprise partnership tells me that it has never seen such inward investment coming into north-east Lincolnshire. My jobcentre tells me that it has more job vacancies than jobseekers, and—this is very important to me—my local employers are telling me that they want to work with me to get local people trained to get ready for the high-quality, high-skilled jobs that they have.
Our next focus in towns such as—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her three minutes. I was trying to let her conclude, but I am afraid that she has taken too long now.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I refer the House to the declarations I have made relating to Glint Pay and the Covid Recovery Group.
I begin in a spirit of thankfulness—thankfulness for the Government’s programme, because we are in a much better place today than we might have expected. The pandemic is moving into an endemic phase, and that is a positive decision of the Government to move us forward with overwhelmingly voluntary measures. Although I have disagreed with the Government and continue to disagree with the Government on some matters, I recognise that the Prime Minister is providing very considerable leadership in a time of very great difficulty. For that I am extremely grateful.
Our trade deals are advancing at pace; there is the prospect of better domestic regulation; our aircraft carrier is heading to the Asia-Pacific—this is a time when the Government have a great story to tell, and I am looking forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip tell it a little later. I am very grateful to start in a spirit of thankfulness.
I think that my electors in Wycombe and people across the country expect us to be responsible and realistic about what we face, so I want to look forward to where I think we will be in September or October. There are two big factors that we will all need to reflect on over the summer.
First, the NHS is, of course, going to face a difficult winter. It will face a difficult winter because of the enormous backlog, which arises not only from covid but from the response to covid, and because respiratory viruses will be back. I think that means that there will be a moment of decision. The Government will, I am quite sure, face a moment when the NHS will ask for further lockdowns and restrictions in order to deal with those pressures. If the Government give way and once allow our liberties to be used as a tool of NHS capacity management, I think we will then face that issue every single winter. It is with great hope and some faith that I look to the Prime Minister and think that he is a man who will not allow that to happen. I fervently hope that turns out to be the case.
Secondly, I think we are going to run out of other people’s quantitative easing. We have spent absolutely enormous amounts of money, which has catapulted us forward on the debt trajectory set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its fiscal sustainability report, and that is going to begin crystallising some extremely hard spending decisions.
It was with enormous sorrow that I learned as I came into the Chamber that a survey published today says that Wycombe is the most food-insecure place in the United Kingdom. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised, because I have been supporting our food bank and we are there on the London fringe, with very expensive housing and other pressures—pressures that are repeated across the country. I am very sorry to say that my constituency appears to be the most food-insecure place in the United Kingdom.
I have stood down from the Treasury Committee after a long period because I recognise that I need to work much more closely with my councillors to make sure that we have our plan for Wycombe. I have to say, as I look forward to those two big factors that I mention, that we are going to have to make sure that food insecurity is at the very top of the list.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Shock and anger, heartbreak and confusion—stirred again by knowing that the person elected to protect us, and not least the vulnerable, sacrificed our most elderly and frail for political expediency. Ministers rallied around their master, seeding covid in care homes, embarking on herd immunity, instituting eat out to help out to help the virus to spread, locking down late and opening up early. Many died alone, locked away from loved ones. Covid is a cruel disease.
Now, as the covid wall of broken hearts stares back at this Parliament, inscribed with the names of the 129,000 lives stolen, we see the same rationale behind the Prime Minister’s plans being instituted once more. As infection levels spike, with 100 or more each day currently being sacrificed on his pyre of pride, he shouts “freedom day”. There is no freedom from the grave. There is no freedom for those retreating back into their homes, too scared to come out. There is no freedom for the millions of children missing school. There is no freedom for the shops and businesses having to close for want of staff.
Like in the story of the Pied Piper, this country is being lured into a dark place again by our Prime Minister, and tragedy awaits some. GPs are telling me that the whole system is overwhelmed. NHS waiting lists cannot cope. Businesses are teetering on the edge. People are needlessly dying. If people had not realised, he is using us as pawns in his political games to boost his ego and power, and as for Mr Cummings, he may well be revealing all, but he too is playing games; otherwise, he would have spoken before so many families were torn apart, when he could have saved them. Our politics is not a game, and I want no one to be used in this way.
Three things: first, from this point we need the management of the pandemic to move from No. 10 to public health professionals. They are perplexed by the strategy being deployed, and they could turn this around. Secondly, the public inquiry process into covid-19 must commence immediately. After this week, the families of the bereaved and those suffering with covid and long covid need answers. To delay is just another of the Prime Minister’s games as he avoids scrutiny ahead of an election while others are hurting. Thirdly, I implore everyone: hands, face, space. This is our defence against both the economic and health catastrophes, if not for your sake then for that of others.
The solidarity that we have shown in this last year is my hope. It goes to the core of who we are as a nation. We care about our country, and we care about one another. I wish everyone in my constituency of York Central and across the country a very safe summer.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I want to talk about Terry Melia. Terry is a great man. He is in his 70s, and he watched Bury football club for just about the whole of that time. He went to every match, home and away, for 60 years. That was Terry’s life, it was his family, it was the thing that mattered to him, but a couple of years ago that was wrenched away. I want to talk about how we must never underestimate those important sporting, cultural and historical assets that we have in all our constituencies and that matter so much. Bury and its people and its football fans have been badly let down by the Football Association, the Football League and numerous others. A great football club such as Bury with a great history that matters to the heart of my town was just ignored, and it continues to be ignored. I welcome recent Government funding opportunities to ensure that the fifth oldest football stadium in the country is bought back and that we see football being played again at Gigg Lane. We must use that not only as one of the real hearts of our community but as a regeneration tool to support everyone.
I want to follow on from that theme and talk about preserving those things that are important to my constituents. On 28 July, councillors in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury will have the opportunity to vote against “Places for Everyone”, a strategic planning document championed by the Mayor of Greater Manchester that will destroy large areas of green belt in my seat, specifically at Walshaw, Tottington and Elton reservoir. Each and every councillor has the opportunity to make sure that that plan does not come into existence, and that those beautiful areas of countryside and open spaces are going to be there for us all to continue to enjoy. The power of a politician to be able to decide the way our area looks is in the hands of councillors, and I trust that they will make the right decision.
In other areas that involve working closely with Bury Council, we need to bring Ramsbottom Co-op Theatre back to life. It is one of the original unique co-op theatres from the late 1870s. It has sat dormant for the past 50 or 60 years, but it can be at the heart of the Ramsbottom town plan, bringing back life, culture and support for all members of our community. We can work together to do that.
We also need a functioning special educational needs and disability hub. Children in my constituency are being let down by the SEND support they are getting in their schools, and we can work together collectively in my seat, across party, with the public sector and with schools to ensure that we have better support. We need a fully functioning youth employment hub to make a difference. We need a veterans hub to support our brilliant veterans in the local community.
Through these cross-party efforts, and by ensuring that we preserve those things that are important to us and support all members of our community, we can change Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington for the better.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in an important debate at the end of a very difficult and heartbreaking year. I send my condolences to anyone and everyone who has lost loved ones during this past year. The Government were not prepared for this pandemic. Those in other countries were, and that showed us what could have been done. The Government failed to stop the devastating second wave, they contacted cronies instead of public services and now the track and trace system that has been shown to be so flawed is being relied on. We need to build back better based on social justice and addressing these inequalities.
I want to raise some urgent issues for the Government to think about and act on during the summer. The first is the “pingdemic” for nursery schools. Nursery schools in my area and across the country are reporting a third of colleagues having to self-isolate. They are struggling to find temporary staff to cover and they need that addressed urgently. If lots of nursery schools close, it will not only be the young children who will suffer. It will be parents—parents who are essential service workers and NHS staff who will not be able to go to work.
Another issue is aid cuts. A lot of my constituents from Putney, Southfields and Roehampton have written in because they are very angry about that. One area of immediate concern is Tigray. The Government of Ethiopia effectively have Tigray under siege as we speak—now. In Tigray, Afar and Amhara, 5.5 million people are facing a crisis. The British Government need to adopt far more effective means of influence with the Government of Ethiopia to let the aid in and to stop the war.
A third area is universal credit. We need to keep the £20 uplift or even more people in Wandsworth will rely on food banks. It is shocking that 2,300 families have used the food bank in the past year. In Roehampton, 200 communities rely on the amazing community food box that is delivered every week. It should not have to be this way. Within the next year these numbers will only increase if we take away the universal credit uplift.
Fourthly, I hope that during the summer the green homes grant will return, mysteriously, from the Government. We will not achieve our environmental aims otherwise.
My fifth point is that we should stop the privatisation of the NHS and cut the waiting lists. I would like to end by thanking all the vaccine centres and NHS staff and volunteers. An amazing 218,000 vaccines have been given in Wandsworth and I urge everyone to get their vaccine. I thank all the charities in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton who have done so much to keep us going. To everyone who does not do it for the thanks, I send huge thanks—to every single charity in our wonderful community. They are the best of us and we are very grateful. I wish everyone a great summer recess.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
My pre-politics career was spent working on social mobility, and I continue to work on it in this place. Like education, housing is important for social mobility. It is important that we help people get on the housing ladder in a way that their parents and grandparents did. Nobody who rents has ever written to me to say that too many houses are being built; they only say that they are unaffordable. If we want key workers for our public services and not to tell people that they have to move away from the area they have always lived in because they want to get on the ladder, we need to build homes.
Constituents in areas such as mine are unfairly characterised as nimbys for having legitimate concerns about the house building that has gone on. There are four big areas in which they have concerns. The first is volume. Across the two district council areas that my constituency covers, more than 15,000 houses were built between 2012-13 and 2019-20. There are thousands more to come. One concern is whether we are getting a disproportionate share of the new houses. The second concern is affordability. The average house price is £335,000—9.2 times the median income in the 2018 to 2020 period—so these so-called affordable houses are out of reach for most people. The number of affordable houses is often driven down on the grounds that the development would not be viable if they were built as intended.
The third concern is infrastructure. We have GP surgeries bursting at the seams, roads that are hugely congested and unsafe, such as the A420, and a crying need to reopen Grove station to connect the people of Grove—some of my constituents have wanted that for more than 40 years.
The fourth concern is the environment. It is not just about what might happen to the landscape or that in a lot of cases the houses built are quite low-quality. I am frequently asked why, given our other climate change goals, we are building homes that we know we will have to retrofit, with lots of gas boilers but not enough electric charging points or solar panels. Why are we still building on floodplains when we have had so many floods in the area?
The proposals that will come in the planning Bill in the autumn are not published yet; I hope that when they are published we can allay some of the concerns. There has been plenty of scaremongering—it is particularly rich coming from the Liberal Democrats, who had a house building target of 300,000 a year, the highest of any party at the election—but there are legitimate concerns about the community’s voice being taken away. I hope that we can address them when the Bill comes before the House.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I pay tribute to key workers in the Greater Manchester city region. I am also grateful to the Mayor of Greater Manchester: when the Government ignored the north and when businesses and other workplaces were left in the lurch, he showed leadership and stood up. Even now, when the Government have dropped the legal requirement to wear face coverings, putting transport and service sector workers at disproportionate risk, Andy Burnham has called for passengers to continue wearing face coverings to protect themselves and workers alike. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), my good friend, there is some graffiti that reads:
“The north is not a petri dish”.
That is quite right, and it is Andy Burnham who has exposed the Government’s unfair treatment of our northern communities.
Despite so-called freedom day, the pandemic is not over and cases are still rising, but as Sir Patrick Vallance confirmed this week, 60% of people being admitted to hospital are unvaccinated, so we can seek solace in the fact that as people continue to get both doses of the vaccine, we will emerge from the pandemic. However, even when it feels as if there is light at the end of the tunnel, there is still so much to recover from. Covid’s long-lasting damage can be seen in our schools, our national health service and so much more.
We have seen the disgraceful use of the fire and rehire tactic by some employers. Although the tactic existed before the pandemic, some have used covid as an excuse to erode terms and conditions and pay. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that the practice is a national scandal.
We have also heard that owing to the pandemic, 35,000 people may die of cancer in the UK in the next year because of delays in diagnosing and treating the illness. In February, it was revealed that almost half of people with possible cancer symptoms did not see their GP in the first wave. As a matter of urgency, the Government must set out a proper plan to address the cancer backlog and make sure that people get the treatment they need.
While I am on the subject, I pay tribute to Macmillan Cancer Support for its work supporting people affected by cancer. Sadly, a family close to me lost one of their loved ones recently, and I know that Macmillan gave them so much support. Tragically, we recently lost Mr Neil Brookfield. He was a dedicated family man and a lifelong supporter of Crewe Alexandra football club. He will be sorely missed by his wife Suzanne, their children and all his friends. I am sure that everyone in this House knows someone who has received support from Macmillan. We should all give it our thanks; we owe it a massive debt of gratitude.
Before I finish, I would like to raise one more issue. This week, more than 50 people were set to be deported to Zimbabwe. Because of a last-minute legal challenge, only 14 people were on the flight last night, as The Guardian reported, but despite widespread violations of political and human rights, the Home Office has deported people to a country that has harassed and detained political opponents, trade unionists and journalists.
As we all go back to our constituencies for the summer and look forward to returning in September, I hope that Members across the House recognise the uncertainty that so many people under threat of being deported back to countries with grave human rights abuses face. I thank Lord Oates in the other place for his consistent and unwavering support for the Zimbabwean people and his work for the all-party parliamentary group on Zimbabwe.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Due to time constraints, and because I have not had an opportunity to raise this before, I will talk exclusively about one issue. We have heard a lot about the struggles faced by many leaseholders and had debates about the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Bill, but I want to talk about St Francis Tower in Ipswich. Its leaseholders were successful in getting funds through the building safety fund to carry out remediation work to the tower block, but I have been shocked by what has happened since.
The building manager, Block Management, has decided to cover the entire tower block in shrink-wrap, which could be on there for up to 12 months. I was invited by the residents to see the conditions in which they are expected to live and I was absolutely shocked. They are living in small, one-bedroom flats with no balconies and, in the middle of a pandemic, in a hot summer, they have got virtually no natural light. To make it even worse, they were not consulted or informed that it would happen. Then the building manager put bars on the windows, so now the residents can barely open their windows to get fresh air. So the residents have no natural light and barely any fresh air.
In all the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, seeing 100 of my constituents living in those conditions is probably the most shocking thing that I have come across. I find it deeply disturbing that Block Management has behaved in this way. Despite many interventions from me, and despite local media including the Ipswich Star and BBC Radio Suffolk highlighting the issue, I have still not had a proper response to a letter I wrote to Block Management about six or seven weeks ago, although we should be having a meeting soon.
We hope that a lot of remediation work will be carried out through things like the building safety fund—a lot of it needs to be carried out because dangerous cladding needs to be removed and various defects must be resolved—but it must be done in a way that is sensitive to the quality of life and mental health of those living in these structures. We need to have a debate on that.
I would like to work with the Government in holding Block Management to account and to support my constituents, who are going through great distress because of its behaviour. They are being treated like animals, not human beings. It is a disgrace, and I will fight for them. I will mention Block Management and its behaviour in the Chamber as many times as I need to until it meets the residents and resolves this issue.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to lead for the SNP in these debates that are uncharitably referred to as the whinge-fest. I could not disagree more. We have had a quality debate covering a number of important issues.
The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) kicked off with a football theme that many continued through the debate, and I agree with what was said about the shocking situation in Bury. He, of course, supports England’s greatest football team, Newcastle United football club, and he was right to raise issues around the ownership of football clubs. I want to see fan ownership extended across these islands.
At the previous Adjournment debate, I said that I hoped the tartan army could be at Wembley in June. I was delighted to see that happen and to see them cheering on the boys, who were the only team not to concede a goal against England.
There are many constitutional debates, and some people seem to suggest that there is deadlock between those who support Scottish independence and those who do not. There is also the fact that the Government seem unwilling to grant us a referendum. I have an alternative idea: if they are not willing to give us a referendum to decide the issue, perhaps they could give us a penalty shoot-out. Scotland’s record at penalty shoot-outs is rather good—we managed to qualify for the Euros by winning one—and of course England’s is perhaps somewhat different. In fact, let us not sugar-coat it—it is as poor as the trains going to and from Southend that we regularly hear about from the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). Perhaps we could do that.
I do want to make a serious point. It was rather strange and disturbing that some Cabinet Ministers found themselves at the wrong end of a culture war in having a go at the England football team. In all seriousness, it is hard not to like this particular team, who are a credit to themselves and to England. The racism that England players got after the final was completely and utterly despicable and should be condemned by every Member of this House.
We are obviously here to hold the Government to account and a number of Members have raised the Building Safety Bill, with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) raising a rather shocking example, but I am pleased that the Government have listened to those of us who represent companies such as Bell Building Projects Ltd, which specialises in cladding and is struggling to get the appropriate indemnity insurance to carry out its work. The Government seem to have moved substantially, with a Government-sponsored scheme.
I agree with many of the hon. Members who raised the issue of sick pay. I think the Government will need to revisit this as the low level of sick pay was responsible for many workers having to decide whether to turn up to work or self-isolate. I was particularly pleased to hear a number of Members across the House mention poverty and the proposed cut of the £20 universal credit uplift. This Parliament will need to debate that in September and I hope the Government will use the recess to rethink, because new analysis that will be published by the Independent Food Aid Network and Feeding Britain shows that in 2020 the relative poverty rate for individuals in a family where someone is disabled was as high as 31%, so there is a lot of work to do. I thank the Members, particularly the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who raised the issue of holiday hunger, and thank organisations in Glasgow South West—Drumoyne Community Council, Crookston Community Group, and G53 Together—for combating holiday hunger. The sad fact is that when MPs are on recess—and it is a recess—there are children suffering from holiday hunger. I will be particularly delighted to see the Threehills community supermarket project in the Glasgow South West constituency take place, the first community supermarket project in Scotland.
I hope that in the next few weeks the Government will come to their senses and resolve the industrial action disputes in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. It is frankly incredible and a disgrace that ministerial interference stopped a proposed resolution to that between DVLA officials and the Public and Commercial Services union, and the Government need to apologise for that. I hear that yesterday’s Transport Committee sitting was very interesting indeed.
You gave me a wee row in relation to my face mask, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we should recognise this week that the 1950s-born women have got something of a result and I want to pay tribute to the 1950s-born women across these islands who have been campaigning on this issue, particularly the WASPI Glasgow and Lanarkshire group, which does excellent campaigning work; I especially congratulate Rosie Dixon and Kathy McDonald who lead those women superbly.
I hope we will not see a culture or any other sort of war between the Home Office and the city of Glasgow. I was proud to be at Kenmure street in Pollokshields exercising my right to freedom of peaceful assembly to ensure that the Home Office did not take away a fellow Glaswegian whose only crime seems to be that he fell off the Home Office’s radar. This was not a criminal or a terrorist; this was someone who just happened to fall off the radar. That was a completely unacceptable way of dealing with that issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the issue of freedom?
Chris Stephens
Yes, on the issue of freedom of peaceful assembly.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. One of my great concerns has been the 309 million Christians across the world who are facing extreme levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that issue should be at the core of what we in this House are trying to sort out?
Chris Stephens
Yes I do, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the regular work he does in highlighting those issues.
As I said, this recess is not a holiday but a recess and I pay tribute to the parliamentary staff and constituency office staff of every single Member of this House; they have worked extremely hard. I pay particular tribute to Justina, Greg, Dominique, Keith, Scott, Tony and the great Roza Salih who leads the Glasgow South West team superbly, and I hope that all hon. Members of the House will have a good summer.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
I am pleased to be making my first and, I hope, last virtual appearance at the Dispatch Box as shadow Deputy Leader of the House for today’s convivial debate.
We have heard many hon. Members talk about the issues that are close to their hearts, and it has been a pleasure to listen to them as they spoke from all parts of the House and all parts of the country. There have been a host of excellent speeches today. The hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) gave an insightful speech on the upcoming Historic County Flags Day. I may be biased, but I would argue that the flag of Lancashire is superior by a long way.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) spoke about a wide variety of issues, including the future of social care, a memorial for Vera Lynn, the safety of jet skis, and the upcoming Environment Bill. However, his speech would not have been complete without a final call for Southend to be designated a city, although it sounds as though he has competition on his hands from the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) who is gunning for Dudley to gain city status.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) gave a glowing recommendation of the Government’s towns deal, but we can agree to disagree. On the subject of levelling up, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) asked why the Government had turned their back on his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) raised the poor services on East Midlands Railway and the lack of accountability, while the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) put on record his strong feelings about HS2 and East West Rail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) made a moving contribution about the ongoing situation in Kashmir, while my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised the crisis that continues to rock Tigray and Ethiopia. I was also pleased to see the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raise the issue of freedom of religion and belief and the prosecution of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.
As a fellow member of the all-party group on ending homelessness, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raising the scandal of homelessness and the all-party group’s recent report on the need to continue with Housing First. Meanwhile, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) both raised the ongoing plight of leaseholders involved in the dangerous cladding issue and the skyrocketing costs of remediation work. I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) raise the issue of the St Francis Tower in his constituency. I hope that he succeeds in supporting his constituents to resolve this matter. With the demand for housing only rising, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) spoke powerfully about the overcrowding that her constituents are experiencing due to the housing shortages. Similarly, the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) spoke of how housing shortages were affecting his constituents.
The hon. Members for Newbury (Laura Farris), for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) all paid tribute to local people for their hard work in supporting the covid vaccination efforts in their constituencies. That is a sentiment, I am sure, that we would all echo about our own constituencies.
If there was a theme among the many speeches that we have heard today, it was the ever-present concern about covid infections and the terrible toll that the past year and a half has taken on our country and our hard-working people. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) gave an excellent summary of the Government’s long list of failures over the past year. It was fantastic to hear how the community of South Shields, like so many around the country, stepped up during these difficult months. I wholeheartedly agree that the Government should be more like South Shields—or perhaps, if I may say so, more like Manchester, Gorton.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for raising the disproport- ionate impact that this pandemic has had on Greater Manchester and the north. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke powerfully about the need for an urgent public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic. Bereaved families need answers now and we must learn the lessons of the pandemic to avoid making the same mistakes again. On that point, I would encourage all those in the House today who have not yet had an opportunity to visit the covid memorial wall opposite Parliament to do so before they return home.
Several speakers, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen South and my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Putney, raised the scandal of Ministers handing their friends huge contracts throughout the pandemic. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for her powerful words opposing the Government’s Health and Care Bill. That legislation would be deeply damaging, and she is right to call for the House to join Labour in rejecting it.
I hesitate to say it, but I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on his concern about how the NHS will cope this winter, and his call for food insecurity to be placed at the top of the Government’s agenda.
Like many other Members, I look forward to catching up on constituency visits while we have this fine weather. I very much look forward to attending, on Saturday, a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new Debdale nature centre in Debdale park in my constituency. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is a renewed appreciation for the green spaces that became a sanctuary for so many during lockdown.
With football on their mind, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) spoke of the scandalous takeover of Newcastle United and the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) spoke passionately of the future of Bury football club. Despite the Euros disappointment earlier this summer, Manchester continues to benefit from thriving grassroots football. Later this month I shall be visiting Rushford park in Longsight to open two new football pitches, which may well be used by the next Marcus Rashford or Harry Kane.
As the summer of sport continues, I wish all of Team GB—Great Britain’s athletes—the best of luck for the Olympics and Paralympics in Tokyo. The Olympics is always a fantastic occasion, showcasing the very best of human achievement and endeavour. However, I remind the House that dark shadows hang over the Beijing 2022 winter Olympics, as the genocide perpetrated by the Chinese Government on Uyghur Muslims continues unchecked and unchallenged by the international community. Now is the time for a political and diplomatic boycott of the Beijing games.
I thank all the staff of both Houses for their tireless work, and I wish them all a restful summer. Special thanks must also go to all the wonderful staff who work for us as MPs. My personal thanks go to my own staff—Tom, Josephine, Anisa, Alice, Sam and Naeem—for all their hard work. Finally, I would like to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Speaker, and all the rest of the Deputy Speakers, and your deputy, for keeping us all in check. I hope that everyone has a peaceful summer and I look forward to seeing you all in person in September.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Stuart Andrew)
I confess that I have grown to really enjoy responding to this periodic debate. Not only does it give us a tour of the United Kingdom, but we learn a great deal about a range of issues, raised by Members from both sides of the House. Nevertheless, the medal still goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who managed to raise 15 issues in three minutes. That is quite an achievement.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), offered a penalty shootout. He talked about the independence referendum. My reply to him is that we gave the people of Scotland a choice, a “once in a generation” opportunity—not my words—and they took it: they decided it was better to stay in the United Kingdom.
Many Members mentioned the pandemic, and I join them in paying tribute to all those people who have worked tirelessly to keep our country going, and to care for those who needed it the most. The community groups that we have heard about today have been extraordinary, and I have seen that in my constituency. Those who kept our hospitals going, those who kept our schools going, and those who kept the shops going—who have not had as much credit as they should have—really have been a credit to this country, and I thank them most sincerely for all that they have done in what has been an incredibly difficult time.
I probably will not have time to respond to all the issues raised, but I will do my best. Football has come up a fair bit. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) talked about their clubs, and I am sure it will not have escaped their notice that DCMS Ministers are taking the future of the game very seriously. Their review will of course include the governance of the game, and I look forward to their reporting back as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) continued his campaign on Stanmore station. I will raise those issues with Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. He also talked about the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Given my habit, I had better keep quiet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West raised many issues, and two particularly stand out. Of course, one is his tribute to Vera Lynn. I think we are all united in wanting to support him in that campaign. I wish him well in his bid for Southend to become a city.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) mentioned investment in railways. I point out that, under this Government, we have given £40 billion to our railways, one of the biggest investments since the Victorian era. We stand on a proud record.
A number of hon. and right hon. Members mentioned planning and cladding, and these are important issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Bury North, for Wantage (David Johnston) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) show what an important issue this is. The planning Bill that will be coming before this House is an important opportunity for us to make sure that we build the houses that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage talked about, so that young people have somewhere to live, but that we do it in the right places—the right houses in the right places. My community groups, such as Aireborough neighbourhood development forum, successfully challenged their local council at the High Court on its plan to build on the green belt, and they won. That demonstrates that local voices can count for a great deal.
I cannot ignore the disappointing tone of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). It was disappointing to hear the constant accusation of cronyism and corruption. I took particular offence at being described as a member of a racism-enabling Government. I have faced prejudice in my life, and I have ended up in hospital, as did my father, because of my sexuality. I took offence at being told that I do not believe in the NHS, as I spent most of my working life working for the hospice movement, and at being told that we do not care about poorer families, as my dad spent a lot of time in unemployment—I had to have free school meals. I take exception to such accusations.
I will stand up to anyone who discriminates against any single person for who or what they are, or for who they love. I will defend the NHS for as long as I am alive. I believe that the best way to help our poorest families is to give them the opportunity to have a job that pays well, because being able to support themselves is their best opportunity for a better life.
I am conscious that my time is coming to an end, but I want to say thank you to all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. It has brought out a host of issues, and we have heard that the Government’s agenda to build back better is working across the country.
Despite what we heard from some hon. Members, the town centre deals are delivering improvements in our towns across this country. If hon. Members think that is not working, they should look at the successful Conservative Members who have lobbied hard to get that money and are now seeing the investment they need for their towns. Look at the infrastructure that is being invested in in all parts of the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said, let us concentrate on being an outward-looking nation that is determined to build on the trade deals that will create the jobs we need in this country. Let us be proud of our armed forces, which work tirelessly in all corners of the world so that we can show we are, as he said, a truly outward-looking country.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker, the Clerks and all our staff who support us in our daily work, and the catering and cleaning teams who look after us. I give a special mention to the Doorkeepers. Having to wear those outfits in this weather is incredibly difficult, but they are always there to help us all.
I look forward to our coming back to normal. As someone who has carried the proxies, I cannot wait to see the back of them.
I finish by wishing all our Olympians the very best of luck. The whole nation is behind you. I wish everyone a very happy recess.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I think there is unanimity on the wish for a happy recess.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Petitions
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of 815,000 people who have expressed their views about the Government’s paltry offer of 3% to NHS staff.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that throughout the pandemic, thousands of NHS workers have been working around the clock, putting their lives at risk to protect the public; notes that the average nurse in the UK has lost 20% of their income the last 10 years and that it is not surprising that there are 100,000 vacancies within the NHS currently; declares that many NHS workers are using food banks to get by; notes that earlier this year, the Government announced a pay rise for public service workers “in recognition of their efforts in tackling Covid-19” but many NHS staff including nurses, porters and cleaners were not included; declares that the wellbeing of NHS staff is more important than ever—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not meant to be making a long speech at this point. He is just meant to be presenting his petition. Perhaps he could just get to the end of the petition.
Jon Trickett
I wonder if you could give me guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am reading out the words of the petition; it is not a speech.
Jon Trickett
It is just the petition, as agreed with the office. I will take your advice, for which I thank you, and perhaps I shall just say that the petition is available for people to read.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that throughout the pandemic, thousands of NHS workers have been working around the clock, putting their lives at risk to protect the public; notes that the average nurse in the UK has lost 20% of their income the last 10 years and that it is not surprising that there are 100,000 vacancies within the NHS currently; declares that many NHS workers are using food banks to get by; notes that earlier this year, the Government announced a pay rise for public service workers “in recognition of their efforts in tackling Covid-19” but many NHS staff including nurses, porters and cleaners were not included; declares that the wellbeing of NHS staff is more important than ever due to the most recent wave of Covid-19 and with morale at an all time low amongst staff; notes that a recent survey showed that 36% of nurses were considering leaving the profession altogether.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to liaise with the NHS Pay Review Body to urgently review the pay of Agenda For Change staff and take into consideration the 10 years of pay caps/freezes while acknowledging their extraordinary efforts throughout the pandemic. The petitioners also urge the House of Commons to urge the Government to reallocate funds to enable a 15% pay rise for NHS workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002682]
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
I know you want me to be quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to mark the fact that I am the final MP to be participating virtually. With your permission, I should like to mark that occasion by saying a huge thanks to all the technical staff who have made our virtual Parliament possible over the past 18 months. It really is an extraordinary, and dare I say, historic achievement.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate what the hon. Lady has said, and let us fervently hope that she is the last Member of Parliament to participate virtually by video link. Let us hope that when we next meet everyone will be able to be here in this Chamber.
I say to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that I hope I have not stopped an important part being recorded in Hansard, but his petition will be there.
Sarah Olney
I will now quickly present my petition. I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the UK regarding planning applications in the constituency of Richmond Park.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that localist planning principles must be applied to the Former Stag Brewery planning application, GLA references 4172, 4172a & 4172b and the Homebase, Manor Road planning application, GLA reference 4795; further that weakening the planning decisions made by local authorities at local level risks allowing unsuitable development, including architecturally displeasing development, environmentally damaging development, and development that is not primarily designed to meet the need of the local community; further that the Former Stag Brewery planning application cannot be seen in isolation from the Homebase, Manor Road application, the partial closure of Hammersmith Bridge and other relevant issues; further that GLA must institute a holistic approach by assessing the Former Stag Brewery application and then reviewing the Homebase, Manor Road application accordingly.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government, and in particular the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government of the United Kingdom, to meet with Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond Park, to discuss the implications of the Former Stag Brewery planning application and the Homebase, Manor Road planning application.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002685]
Review of the Gambling Act 2005
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate on the review of the Gambling Act 2005. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on betting and gaming. I thank the Minister for Media and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), for his engagement with the industry and the APPG on this issue. It would be remiss of me not to mention the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), as I know that he did the same when gambling fell under his ministerial remit.
Betting and gaming is a key part of the UK’s dynamic and diverse leisure and entertainment industry. Betting and Gaming Council companies alone support 119,000 jobs. The figure is even higher if we include wider bingo, adult gaming centres and arcades on seaside piers. The online sector in particular is responsible for a growing number of well-paid tech jobs. The Government desperately need those jobs and the tax revenue they bring as we rightly build back better from the pandemic.
John Spellar (War|ley) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Is there not also a very big supply chain for these outlets, and is the not the fact that the industry adds to the life of this country, and is one factor that makes us an attractive venue for visitor attractions, greatly to be encouraged?
Scott Benton
The right hon. Member makes a brilliant point. It is not just about the jobs, directly and indirectly, and the taxation to the Exchequer; it is also about the contribution of the industry to the cultural fabric of our society. I appreciate that point and will refer to it later.
The industry’s contribution to the national economy and local economies such as mine in Blackpool must be taken into account during the upcoming gambling review, which provides a golden opportunity to upgrade much of the legislation in an area that is increasingly becoming analogue in a digital age.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There have been concerns that the Gambling Act is not fit for the digital age, as the hon. Member is saying. Does he agree that there is an issue with offshore gambling organisations, which are not illegal, and that a review of this legislation should look at the loopholes that prevent control of offshore gambling, which is equally dangerous to gamblers who have addictions?
Scott Benton
The hon. Member makes a valid point about the so-called black market or offshore gambling. Billions of pounds of UK customers’ money is spent on black market websites every single year. Of course, the problem is that, unlike UK online gaming operators, those offshore operators are not regulated and the propensity for online harm for people who have a problem is much higher. I thank him for raising that important point.
The key decisions in this review need to be taken by Ministers and Parliament. It is vital that the Government hear the views of both the industry and those who have concerns about problem gambling. I stress that the review has to be grounded in the evidence rather than blind ideology. We must not lose sight of the enjoyment that millions of people get from gambling, with recent polling suggesting that seven in 10 people in the UK gamble every single year and that 73% of people see betting as a leisure activity. This approach cannot be compromised by what some perceive to be the perspective advocated by the Gambling Commission.
Questions have to be asked about whether the Gambling Commission has extended its role beyond that expected of a regulator. Over the years, it has been said that the commission has taken a stance similar to the personal feelings of its chief executive at any particular time. Although the commission is there to support businesses and enable them to operate within the guidelines, it has on occasion unnecessarily made negative comments, been overly critical of the industry as a whole and faced criticism for being obstructive to firms trying to engage with it.
There is a real risk that over-regulation and intrusive precautions could push people towards the black market. Indeed, a PwC study has estimated that the size of the active black market in the UK has doubled in the last couple of years, and over 400,000 customers were predicted to have used an unlicensed operator in the past year, with an estimated spend of around £2.8 billion. The existence and potential growth of the black market poses a significant threat in terms of lost tax revenue, lost jobs, limited player protections and fewer money laundering protections.
When appraising the opportunities for necessary changes in regulation, we must take proportionate steps to continue to protect the small number of people who do have problems with gambling. The estimated rate of those with a gambling problem is around 0.5% of the adult population and has been stable for the past 20 years—a very small number in comparison with rates reported in other nations around the world, which is testament to the safeguards already put in place by the sector here in the UK. However, we must ensure that the necessary support is offered to those people. Those I have spoken to in the industry have acknowledged the need for such protections and appreciate the importance of protecting problem gamblers and young people. Over the last couple of years, the industry has voluntarily taken steps to increase safeguards for vulnerable people, including increasing funding for GambleAware, reducing TV advertising and educating children on the risks of gambling, as well as investing heavily in technologies that better identify and interact with customers who might start to have problems.
Above what the industry has voluntarily committed for funding for research, education and treatment for problem gambling, a blanket levy across the industry has been mooted. The evidence would suggest that this is simply not necessary. The Gambling Commission’s report reviewing the research, education and treatment arrangements states that a plausible sum for annual requirements would be in the range of £21 million to £67 million. I understand that, in 2019, the largest members of the Betting and Gaming Council agreed to increase funding for RET by up to £100 million over the next four years and committed to giving 1% of gross gambling yield to RET by 2023, bringing the total funding within that required range. A blanket levy would therefore be unnecessary and not be of any additional benefit to consumers. It is worth bearing in mind that these funds are already given voluntarily by the industry over and above the billions of pounds paid in taxes and duties to the Exchequer.
I understand that the Gambling Commission is looking into a system that aims to restrict a customer’s gambling spend to a limit based on a person’s discretionary income —known as affordability—to try to protect gamblers. Inherently, without an incredibly invasive and cross-industry system in place, this is a deeply flawed concept. All it would require to circumnavigate the limit would be for the player to open an account with another operator. Without the individual’s spend with all operators being tracked, their affordability limit would thus instantly be doubled. Most regular gamblers already have multiple accounts. Instead, this would create an off-putting and burdensome process for customers who wish to place a few bets simply for fun. There is no evidence to suggest that this reduces problem gambling, only that it reduces gambling overall. It is also morally questionable—where would all this end? Should we place affordability criteria on other areas of peoples’ lives, perhaps limiting spending on fast food, alcohol or anything else that people deem to be potentially addictive?
Further questions would also need answering if this were to be implemented. It would be near impossible to ask all the land-based gambling sector, including betting shops and casinos, to manage this directive. Would they even fall under the same regulations imposed on online operators? If not, that clearly creates an unlevel playing field for businesses while undermining the whole affordability strategy. How would all this actually work in practice?
Understandably, the whole industry, from bingo operators to casinos to sports betting companies, believes this to be an ill-conceived, blunt instrument that targets all gamblers. Its only real consequence is to reduce gambling overall, rather than focusing on protecting those vulnerable people with a genuine gambling problem. It is right that operators intervene where harms are identified, and support must always be made available, but this completely ignores the demand for gambling and, if we are not careful, will turn people instead to the black market if they are asked to provide intrusive documentation such as pay slips.
Flutter, a leading operator in the industry, has developed its own “affordability triple step”, three layers of protection as part of a flexible risk-based approach, while Entain has developed the ARC—advanced responsibility and care—platform, which uses cutting-edge behavioural science to spot whenever someone’s play becomes problematic, so that an intervention can immediately take place. Such schemes are just a couple of examples of the industry proactively taking steps to protect customers without the need for an over-reactive and invasive approach that targets all customers. Market research suggests that 40% of customers would not comply with affordability checks, and three quarters of them would look to evade restrictions by opening other accounts, playing in various physical locations and turning to unregulated online gambling sites, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Also of concern, for many of the same reasons, is the so-called single view of the customer, a proposal for a national database that will contain the betting information of every single gambler, as well as any personal information on their betting behaviour and information gathered about their financial position. The industry has been looking at more appropriate options whereby it shares information about those who are most at risk and have been flagged as having problems. It is far less intrusive to focus on those who need support rather than on every single person who likes a bet. Although the legal case is uncertain under general data protection regulation legislation, the Gambling Commission is looking to implement the proposal unilaterally. As previously mentioned, such policy proposals must be considered only within the context of the Gambling Act review.
Advertising and sponsorship provide valuable support for sports throughout this country. Betting sponsorship of sports such as horse racing, football, rugby league, darts, and snooker amounts to more than £70 million per year. Many clubs in the English football league are adamant that they could not survive without the income that they gain from gambling operators, which would not easily be replaced.
Importantly, advertising plays a role in keeping consumers safe, allowing operators to distinguish their offers from unregulated websites and communicating safer gambling messages to drive awareness and usage. Sky Bet’s Three Simple Tools campaign resulted in a 69% increase in the use of cool-off periods; a 10% rise in customers setting deposit limits; and 83% of Sky Bet customers using the profit-and-loss tool. There is little evidence to suggest that gambling advertising leads to problem gambling. In any case, the industry has voluntarily introduced a whistle-to-whistle advertising ban during live sport; support for safer gambling campaigns; and the newly released code on Adtech to minimise under-25-year-olds’ exposure to gambling advertising. The cumulative effect of these measures should be considered when we look to place any further restrictions on this already tightly regulated area.
Although the number of reported issues is incredibly small, when problems arise the Gambling Commission does not deal with individual complaints from consumers. That helps to build a case for an independent consumer-redress system, such as an ombudsman, for regulatory complaints. That would improve the process and make it more consistent for those who raise concerns.
Finally, with regard to the main commercial operators in the gambling industry, there are several needs for land-based casinos in the gambling review, but I do not want to give my right hon. Friend the Minister a sense of déjà vu, so I shall just reiterate my thanks to him for his thoughtful and engaging response to the recent Westminster Hall debate on some of the asks from the sector, the review of a super-casino and the opportunities that one could bring to a town such as Blackpool.
Quite distinct from the industry’s commercial operators sits the successful charity lottery sector. Charity lotteries exist purely to generate funds for good causes across Britain, with advertising fundamental to their ability to deliver this funding. It is vital that Ministers recognise, as the gambling review progresses, the distinct contribution of charity lotteries and the positive role that advertising plays in helping them to support good causes. In Blackpool, for example, the People’s Postcode Lottery has funded small grants totalling over £100,000, supporting local organisations such as Donna’s Dream House and the Blackpool football club community trust. Given that lotteries are widely seen as being low-risk for any problem gambling, changes to policy must allow them to thrive so that they can continue to do more for the good causes they support throughout this country.
In conclusion, I welcome the Minister’s further engagement with this important review, and I look forward to his response to many of the key issues alluded to in this speech, both in this debate and before the review finally comes back to Parliament in the autumn.
To finish on a political note, my constituency and many more like it with significant working-class communities were hard-won by supporters of this Government. Betting, and the sports that depend on betting, are part of our national culture. What is more, many of these people are sick and tired of being told what they can and cannot do, so the Government must tread very carefully here. Completing the review will not be an easy task. I am fully aware that the Minister will have to weigh up competing viewpoints, but I hope he can progress with a rational and evidence-based assessment that takes into account the need to protect the small number of people who have a gambling problem with the huge economic and cultural benefits that the industry has across the UK. The voters will not thank us if we get the balance wrong.
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) on obtaining this debate, which comes hard on the heels of the debate we had last week in Westminster Hall about casinos. I also thank him for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on betting and gaming and all the members of the group for their engagement with us over the gambling review and the assessment of what further measures are necessary.
Let me start by making clear that the Government have a very simple vision for the gambling sector. We want the millions of people who choose to gamble in Britain to be able to do so in a safe way. The sector needs to have up-to-date legislation and protections, with a strong regulator with the powers and resources needed to oversee a responsible industry that offers customer choice while protecting players. As the Minister for sport, heritage and tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) set out last December, the aim of our gambling review is to ensure that those objectives can be delivered in the digital age and that we have the balance right between protecting people from harm and maintaining freedom of choice in how they spend their money and leisure time.
Gambling is a legitimate leisure activity, and there are millions of gamblers in this country. In the year to March, 40% of all adults surveyed had taken part in at least one form of gambling in the previous four weeks, which is down from 47% in the pre-pandemic year to March 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has mentioned—indeed, it was endorsed by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar)—businesses such as casinos and the bingo provide jobs and opportunities for social engagement in towns and cities right across the country. In some areas, online gambling is also an important source of skilled technology jobs.
While every single type of gambling comes with an element of risk, some forms are undoubtedly associated with higher risks than others. When I first took on responsibility for this brief, one of the first meetings I had was with the lived experience advisory group set up by the Gambling Commission to hear from those who have suffered from gambling addiction, members of their families and those affected by it. We know that something like 300,000 people are classified as problem gamblers in this country, and we are very much aware that it can devastate not just their lives but those around them. This morning I had a meeting with the Gambling with Lives charity, in which it described some of the most tragic cases where gambling addiction had certainly contributed to someone’s decision to take their own life.
We already have a public health approach to gambling regulation, with preventive rules designed to minimise the risk of harm to all consumers, and the provision of treatment to help those who suffer harm. However, in this review, we are taking a very close look at whether further measures are needed to deliver the Government’s objectives and to protect people in proportionate but robust ways.
Of course, that has to be based on evidence, which is why we started with the call for evidence. That closed at the end of March and received around 16,000 responses. I am grateful to the huge range of individuals and organisations that made submissions, including representatives of the industry, academics, researchers, charities, campaign groups and, as I said earlier, Members of this House and the other place. It is our intention to publish a White Paper later this year, which will set out the Government’s vision for change and allow all those with an interest to continue to shape policy. Ahead of that, I can give some indication of one or two of the areas in which we are thinking of making further change.
It has become clear that we need to take a holistic approach to gambling reform, recognising where parallels apply across sectors and issues that have traditionally been thought of as entirely distinct. We need to design a coherent package that is flexible enough to respond to future changes and innovation.
I was the Opposition spokesman during the passage of the Gambling Act 2005. Online gambling was hardly mentioned during the entire course of the debate on that Bill. Then, it was in its infancy, yet now it has become one of the major forms of gambling, and in some ways it has created greater risks. It has transformed the industry, and certain safeguards have come with it. Operators can and must use customers’ data to identify where they may be at risk of harm and to intervene accordingly. It is also now possible to self-exclude from all forms of online gambling through one single request. Since April last year, membership of GAMSTOP has been a requirement for all licensed operators.
On the other hand, online gambling has given rise to new products, which are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That challenges the assumption in the 2005 Act that controlling availability is a way of controlling risk. As I said, online gambling now accounts for more revenue than gambling in person, and the shift in how people gamble has become even clearer over the last 18 months as a result of the pandemic.
John Spellar
It is not just online but offshore, which very often is unregulated.
Mr Whittingdale
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the threat posed by the black market, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did in his intervention. That is certainly something we need to bear in mind. It is very important that we create a safe space where people are given protection if they are gambling online, but we do not want to drive them away from the regulated sector and into the black market. That is certainly something that we will bear in mind during our consideration of these things.
We are looking at whether further controls for play online would be effective in preventing gambling harm, including whether greater controls are needed at account or product level. We are also working closely with the Gambling Commission on its parallel work to improve how operators interact with customers, and we will ensure that any new checks that it introduces to increase protections for those who are financially vulnerable, binge gambling or losing significant amounts over time harmonise with the aims of our own review.
While it is the case that more people are now gambling online, the land-based sector is still very important in our gambling landscape, and of course it accounts for more than four fifths of the jobs in gambling. I absolutely recognise the important social role that some gambling clubs play in communities. We know in particular that bingo clubs attract a wide demographic of players who rely on those places as spaces to socialise and see friends. I am looking forward to my visit to Buzz Bingo in Clacton-on-Sea on Monday.
We recognise the importance both of a well regulated sector that keeps people safe wherever they choose to gamble and of a strong gambling industry that supports jobs. I will not repeat what I said last week about the casino sector, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South knows, there is a need to look at the existing restrictions within that sector. In some cases, they have become steadily more anomalous, and they clearly need to be updated.
Another matter that we are considering is consumer redress, which has featured in a lot of the submissions to our call for evidence and in the public discourse. It is a condition of their licence that gambling operators must provide customers with free access to alternative dispute resolution services to handle complaints. That applies where customers are unhappy with an operator’s service or its response to a complaint, for example about paying out on a bet.
I recognise, however, that the current arrangements deal only with contractual disputes and do not allow for individual resolution if a complaint is about whether the operator has breached its social responsibility obligations, for example by failing to step in when someone shows signs that their gambling is getting out of control. That means that consumers may end up having to pursue action through the courts. Understandably, concerns have been raised that the current system makes it difficult for individuals to seek compensation or support. We are looking carefully at the evidence in that area.
My hon. Friend talked about the Gambling Commission. The commission has broad powers under the Gambling Act that enable it to tackle new and emerging risk through licence conditions without the Government having to take legislation through Parliament. In the past 18 months, for example, the commission has banned gambling on credit cards, tightened rules on VIP schemes and introduced new rules to limit the intensity of online slots, as well as permanently banning reverse withdrawals. We are consulting on and have now approved proposals for a fees uplift for the commission, which will take effect from 1 October for remote operators and from April next year for the land-based sector. This will allow the commission to continue to cover its costs. As my hon. Friend will know, a new chief executive, Mr Andrew Rhodes, has just been appointed to the commission and we are in the process of selecting a new chair. The commission is undergoing a reboot and we are looking at its powers and performance as part of the review.
My hon. Friend mentioned advertising. It is too early, I think, to say where we will end up on the issues around it, but we are looking at the evidence very closely indeed. It is worth emphasising that there are already many rules that govern gambling advertising in this country. The UK advertising codes make it clear that all gambling advertising must be socially responsible, that it must not be targeted at under-18s and that its content must not encourage irresponsible gambling behaviour. Gambling adverts are not permitted to be shown in or around children’s programmes. Compliance with the codes is a licence condition, so breaches can and do result in enforcement action by the Gambling Commission. Licence conditions also set out additional controls on gambling advertising, and the gambling industry code for socially responsible advertising includes rules such as the 9 pm watershed on most television advertising and the whistle-to-whistle advertising ban around live sports.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing us an opportunity to debate the issues. As I say, work is ongoing, particularly on scrutinising the 16,000 submissions that we have received as part of the review. I look forward to coming back to the House later this year with a White Paper that sets out our conclusions and recommendations.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I end by wishing you, my hon. Friends, all hon. Members and all those who work for us so well in this House a very happy recess?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I echo what has been said many times today: we are all extremely grateful for the amazing service given by everybody who works in this amazing building during these very difficult times in order to keep our precious democracy working, and working well. Let us hope that when we return it will be back to normal and working even better. I wish everybody a happy recess.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel
From today, I will be granting indefinite leave to remain to refugees resettled under our world-leading resettlement schemes, giving them the vital freedom to succeed from the moment that they arrive in our country and, importantly, offering certainty and stability to help them rebuild their lives from day one.
[Official Report, 19 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 712.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct wording should have been.
Priti Patel
From October, I will be granting indefinite leave to remain to refugees resettled under our world-leading resettlement schemes, giving them the vital freedom to succeed from the moment that they arrive in our country and, importantly, offering certainty and stability to help them rebuild their lives from day one.
Priti Patel
The Bill raises the minimum sentence for any foreign criminal who returns to the UK in breach of a deportation order from six months to five years.
[Official Report, 19 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 715.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct wording should have been.
Priti Patel
The Bill raises the maximum sentence for any foreign criminal who returns to the UK in breach of a deportation order from six months to five years.
Priti Patel
Anyone who arrives in the UK via a safe third country may have their claim declined and be returned to a country they arrived from or a third safe country.
[Official Report, 19 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 717.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct wording should have been.
Priti Patel
Anyone who arrives in the UK via a safe third country may have consideration of their claim declined and be returned to a country they arrived from or a third safe country.
Home Department
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp
Opposition Members should study article 31 of the refugee convention, which makes it clear that it is permitted to impose penalties where someone has not come “directly” from a place of danger and where they did not have a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum somewhere else.
[Official Report, 20 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 915.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp):
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct wording should have been:
Chris Philp
Opposition Members should study article 31 of the refugee convention, which makes it clear that it is permitted to impose penalties where someone has not come “directly” from a place of danger and where they had a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum somewhere else.
International Trade
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jayawardena
On the point the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his question, there has been much talk about global Britain this week and trade is the route to prosperity, for Britain and her friends around the world. Although others may be content with offering only handouts, we are determined to give our friends a hand up. So having taken back control of our trade policy, I can confirm that we will be looking to go further than the EU and we will be setting out our plans and launching a consultation on the generalised system of preference very soon.
[Official Report, 19 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 4MC.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena).
The ministerial correction should have been:
Mr Jayawardena
On the point the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his question, there has been much talk about global Britain this week and trade is the route to prosperity, for Britain and her friends around the world. Although others may be content with offering only handouts, we are determined to give our friends a hand up. So having taken back control of our trade policy, I can confirm that we will be looking to go further than the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences and we will be setting out our plans and launching a consultation on this very soon.
Petition
Dog attacks
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
Backbench Business
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
COP26 Conference Priorities
(2 years, 9 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
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Members will be aware that social distancing no longer applies, but Mr Speaker has encouraged us to continue to wear masks. Given the hybrid procedures, there have been some changes to arrangements. The timings of the debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made, and there will also be a suspension between debates.
Members participating physically and virtually must arrive for the start of the debate, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. Mr Speaker has asked me to remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and that they should be visible at all times to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members have any technical problems, they should email the clerks at westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. I also remind Members to clean their spaces when they arrive and as they leave, and by all means feel free to remove your jackets.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the priorities for the COP26 conference.
I want to place on record how grateful I am to the Backbench Business Committee for awarding us today’s debate and likewise how much I appreciate the support of my cross-party co-sponsors, especially the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who addressed the Committee in my absence.
In a year dominated by coronavirus and the brilliant efforts of our scientists and the health service to overcome this terrible threat to our way of life, we must not lose sight of the huge importance of what lies ahead of us this autumn. In November, COP26 in Glasgow will be the biggest international summit the UK has ever hosted, on a subject that remains the single most significant long-term threat to our security, economy and environment. This is the first full debate that we have had on it in the House.
The extraordinary weather events that we have recently witnessed in Germany and Belgium have reminded us just how serious the threat of climate change is. The facts are clear: if left unchecked, climate change will render vast swathes of the world, including parts of our own country, uninhabitable and trigger a huge upsurge in poverty, mass migration and political instability that will have ramifications across the whole planet. On current trends, the world economy could be 10% smaller if we do not hit net zero by 2050. It is not just for the sake of our environment that we need to act; it is for the sake of our economy and security.
This is our problem, and it is the challenge of our generation. In that context, we should all be delighted that the UK, and specifically my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), has assumed the COP presidency at this vital time.
Six years ago in Paris, the world came together and agreed a robust framework for action on climate change, committing to limiting temperature rises to an absolute maximum of 2° above pre-industrial levels by 2050 and to pursuing efforts to limit those rises to 1.5°, which would avoid the very worst effects of climate change. COP26, under our presidency, represents the first raising of ambition envisaged by the so-called ratchet mechanism of the Paris agreement, whereby each nation must submit updated emissions reduction plans covering the period to 2030. The decisions we take this year are therefore absolutely crucial to keeping that 1.5° cap within reach, and I hope today’s debate will focus on what those decisions need to be. We do not need a big, new global deal—the Paris agreement remains the right foundation—but at home and abroad it is time to turn promises into action, and COP26 is our forum to make that possible.
I know that our country will lead by example. We can be rightly proud of what we have achieved so far. Our emissions have nearly halved since 1990, while the economy is 75% larger. We were the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. We have world-leading plans to cut emissions by 68% by 2030 and 78% by 2035. We have announced the almost total removal of coal for power generation and boast a raft of important policies in the Government’s 10-point plan for green growth.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels. What we have done has allowed us to keep pace with the seriousness of events. We will have to continue to stretch ourselves if we are to get ahead of the problem and deliver net zero by mid-century. On decarbonisation, for example, the trickier half of the battle is still to come. With home heating and insulation, heavy industry, agriculture, aviation and shipping, the clean solutions we need cannot simply be left to work themselves out. There is a clear case for the Government to take a lead, to mandate priorities and enable solutions, as has happened so successfully with the contracts for difference mechanism, which has delivered a market-led solution whereby offshore wind is now cheaper than new gas-fired electricity generation. That is a really good example of how Government and the market can work together to deliver the most effective solutions at the least cost to the consumer.
In that same spirit, we need leadership from the Government now to support more research into new technologies such as green steel and to back technologies such as heat pumps, helping to reduce costs and enhance performance, as well as protecting those who cannot afford them.
This whole process will undoubtedly generate costs. It will also create economic opportunities. The UK has been adding low-carbon jobs at nearly three times the rate of the whole economy in recent years, and these are sustainable jobs in sectors with huge growth potential and are disproportionately in parts of the country with high historic unemployment rates.
My home region of Teesside is a really good example of that. The recent announcement by GE Renewable Energy that it is creating 2,250 jobs in our new freeport zone, manufacturing offshore wind turbine blades, is just the tip of the iceberg. Last week, 8 Rivers Capital and Sembcorp Energy UK announced the Whitetail Clean Energy project at Wilton, a 300 MW net zero power station, which will create 2,000 jobs during the construction phase alone. That is on top of the immense potential of technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage to create good jobs for the long term.
Moving to a nationwide focus, a proper home insulation scheme, a major heat pump roll-out and significant research and development in the hardest to reach sectors all have immense economic potential. We need to make bold policy decisions in these areas now, and we will reap the rewards for the environment, our quality of life, the economy and the wider world as we export good policy and technologies overseas. Set against that, we always need to remember that the cost of our taking action would be dwarfed by the cost of doing nothing.
I want to look more broadly at our wider strategy for carbon and how we will engage with our partners to encourage the most effective possible global response. The COP26 President-designate deserves huge credit for the clear increase in ambition shown by the number of major emitters, including countries and private companies, that have followed our lead and adopted net zero targets. It has been especially heartening to see countries such as the United States and Japan joining the many who have done so. We need to maintain intense diplomatic activity to encourage others to follow their lead and to show that it is possible to decarbonise without jeopardising economic growth. The targets and commitments really matter.
Hon. Members will also recognise that long-term ambition, while welcome, is meaningless without the action required in the intervening period in order to get there. The world is still falling short in that area. The UK, the United States and the EU can all boast strong 2030 nationally determined contributions, but too many other large polluters have insufficient near-term targets and, frankly, in some cases, no real plan as to how to achieve their goals.
To give some idea of how seriously off track we are, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that we would need to almost halve net greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 levels by 2030. However, before the pandemic struck, global emissions had continued to rise every year since 2010. The Paris agreement does not contain mechanisms to enforce action, so we rely on diplomatic carrots and sticks to persuade and cajole those nations hoping for a free ride to do their duty now and make significant emission cuts. Without a significant increase in the level of ambition and, especially, action during this decade, across the whole world longer-term net zero targets will fall at the first hurdle, and we will miss the opportunity to keep that 1.5° goal within our grasp well before we get to 2050. The urgency of the situation is clearly real. Every tonne of coal we burn, every hectare of forest we fell, and every house we fail to insulate in 2021 is part of the problem.
For many countries, especially those in the Caribbean, the Pacific and large parts of Africa, which make little or no significant contribution to the world’s greenhouse gas emissions but which bear the brunt of the impacts, action is going to be hard, and in some cases probably impossible, without our help. At the 2009 Copenhagen conference of the parties, developed nations agreed to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance to support developing countries with adaptation and mitigation. Again, that pledge has not been met—estimates vary but they all show a significant ongoing shortfall. COP26 should be the moment that promise is honoured, and that should be a key negotiating target of the United Kingdom delegation. If we use climate finance wisely, we can help developing countries enjoy more jobs, better infrastructure and more trading opportunities. We should be clear that the UK is showing real leadership here, driving agreement at the G7 to end funding for overseas fossil fuel projects and doubling our climate finance to £11.6 billion over the next five years. However, we must use our COP presidency to ensure that our friends and allies follow our lead, because failure to do so would be a huge obstacle to progress.
COP26 will be a huge conference and it has a lot to live up to. There is more I could add, but looking at the call list for this afternoon, and it is great to see so many Members here, I am conscious that I should leave time for others to contribute. My main point in closing is to re-emphasise that we must rise to the level of events this autumn. It will be the last chance, frankly, that this sort of conference lands on our watch in the timeframe we have to deliver meaningful action.
The UK has a great story to share about our own progress, and we can set out a compelling template for the next stage of progress for other countries to follow, in a way few others could match. In a debate that sometimes becomes obsessed with targets, language and process, we need to show true British leadership at COP26 because it is the time for action and it is our chance to make sure that that clarion call is heard around the world.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
We have a full house for this debate. If everyone sticks to four minutes, we will get everyone in. If not, someone will miss out or we will have to impose a reduced time limit.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) on securing it. It could scarcely be more timely, as the extreme weather events around the world demonstrate how climate breakdown is accelerating.
With tomorrow marking 100 days to go until COP26, it is more urgent than ever to ensure it delivers. As hosts, the UK Government need to show bold and ambitious leadership, but last month the Climate Change Committee pointed yet again to the yawning delivery gap between the Government’s net zero ambitions and the absence of policies to achieve them. We urgently need clear direction from Government detailing how they plan to decarbonise each and every sector, raising global ambition and giving other countries a clear reason for why they too should go further and faster in their national commitments to limit global heating. Failure to act is not just dithering—it is dangerous and often deadly.
Turning to some of the goals set out by the COP26 unit, the first is to:
“Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach”.
We need to face the fact that even if all the current nationally determined contribution pledges were fulfilled, that would still lock the world into well over 2° of global heating. The inconvenient truth is that a target of net zero by 2050 simply does not equate to keeping 1.5° within reach. Yet 1.5° is an absolute lifeline for those in climate-vulnerable countries, and exceeding that threshold would have devastating consequences. That is why I recently reintroduced the climate and ecological emergency Bill to Parliament, which would put 1.5° in statute. I welcome the cross-party support of over 100 MPs who are backing the Bill, and urge the Government to get behind it, too.
The unit’s second goal, to
“Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats”,
is crucial. Ministers need to deliver on what the Climate Change Committee recently described as an “underfunded and ignored” area of policy. If adaptation is often ignored, loss and damage is even more overlooked. Countries are already experiencing climate impacts that they simply cannot adapt to. The damage caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in Dominica amounted to 226% of that country’s GDP, and 100% of its crops were destroyed. That is just one example of what loss and damage means. That is why we urgently need the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage to be fully operationalised, with new sources of finance to pay for it.
With its vast ability to store carbon and cushion us from shocks like flooding, nature can be our biggest ally in the fight against climate breakdown. Yet biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in history. The leader’s pledge to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030 is a step forward, but that protection must be delivered urgently in order to reverse nature’s terrifying decline. The UK is one of the world’s most nature depleted countries, and when looking at our seas, the case is even more stark. England has 40 offshore so-called marine protected areas, but in reality, there is little protection to speak of. In order to restore nature and protect our blue carbon stores, the Government must use their new powers in the Fisheries Act 2020 to ban destructive fishing practices in these areas.
The third goal is mobilising finance, yet as it stands we are still $20 billion short of delivering on the $100 billion commitment from 10 years ago. That amount must be delivered in full before COP26, so I ask the Minister how the COP26 presidency plans to meet the $20 billion shortfall. What steps are being taken to ensure that it is delivered as grants, rather than loans, and does she recognise that by slashing our aid budget, the Government have further undermined any leverage they might have had in persuading others to step up? Ministers like to boast that the UK has increased its climate finance to $11 billion, but they fail to mention the fact that that money came from an overseas development aid budget that is being cut by £4 billion, a move that goes against the commitment for climate finance to be new and additional sources of money. Unless we deliver on all of these issues, I fear we will not have the success that is necessary in Glasgow at the end of this year.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is an important member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I agree with her and with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who opened this debate, that it is hard to overstate the significance of the opportunity that hosting the COP26 conference gives the Prime Minister to show leadership in climate action on the world stage. He needs to seize this opportunity in front of every nation on Earth to set out clear signals of UK Government action, to meet the ambitious targets set to achieve net zero Britain.
Obviously, the pandemic has been the Government’s priority for the past 16 months, but now the Prime Minister and the whole of Government need to give the same urgency to tackling climate change, which—as we are seeing from the extreme weather events happening this week around the world—is getting ever more pressing. We need delivery of more plans and more action to implement them, to show world leaders that it can be done. We can decarbonise our economies and still improve our prosperity with more and better jobs, but we are running out of time as a country to get these plans in place. Today, the innovation strategy was published, which provides a welcome focus on clean technology. Yesterday, in the Select Committee on Science and Technology, we learned that the hydrogen strategy will be published during the coming weeks, during recess. That is welcome, but many more strategies need to be published ahead of COP26 to show our intent. The heat and buildings strategy is foremost among them, alongside the Treasury’s net zero review.
I will focus my remaining remarks on how Parliament can help deliver a successful conference of the parties. The Environmental Audit Committee has been at the forefront of co-ordinating parliamentary scrutiny ahead of this great conference. We brought together the Chairs of 10 relevant Select Committees to establish a Committee on COP26 to provide routine scrutiny each month, covering climate finance, climate diplomacy, cross-Government support for COP26 objectives, and net zero delivery. We intend to follow this up after COP26 as part of our overall monitoring of delivery on the net zero agenda across Government Departments, and we will be chairing the first post-COP26 session in December to review the outcome of that conference and examine its implications for UK climate policy: how will the UK deliver on any multilateral commitments made?
Achieving our commitments is going to require a huge cross-Government effort that cuts across departmental boundaries—an area of interest for our Committee. We regularly scrutinise across Departments, and the Government need to develop delivery mechanisms across Departments, too. I was pleased to see the presidency programme for COP26 published yesterday, inviting MPs and peers to register interest in attending the blue zone. It is encouraging to see young people and community engagement being offered a focus, and many groups around the country are keen to know how they may participate; frankly, our Committee is keen to know that, too. Along with other Select Committees, we put forward proposals—some 14 Select Committee Chairs put forward proposals, I think—for an engagement programme around COP26 in Glasgow or London. As yet, we have not heard any formal response on whether they will go ahead. The purpose is to engage with parliamentarians across the globe at this conference. There will be many people attending virtually and physically, and we need to harness their enthusiasm.
I hope the Minister sheds some light on whether there will soon be a formal response to that Committee request. How have the machinery of government changes introduced to support the president designate in bringing COP26 issues to the top of every departmental agenda across Government worked in practice? Will they endure to help the Government to deliver commitments that they make in Glasgow in November?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Before I proceed, let me put on the record the apologies of the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who cannot be here. He was a co-sponsor of the debate, but as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, he has to be in the main Chamber for a Select Committee statement.
It is 100 days until COP26 begins in Glasgow, and it is more important than ever—it is vital—that the Government get their own house in order. This is the biggest opportunity for real climate action since the great moment of hope that was the 2015 Paris agreement. It is deeply unfortunate that in recent months the Government have consistently chosen lip service over climate action. They have scrapped the green homes grant, which could have significantly reduced emissions from our homes. The planning Bill denies councils the ability to block new developments for environmental reasons. Most significantly, the Government have failed to set any direction on how to heat our homes in the future and how to expand the electricity grid for the doubling or trebling of our electricity need, let alone on tackling emissions from heavy industry, shipping or aviation.
Those changes and many more serve only to undermine our climate credibility on the international stage. The climate crisis is already damaging health through extreme weather, polluted air, food and water shortages, forced migration and the aggravation of disease. Just this week, the Met Office issued its first extreme heat warning. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, The BMJ and The Lancet all agree that climate change is the biggest health threat of the 21st century.
We hold the COP26 presidency. It is our responsibility to push for serious ambition from countries worldwide—not only to influence them to legislate for net zero, but to achieve it as soon as possible. We have had a string of incredibly disappointing COPs in the years since the Paris agreement. Big decisions have been kicked further and further down the road.
If we want the negotiations to solve our climate crisis, and if we want this forum to be trusted by stakeholders and Governments around the world, the Paris rulebook must be finalised by the end of this COP. The responsibly for that lies with the Government as host. We must not only break the deadlock on article 6 and transparency; the UK must use this opportunity to make progress on the issue of loss and damage, as we have already heard. We have seen nations ravaged by the covid pandemic while also facing climate impacts that are causing devastation. Those vulnerable communities deserve new and additional finance to compensate for the irretrievable non-economic loss caused, as well as the more quantifiable damage caused by natural disasters. I welcome the COP president’s commitment to operationalise the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage by COP26. It is so important that we ensure that that network is more than just a website; it must be a living, breathing network of organisations and countries delivering technical assistance on loss and damage to those who need it.
COP26 must be a COP of global solidarity. It is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is. The world is watching to see whether the UK will step up to the plate.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)[V]
One hundred days to save the next 100 years—that is how John Kerry, the US climate envoy, described this moment in our planet’s existence. It may sound dramatic, but the scientific consensus is that he is right. The United Kingdom bears a heavy responsibility to get the world to commit to doing the right thing, for the mainly poorer people who are dying today because of climate change in the global south, and for all future generations, as our own climate will definitely be affected if global warming goes above 1.5°C. The recent extreme heat in the western United States and in Canada, and the floods in Germany and in Belgium, have demonstrated that amply.
While not having one shred of complacency, we can take some encouragement from the fact that although only 30% of the global economy was committed to net zero by 2050 when the UK assumed the COP presidency, that figure has already risen to 73%. To achieve even more, we need to get three areas to work together in perfect harmony: technology, policy and markets. We need to get all three in the right place, because without any one of them, we will not achieve success. In my constituency, I am delighted that the A5 electric bus and car charging station has been given planning permission. It will provide a replicable model of how renewable energy can be used to charge buses, taxis and cars. I am also pleased that many more electric vehicle charging points will be installed across central Bedfordshire.
I will focus the rest of my remarks on agriculture. Two facts may surprise hon. Members. First, if food waste was a country, it would be the third highest greenhouse gas-emitting nation on earth. Secondly, in Africa, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are higher than fossil fuel emissions, which are themselves much higher than they should be. At COP21 in Paris in 2015, the United Kingdom and many other nations—although not, unfortunately, the United States—committed to the “4 per 1000” initiative. Soil can hold more carbon than all organisms and plants on the planet combined. Only nature can increase the carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and water in soil while producing copious nutrient- rich food.
An annual growth rate of 0.4% in soil carbon stocks in the first 30 cm to 40 cm of soil would significantly reduce the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere due to human activity. If we managed to achieve that, we would not only stabilise the climate, but ensure food security to provide food in sufficient quantity for a rapidly growing global population. To achieve it, we need to reduce deforestation and encourage agroecological practices that increase the amount of organic matter in soils to meet the “4 per 1000” target.
Agroecology is sometimes referred to as regenerative agriculture. Recently, I was pleased to attend the Groundswell regenerative agriculture farming conference with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Thousands of UK farmers have started to farm in a nature-friendly way and are making more money as a result.
In the past 40 years, a third of global crop land has been abandoned due to soil degradation. That disrupts the small water cycle, which desertifies land and causes soil desertification on a massive scale. As Walter Lowdermilk observed, those civilisations that have not practised soil conservation have quite literally ended in dust, so my plea to the Minister is to ensure that we build on the achievement of COP21 and ensure that agriculture is front and centre of everything we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) for securing the debate, and for highlighting global green finance in particular.
I extend my thoughts to all those impacted by the flooding in China and in central Europe these past weeks. The loss of life is devastating, and the emergency response heroes have my deepest respect. The flooding should be a wake-up call for us all about the unpredictable but inevitable impacts of rising temperatures. We urgently need serious action. Two priority areas for COP26 this autumn are to protect and restore ecosystems and to build resilient infrastructure to mitigate effects of the global heating we have already seen. It is right that those are priority areas, but because we cannot tackle either the problems with nature or the climate emergency without tackling the other as well, it is important that they are thought about equally.
I am concerned about what the Government will bring to the climate negotiations on both those issues, because although Ministers like to talk up their record on carbon and on nature restoration, the reality is far from the rhetoric. For example, we hear a lot from the Government about how they are taking unprecedented measures to restore nature, but we are in an unprecedented crisis and nature is in freefall—41% of UK species are declining, and one in 10 is threatened with extinction.
Faced with that shocking decline, it would be odd if there were any precedent for the action that the Government are taking, which is simply not enough. It is not just me who thinks that. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who spoke earlier, has commented on the Government’s plans for species abundance and nature restoration, saying they are “toothless”. The Committee’s recent report said:
“There is no strategy indicating how new biodiversity policies will work together. Implementation of these policies could be piecemeal, conflicting, and of smaller scale as a result.”
Similarly, the recent Climate Change Committee progress report made this call on the Government:
“Publish an overarching strategy that clearly outlines the relationships and interactions between the multiple action plans in development for the natural environment, including those for peat, trees, nature and plant biosecurity. This must clearly outline how the different strategies will combine to support the Government’s climate change goals on both Net Zero and adaptation, along with the wider environment and other goals.”
On one of the two key themes of COP26, the CCC and the EAC both say that the Government have no clear strategy. Without a joined-up plan for the UK, how do the Government hope to negotiate one for the entire United Nations?
Ministers are right to say that the UK’s global leadership starts with our ambition and delivery at home. However, I am worried that our representatives at the conference simply do not have the credibility to talk about the issues with any authority. One of the key pieces of natural infrastructure to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency is our peatlands. The CCC is clear that we need a plan to restore all blanket bogs. Instead, we see Ministers putting forward legislation that protects only 40% of our deep peat. Another piece of important natural infrastructure is our trees and woodlands. Again, the CCC is clear that we need 17% woodland cover by 2050 to meet net zero. Instead, Ministers propose only 12% coverage.
While a third of the UK’s seas are apparently protected, only 1% are well managed and only 5% of protected areas are safe from bottom trawling. The CCC says that there has been no significant improvement in the management of marine habitats since 2019.
Those are just some examples on adaptation. The Government have made progress on only five of 34 sectors mentioned in the CCC’s progress report. The stream of Government action plans, grants and press releases represents a litany of piecemeal half-measures. Now the Government say they will wait until after COP26 to publish their species abundance targets, but Ministers should take a plan to the conference, lead the debate by example and push for ambitious targets, not wait for an international consensus to emerge before taking any action.
Today, I challenge the Minister. What plans is she taking to COP26 for nature recovery? What ambitious targets will she press for at the negotiating table? How will she establish Britain as the leading light in the debate?
I know that my constituents care deeply about this issue. Every month, I meet with them to discuss different aspects of the negotiations and what they want to see coming out of COP26. They have a clear plan. If the Minister does not, I urge her to meet with us before the conference. If the Government are out of ideas, my constituents have plenty.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
This is an incredibly important debate ahead of a crucial conference—COP26. Making a success of the conference and delivering for everyone across the globe is more important than ever. Covid-19 has shown how fragile humanity is and that we face some challenges together, as the human race. Whether the challenge is covid-19 or climate change, we need to tackle it together, internationally. Given that, the priorities for COP26 must aim to build on the work done so far, but also take a leap forward, so that we can take more action to ensure that we secure the global net zero target by 2050 and keep the 1.5°C pledge within reach.
As host and president of this year’s United Nations COP26 conference, the UK is in a unique position to bring nations together, set ambitious targets and commit to accelerating plans to transition to a cleaner, greener and more resilient global economy. As the parliamentary champion of nature-based solutions for tackling climate change, I will focus my remarks on that area.
COP26 is an opportunity for the UK to utilise our expertise and political will to become a world leader in deploying nature-based solutions to tackle climate change, such as tree planting, nurturing kelp forests, stopping the burning of peat bogs, revitalising our hedgerows and much more. We can all now become hedgerow heroes as part of the Campaign to Protect Rural England campaign to protect and expand hedgerows across the UK.
I am delighted that the Hastings town deal includes a partnership between Plumpton College and the Education Futures Trust, introducing seven new land-based skills programmes to our local area. Globally, nature-based solutions have huge scope to mitigate climate change, with the potential to provide over 30% of the global climate mitigation effort required to limit temperature rise to 1.5°. The Prime Minister has already suggested that as one of his priorities for COP26, and he has pledged to increase investment in that area. Moreover, the G7 recently committed to a 30x30 target by aiming to conserve or protect at least 30% of land and oceans by 2030.
As a Member of Parliament who represents a coastal constituency, I take particular interest in our oceans and marine environments. As the Marine Conservation Society has been saying for some time, our seabeds are significant carbon stores, accounting for an estimated 205 million tonnes of carbon—some 50 million tonnes more than there is within our standing forests. It is not only our seabeds that do this, but our vegetated coastal habitats. That is why it is so important that we invest in the growth of our seagrass meadows, kelp forests and salt marshes. By taking a global lead in the use of nature-based solutions, the UK can demonstrate that tackling climate change does not have to be a huge financial burden on household income. Instead, we can enhance and nurture our natural environment for the enjoyment of all and future generations, while also meeting our net zero targets.
COP26 offers the UK a unique opportunity to lead in nature-based solutions and to achieve global agreement on the need to protect our natural environment and do more to preserve it for future generations. I know that, as president of COP26, the Government will take the opportunity to pursue that agenda.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, McCabe, and I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) for securing this important debate.
The timing of the debate could not be more appropriate. In the last few weeks alone, Germany and China have been devastated by catastrophic flooding, while more than 200 people have lost their lives through unprecedented heatwaves in the Pacific north-west and in south Asia. Such extreme weather events are a stark illustration of the scale of the challenge before us, and an urgent reminder of the need to take bolder action to combat climate breakdown. In a few months, the COP26 conference will present the world with its best, and perhaps last, chance to avoid the worst fallout of climate breakdown. With the United Nations’ “Adaptation Gap Report 2020” warning that the world is on course to be 3° warmer by the end of the century, it is clear that we need to go much further and much faster if we are to live up to the promise of the Paris climate agreement.
This month, we learned that large stretches of the Amazon—the lungs of the planet—are so utterly degraded that they are emitting more CO2 than they absorb. As the shadow International Trade Secretary has said, that is one of the worst manmade tragedies in human history, and our Prime Minister is one of the guilty men. His refusal to support EU action against the destruction of the Amazon in 2019 was symptomatic of the wider failure to tackle ecological breakdown. In November, we have a chance to put that right. That is why I call on the Government to push for a global strategy that links together the climate and ecological crises, and that will ensure that, by 2030, the abundance and the population of species are well on the road to recovery.
We will achieve nothing at all if the poorest people in the world are asked to shoulder the cost of decarbonisation. That is why the needs of people living in the global south need to be at the very heart of the discussions in Glasgow. Developing nations have contributed least to the catastrophe that we now face, but all too often suffer the most from climate breakdown.
Leaders across Europe and America often talk about a “just transition”—in November, they have to prove that they mean it. That means not just delivering on the commitment of $100 billion a year in climate finance, but developing a far broader and more radical stimulus package that helps the world’s poorest countries decarbonise their economies, while also improving standards of living and life outcomes for their citizens.
I also believe that the world’s wealthiest countries, the UK among them, must now also begin to look at how they can accelerate their decarbonisation proposals to give nations across the global south more time to reach net zero.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.
We have come a long way since the Paris agreement, which was secured at a time before it was commonplace to have national targets for emissions. Six years later, many nations have set unilateral net zero targets and are beginning to publish plans to meet them. I am pleased that the UK has now significantly scaled up our nationally determined contribution to 78% by 2035, although, as the Minister will know, I have many criticisms about the progress we have made to date.
The problem is that not all countries are prepared to pull their weight. Many have yet to set net zero targets, have set targets after 2050 or have failed to present more ambitious NDCs ahead of COP26. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on small island developing states, or SIDS, I want to focus today on the impact on them. They are in the frontline when it comes to the consequences of climate change, whether that is rising sea levels, extreme weather events, ocean acidification or collapsing biodiversity. These are all existential threats to these states. If we act to save them now, we will all benefit from the global scale of the action that is implemented.
Nation-based solutions have a real role to play in both mitigation and adaptation, whether that is reversing the collapse of our natural carbon sinks or restoring the coral reefs, planting mangroves and so on. There is much more that could be done. As one of the Marine Conservation Society’s blue carbon champions in Parliament, I know that measures to protect the marine environment are particularly important for these countries. They are vital, given their dependence on the blue economy. I hope that the Government will seek to prioritise agreements on protecting and restoring blue carbon stores at COP26, along with stopping the global decline in marine biodiversity and protecting our oceans.
While mitigation is, of course, crucial, I am pleased that a day at COP will be dedicated to the theme of loss and damage alongside adaptation. SIDS often do not have the funds to pay for the work that is needed—for example, the shift to renewable energy or the work that has to be done to rebuild after natural disasters. The pandemic’s impact on tourism has made the financial situation much worse for many of them. The recent volcanic eruption in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines could cost up to 50% of GDP, which shows the inherent economic vulnerability of these nations.
I am pleased that there is a day dedicated to climate finance at the conference, which will be vital for less developed countries. In 2009, richer nations committed to mobilising $100 billion in climate finance per year by 2020 for vulnerable nations, but that commitment has not yet been met, and much of what has been delivered has been via loans with standard repayment rates, which tiny little countries such as the SIDS would struggle to pay.
Developing nations saddled by debt are often trapped in a vicious cycle. Belize, for example, has defaulted on or restructured its debt five times in the past 14 years. The cut to the UK aid budget has already been mentioned, but many SIDS do not qualify for official development assistance because of the flawed metrics used, which do not take into account their vulnerabilities. We need a multidimensional vulnerability index, with looks particularly at climate vulnerability.
Finally, we need to make sure the voices of the small island states, including even the tiniest little islands, are heard in Glasgow. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what arrangements are in place to make sure that is the case.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is a pleasure to be here, Mr McCabe. The basic situation is that, globally, fossil fuel subsidies amount to 6.3% of global GDP. That has grown from 5.5% in 2010. We are already 1.2° above the 1850 baseline. The Paris threshold of 1.5° will be breached by 2025 and, in fact, has already been breached across Europe, at 2° over, and in the Arctic, 3° over, because there is a differential impact. That means that 8,500 metric tonnes of ice are melting every second of this debate. A lot of that is due to the fact that China now has 28% of emissions, which is more than the EU and the US combined, with no plan to peak until 2030. It plans for an extra 300 coal-fired power stations, on top of the 1,037 it already has.
What we want in COP26, first, is a border carbon tax, which is being considered by the EU, so that we do not end up with dirty Chinese steel, for example, displacing UK steel, which produces half as much carbon. It is all very well saying that we produce less carbon than we did—here, it is 5.8 tonnes per person, but 7 tonnes per person in China—but that is because, basically, we have offshored our manufacturing and dirty energy production. On a consumption basis, it is 8 tonnes per person here.
With something like the Australian deal, BA has ended up buying Welsh farms to offset carbon that it uses to fly more people in planes and then we buy thousands and thousands of tonnes of Australian beef to shift across the world. That is plainly ridiculous. On agriculture, 12% of global carbon emissions are from ruminants. We cannot have a situation in which we eat more and more beef in our country or in developing countries.
On air quality—I chair the all-party group—the latest figures show that 8.7 million people die each year, or one in five, from air pollution. In eastern Asia, it is one in three—that includes China. We need to take leadership in COP by saying that we want the World Health Organisation air-quality standards of 10 micrograms per cubic metre for PM2.5 introduced by 2030. To do that, we will need to ban wood burning in urban environments, which contributes 38% of PM2.5. We should also stop burning wood in our power stations. Wood is a carbon store. We should use it in buildings instead of concrete. If concrete were a country, it would be the third biggest emitter, with 8% of global emissions. We want wood instead of concrete.
I turn briefly to incineration. The Government plan is to double incineration by 2030, even though we now know that ultra-fine particulates breach the filters and cause leukaemia. The Climate Change Committee has said that we need to halve our incineration by 2035. We therefore want a moratorium on incineration. We also want the same tax regime, or taxes on incineration, as there currently are on landfill, to stop the local authorities from building incinerators. Internationally, we cannot have the Asian Development Bank giving £73 million for the Maldives to have another incinerator there.
In a nutshell, our focus for COP26, in my view, should be a border carbon tax, World Health Organisation limits, and the UK taking leadership in such things and actually doing it itself.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the collaborative effort of the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) in securing this important debate.
In addition to covid-19, an even more devastating crisis is already here. In recent weeks, we have seen extreme rainfall and deadly flooding in Germany, Belgium and China; volcanic eruptions in St Vincent and the Grenadines; heatwaves and devastating fires from Siberia to Canada; and the Amazon rainforest releasing more carbon than it can absorb. The upcoming COP26 conference in Glasgow provides a crucial opportunity to address such an existential threat.
The most urgent priority for COP26 is to ensure that we stick to the 1.5° target set in the Paris agreement of 2015. The scientific community is clear that anything more than that is a death sentence for millions of people around the world. It is therefore vital that we align the UK’s emissions reduction pathway to a fair-share analysis of the remaining global Paris-compliant carbon budget.
Research from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research warns that the UK’s current emissions pathway implies a carbon budget at least two times greater than its fair contribution to delivering its 1.5° commitment. Not only is the Government’s commitment to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 perilously unambitious; they are not even on track to meet it. A 2030 net zero target is essential to meet the scale and severity of the crisis. The Institute for Public Policy Research is clear: the UK needs to invest £33 billion per year if it is serious about meeting its own 2050 net zero target. Will the Minister do all he can to commit at least to that?
The UK Government will host COP26 in just 100 days. They must use their leadership role to push for an approach to the climate crisis that is integrated with the active restoration of nature, especially ahead of the COP15 biodiversity summit in October 2021.
Worldwide fossil fuel subsidies amount to $5 trillion per year. It is estimated that eliminating those subsidies would cut global carbon emissions by at least 21% and air pollution deaths by over half. The UK Government claim that they do not have any fossil fuel subsidies. However, the fossil fuel subsidies tracker estimates that the UK Government’s subsidies equate to £165 per person. The UK Government must come clean with the public and end their subsidies for dirty energy.
As we emerge from the pandemic, we must raise our ambition to forge a new social settlement: a green new deal to rebuild the country with a more just and sustainable economy. We must take every urgent and radical action, including the nationalisation—yes, the nationalisation—of fossil fuel companies, to save our future. Without much more ambitious Government intervention, the urgent action required to preserve a habitable planet will be too slow. That will cause unimaginable disruption and could cost millions of lives, most of them in global south countries that have contributed the least to the climate disaster.
It is vital that the protection of all workers and communities is guaranteed during the transition to renewable energies. The big polluters and corporate giants must bear the costs—not ordinary people. Most of all, the Government’s catastrophic handling of the coronavirus crisis cannot be replicated when it comes to tackling climate change. Only an unprecedented collective restructuring of our society will guarantee the wellbeing of both people and planet.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Finally, no Westminster Hall debate would be complete without Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You are most kind, Mr McCabe. I do like Westminster Hall—it is no secret. I love to participate, so here I am, along with all the other right hon. and hon. Members who have come to make very valuable contributions. I thank them all.
Today’s topic has been and is at the forefront of the political agenda. It certainly is in my constituency; the emails tell me that, as do those who contact me—and they have for some time now. I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) for asking for the debate, along with others, so we can participate in it.
Environmental awareness and climate change are becoming very prominent factors in everyday life. Climate change must be taken seriously, and I believe that it is. The Government have set out their priorities for the COP26 conference in Glasgow, and I will address some of those today.
I welcome what the Government have done—credit where credit is due. Through many of their policies, the Government have committed themselves to achieving targets and goals. It is always good to set targets and goals; they allow for success rates to be measured, which is very important. I have also been contacted by environmental organisations that feel that there are missing priorities, which I will discuss in the few minutes that I have.
A major aspect that I hope will be extensively discussed at the conference is the goal of all parties to submit more ambitious national contributions targets for cuts in carbon emissions by 2030. It is important that we commit ourselves to do it and then achieve those goals.
Since 2018, UK carbon emissions have fallen by 3% and they are 44% lower than in 1990, which is a significant fall and shows commitment by Government and others to try to achieve those goals. We are certainly taking a step in the right direction, but we all need to put in more effort. There needs to be a national contribution from all parties partaking in the conference.
The Committee on Climate Change has recommended that the UK should aim to be net zero on all greenhouse gases by 2050, which is a crucial aspect of the Paris agreement that we have signed. I want the UK to persuade other countries to commit to the national determined contribution. We need to maintain the efforts we have been putting in to pioneer our own credibility. I know the Minister will always respond and that she is very interested in this subject, but can she tell us what has been done to persuade other countries to sign up and commit themselves to the NDC?
Our recent efforts as a nation have been extremely promising, particularly in regard to limiting our carbon emissions. Transport was the largest emitting sector in the UK, responsible for 27% of emissions. We can all take small steps on a daily basis to reduce that figure. In addition, there has been a major revision to better represent peatland emissions. I have raised that with the Minister at the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home in Northern Ireland and asked what further action can be taken to decrease emissions.
The Climate Change Council has stated that getting to net zero is
“technically feasible but highly challenging,”
meaning we could do it, but not without continued efforts. This work starts right here by Government, centrally at Westminster and in conjunction with the regional Administrations. As we know, the UK is committed to working internally and externally, to lead on the frontline and to inspire thought on climate change. The issue is about reminding people how important it is and then moving forward.
Back home, I am in frequent contact with the Castle Espie Wetland Centre. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) said, there are concerns and issues about blue carbon. Blue carbon assists in coastal habitat conservation, which needs to be taken into consideration by Government in legislation and in trying to achieve those targets. Through protecting, creating and restoring these habitats, we can invest in nature-based solutions that help us to adapt and mitigate climate change. Coastal and ocean blue carbon stores are a crucial part of the urgent and varied solutions required to address the climate crisis and meet our net-zero goals.
I am concerned about the correlation between how we deal with climate change and public health. The UK Health Alliance has stated:
“Despite the climate impacts already being felt, international targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are currently not sufficient”.
To conclude, I welcome the priorities initiated by Government to take to COP26 and I look forward to the Minister’s response. This Minister is interested in this subject, and I am not saying that because she is here. I am convinced that her response will be one that everyone wishes to hear and that will encourage us. I urge the President of COP26 and the Government to take these points into consideration when discussing our strategy for climate change in this House and across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are always better together, and we can get better together as well.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCabe. I commend all the Members who secured this important debate from the Backbench Business Committee and all those who have spoken so far. Every single person has made important points about the ambitions that we should have for COP26 and for addressing the world’s climate crisis.
COP26 in November is a critical moment for the world to deliver its most ambitious and tangible climate actions. Scotland will play its part in tackling the twin crises of climate change and ecological decline. I want to acquaint Members with a few things that Scotland has been doing to demonstrate that. Our aim is to work closely with the UK Government and our many other partners to deliver a safe, secure and successful Glasgow COP and engage, in particular, with those who have been historically sidelined in climate discussions, to ensure those most affected by the climate crisis have their voices heard.
The year 2021 is “humanity’s defining moment” in the fight against climate change, as the UN Secretary General stated. COP26 is the world’s best chance to deliver a global deal that supports the goals of the Paris agreement and delivers lasting action towards a net-zero future, in a way that is fair and just. We are delighted that the vital COP26 is taking place in Scotland. There is still so much more to be done and there is a very long way to go, but I am proud that our SNP Scottish Government were the first in the world to declare a climate emergency and one of the first to set binding net zero targets earlier than 2045. Scotland has led the way in decarbonisation, recently producing 97% of its electricity requirements renewably, and managing to reduce emissions by 31% between 2008 and 2018, faster than the rest of the UK and any G20 nation. We aim to be the world’s first net zero aviation region by 2040 and to decarbonise passenger rail by 2035.
We are also tackling a necessary and just transition to renewable energy. That is a really important issue. We saw what happened in Scotland in the ‘70s and ’80s when a Government did not care about protecting individuals and communities from the impact of economic transformations. As our First Minister said recently:
“We must not make that mistake again. Failing to plan for the transition to net zero is not an option, which is why”
the SNP Government
“are working with trade unions, businesses and communities to develop just transition plans to ensure that our approach is a fair one.”
The First Minister has appointed a Just Transition Minister. The Scottish Government will implement the recommendations of the Just Transition Commission and intend to retain the commission and call on it for advice all the way through this Parliament.
The Scottish Government also created the world’s first climate justice fund—recently doubled to £24 million—which supports vulnerable communities in Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda to address the impact of climate change. Our Scottish Government have been active elsewhere on the world stage, leading the Edinburgh process on biodiversity and publishing the Edinburgh declaration, calling for increased action to tackle biodiversity loss. Scotland also serves as European co-chair of the Under2 Coalition—a group of more than 220 Governments, representing more than 1.3 billion people and 43% of the global economy.
It is vital, as I have mentioned, that COP26 engages with those who have historically been left out of climate discussions, to ensure that those most affected by climate change have their voices heard. Young people, indigenous communities and disadvantaged groups must have a say. Indigenous communities are often those most affected by the activities that contribute to climate change, such as deforestation, and are more likely to live in the areas hardest hit. Young people are those who will have to live longest with the consequences of climate change, and those from disadvantaged communities are less able to afford mitigation of its consequences. The Scottish Government have sought to include the voices of young people at COP through their youth climate programme, which will manage a series of events putting the voices of young people from around Scotland at the heart of the climate conversation, and will recruit local champions from every local authority to connect their communities in the fight against climate change.
We need to remember that it is not only states that have a stake in our future and it should not be only their voices that are heard. Although the green zone is a welcome aspect to COP26, it cannot be an excuse to separate civil society from any serious discussion taking place. Climate justice is a simple and powerful message. Poor and vulnerable communities are the first to be affected by climate change and will suffer the worst, yet have done little or nothing to cause the problem. Establishing a UK climate justice fund ahead of COP26 would be a powerful signal that justice and equality issues will be a priority at COP and that previously marginalised voices will be heard. It is also important, of course, that technology is deployed in a way that helps to facilitate the involvement of those typically unable to participate in conferences such as COP. I hope that the Minister might address both those points in her closing remarks.
The Scottish Government have been working closely with the UK Government, and partners including Glasgow City Council and Police Scotland, with the aim of delivering a safe, secure and successful COP26 in November. Our Government intend to play a full and active role at the summit, and I am particularly excited about the opportunities that there will be to showcase Scotland’s world-leading approach to tackling the climate emergency and delivering that just transition to a net zero future.
I of course also have questions regarding the priorities specifically of the UK Government in the run-up to COP, which many others are also looking for clarity on. After all, how can this Government persuade other countries to play their part if they are failing domestically to keep to their own targets? How will the Government keep to their 1.5°C commitment when research says that their own current emissions pathway suggests a factor some two times greater? What urgent actions will the Government take to keep them on track? Is all of Whitehall’s thinking on this joined up? For example, we have seen a challenge from the UK board of international trade to the news that the Chancellor is reportedly musing over a carbon border adjustment tax, although I see that the International Trade Secretary has now come out saying that she is actually up for considering it. That is an odd one, because she is the president of the UK board of international trade. It looks a little like a string leading from the Treasury has been yanked hard.
I would be interested to hear what updates the Minister can give us on the progress on the Green Jobs Taskforce, which is a very important initiative. When will we see a replacement for the green homes grant scheme, with an equivalent level of funding? I have heard it described as the only big-ticket item in the Government’s policy store cupboard that could make a real difference to carbon emissions relatively quickly. Why has its replacement not been announced?
When will the Government back a fairer charging system for renewables developers in Scotland looking to plug into the national grid? One cannot help but feel that if the Government were really serious about their commitment to net zero, they would accept that that extra levy on Scottish projects, despite Scotland being one of the best sources of renewable energy on these islands, is just plain daft, and that they would talk to Ofcom about it and do something about it.
So many questions and so little time. I look to COP with some hope but not a little trepidation, knowing how important its outcomes will be to our planet and future generations. I ask the Minister to take back some of the messages that she has heard expressed here today and persuade her Government to make the sort of rapid and serious changes to their policy approaches that this climate crisis deserves.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). This has been an excellent debate, with a great many heartfelt and incisive contributions from Members from both sides of the House. I congratulate, as others have done, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for sponsoring it.
We really do need more debates of this kind over the next 100 days. COP26 is, as others have said, a critical moment in the fight against runaway global heating, the impact of which we have seen over recent months in the devastating extreme weather events across the globe. The House has a real duty to engage with the complexities of this summit far more than it has done to date.
The Minister will know that over the past 15 months, the Opposition have not held back from criticising the Government for their lack of clarity on what they believe should be achieved over the course of those 12 days in Glasgow. Until a few months ago, Ministers had merely identified five key themes for the conference. They were then followed by four aims, one of which was the goal of
“working together to make the negotiations in Glasgow a success”.
That is all entirely laudable but also betrays a notable lack of strategic intent.
I will be more generous in saying that, although it needs to be built on further, there has been a noticeable sharpening of focus over recent months, particularly when it comes to being explicit about the objective that Labour believes must be the overriding priority for the summit, and that is the need to put the world decisively on course to deliver the upper ambition—it is only the upper ambition—of the Paris agreement, namely limiting global heating to 1.5° over pre-industrial levels. The problem is, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, that there is clearly not yet a global consensus on 1.5° being a core objective of the summit, as opposed to merely an aspiration. Indeed, Bloomberg reported just this morning that for the second time this month, G20 climate Ministers are struggling to reach agreement on that 1.5° target. We believe that, over the coming weeks, keeping 1.5° within reach must be hardened into a headline target for the summit. It is incumbent on us, as the host of COP26, to do everything possible to ensure it is.
Let me pick up some of the themes of the debate. I want to touch on four areas where greater progress is absolutely essential if we are to realise that aim, with an explicit focus not on the domestic but on the international, given that this is an international summit. First, the Government need to do much more with the presidency to initiate a genuine global debate on how we deliver at the scale and pace that the science requires. In particular, we need much more openness and transparency about the commitments required from each of the parties by the time they arrive in Glasgow to ensure that a limit of 1.5° remains a possibility. Put simply, if current country climate plans have the world emitting, as they do, about 54 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, and 1.5° requires that they fall to about 24 gigatonnes by that date, what collective commitments do we need in November at COP26 to put the world on course to meet that 30 gigatonne ambition gap by the end of the next nine years? That is the question, but there is no real debate around it at present and, in its absence, no collective understanding of what is necessary to keep 1.5° within reach.
Secondly—this is a point that a number of hon. Members raised, particularly the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—when it comes to mitigation ambition, we are currently way off track as a world. With just 100 days to go, the Government need to be straining every sinew possible to persuade, cajole and pressure those who have not yet done so to bring forward more ambitious nationally determined contributions. Countries such as Brazil that are making a mockery of the ratchet process by submitting new targets that are less ambitious than their previous ones need to be called out; those such as India and Saudi Arabia that are resisting the very proposition that the Paris agreement requires them to revisit their current plans at all need to be persuaded to think again, and quickly; and key allies such as Australia that are stubbornly refusing to improve on their inadequate 2030 targets need to start facing some public opprobrium for doing so. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether she agrees with those points.
Thirdly, as others have said, we have to make good on the promise of building back greener, not only in terms of domestic credibility and what that means in terms of our consistency and our leadership of the conference. The Chancellor has now passed up three fiscal opportunities, by my count—the 2020 summer statement, the 2020 comprehensive spending review, and the 2021 Budget—to lock in a genuine green economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis, with only £9.3 billion of funding focused on decarbonisation, £1 billion of which has been cut in the new green homes grant. That is dwarfed by levels of funding in other countries around the world, but the Chancellor’s failure is not unique: the International Energy Agency’s sustainable energy tracker estimates that only 2% of fiscal support across the globe is being directed towards clean energy investment. That is lower than the level of green spending we saw in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The world has simply got to do better if we are going to lock in that green recovery.
Fourthly and finally—this point was made powerfully by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—we must ensure that the voice of the global south is heard. We must ensure that climate justice is prioritised, and we must do more on a practical level to urgently forge a coalition between high-ambition developed countries and highly vulnerable developing countries, not least because that is the only way in which we will apply sufficient pressure on major emitters such as China. The occasional ministerial meeting cannot hide the fact that these issues have not been prioritised diplomatically over the past 15 months, and that ground needs to be made up urgently. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is going to need to be far more agile and focused on using all of the levers available to it to knit together that coalition.
The Minister may not say so, but she knows as well as I do the serious damage that the decision to cut the overseas aid budget has caused to our standing with those on the frontline of the climate crisis. She will also know how critical trust will be if we are to secure a successful outcome in Glasgow. That makes it all the more important, as many others have said, that we honour the 2009 promise of $100 billion in climate finance annually to support developing nations. I would like to hear the Minister’s assessment of how that target will be reached in the coming weeks, and what more, if anything, the UK needs to contribute to ensure it is reached. Specifically—this is the one question I will ask the Minister, so I would really like an answer today, or subsequently in writing from a colleague if appropriate—can she confirm that a plan for meeting that $100 billion commitment will be brought forward by the UN General Assembly in September at the very latest, as 100 developing countries, including key Commonwealth allies, called for last week? Can she also assure the House that the UK will use its influence at the World Bank to ensure that it has a climate finance plan in place by the International Monetary Fund meeting scheduled for October?
In addition to that $100 billion, as others have said, we also need to make tangible progress over the next few months on the share of climate finance flowing towards adaptation; on financing for loss and damage; on arrangements for post-2025 climate finance; and on the wider issues, which are really important in their own right, of vaccines and the debt burden that developing countries are facing as a result of the pandemic. There are a range of other issues on which greater progress is required, whether that is the rules for article 6 and transparency that the hon. Member for Bath mentioned; financial flows for the phasing out of coal; or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) brought home powerfully in her contribution, nature and biodiversity. However, time prevents me from exploring any of them in this debate.
What is important for the purposes of today, as we approach the 100-day marker, is that the House realises that the window for securing the outcomes necessary to make COP26 a success is closing rapidly, and that the outcome of the conference hangs in the balance as a result. There is a pressing need to accelerate progress markedly in a range of areas where the UK, as COP president, can make a real difference, but for that to happen, this critical summit has to be made a whole-of-Government priority, with the sustained engagement and focus from the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Foreign Secretary that that implies. It is an open secret that we are not seeing that engagement or focus at the moment. Until we do, we run the very real risk of failure in Glasgow in November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair for this very important debate, Mr McCabe. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for securing the debate. The fact that there have been so many speakers demonstrates the strength of feeling about this issue and the hope that we can use COP26, of which we are so proud to be co-president, to address the climate crisis. As has been pointed out by so many colleagues, we are just 100 days from COP26, where the global community will come together and, with one voice, demonstrate that we are living up to the expectations of the Paris agreement.
In response to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), yes, focus has been sharpened, and I am pleased that he has noted that. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), it will be a very inclusive COP26. We are championing inclusivity at COP26.
We have seen much more ambition this year, as countries have come forward with emissions reduction targets for 2030, including the US, Japan and Canada. We are now in a position whereby all the G7 countries, which are responsible for almost half of global GDP, have now committed to deeper cuts to their emissions over the next decade. Collectively, those commitments will bring us closer to the goal of keeping to an increase of 1.5°, which is so critical. However, it is obvious to us all that extreme weather events are made much more likely by climate change. We have had wildfires in North America and floods in China just this week, and we have a trail of devastation in so many places, reminding us how critical this issue is. It demonstrates that climate change is not a distant threat and that we need to take action right now in order to turn the tide on the climate crisis. That was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland in his opening speech, in which he spoke of the importance of using diplomatic pressure and targets. That is exactly what we will be doing through COP26.
I want to take this opportunity to update the House on progress across the four COP26 goals—mitigation, adaptation, finance and collaboration—and to highlight the role of parliamentarians. It is great to have hon. Members taking part in today’s debate, to ensure that COP26 in an inclusive event and that we are all playing our role. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said we are better together, and I could not agree more.
On mitigation, we are making good progress, with 71 nationally determined contributions submitted. The number is going up by the day and has just increased from 68 in the last 24 hours. They cover more than 90 priorities, including the EU and its 27 member states, and over 70% of global GDP is covered by a net zero target, including all G7 nations, which now have net zero targets for 2050. That has increased from around 30% since the UK assumed the presidency, so we are making progress. Of course, that is not to say that there is not a great deal more to do.
On adaptation, we are championing a number of initiatives, including the Adaptation Action Coalition, which aims to share knowledge and good practices. We have secured $175 million for the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership, which aims to improve early warnings. Across Government, adaptation is integrated through our policies, with Departments working together and using the national adaptation plan. Adaptation has been raised by a number of hon. Members, and that is obviously a critical element. On finance, of the $100 billion developed countries commitment, approximately $80 billion was reached in 2018, which is the last year that we have data for.
We are then pushing to meet and exceed the $100 billion target through to 2025, with the G7 leaders each committing to increase their overall international public climate finance contributions. There was criticism from a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but we have committed to maintaining our five-year pledge to spend £11.6 billion on climate finance for developing countries. Between just 2011 and 2020, 66 million people have been supported to cope with the effects of climate change.
On collaboration, the UK remains committed to facilitating agreement on an ambitious, comprehensive, and balanced set of negotiated outcomes at COP26. We are also planning for an in-person ministerial meeting in London at the end of July to build on our momentum. That will be a key step, bringing together more than 40 countries from the United Nations framework convention on climate change negotiating groups to delve into some of the key topics for negotiation at the actual conference. It will build those important relationships that we need to make progress.
Nature—a subject dear to my heart, due to my role as the Environment Minister in DEFRA—is a key theme of our COP presidency. If we are serious about mitigating climate change, adapting to its impacts and keeping to 1.5°, we must change the way we use and look after our land and water, and the ecosystems and biodiversity on which life depends. Agriculture, forest loss and land use contribute 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Nature-based solutions, such as trees, peatlands and wetlands, can provide a third of the most cost-effective climate change solutions. They pay their way by more than sixfold, so investing in those schemes is very much worth it. A number of colleagues touched on nature-based solutions: the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who referenced the blue economy; my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who is a great champion for this; and, indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford.
We have done some great work internationally on mangrove swamps, but here there is also huge mileage and potential on our salt marshes and our kelp beds. We are working with countries and communities to protect and restore forests and critical ecosystems, and to transition to sustainable agriculture, which was eloquently referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) when he referenced regenerative agriculture—something that I know is dear to his heart.
We want to ensure that nature is on a par with climate, recognising that nature, biodiversity and the climate crisis are inextricably interlinked. I am proud to say that DEFRA will be leading on the nature and land use day at COP, and there will be a number of events and receptions. I urge the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), to register his interest in coming on that day. He will be very welcome, as will his knowledge and input.
At the US leaders summit, Governments and companies came together to announce a coalition for lowering emissions by accelerating forest finance, called the LEAF Coalition. That is an ambitious public-private initiative, which aims to mobilise $1 billion in financing to accelerate climate action to protect tropical forests and support sustainable development. The forest, agriculture and commodity trade—FACT—dialogue, has also been established, bringing together 20 major producer and consumer countries to agree collective action for protecting forests while promoting trade and development.
Here, in the UK, as many colleagues will be aware, we are introducing a world-leading due diligence clause through the Environment Bill to tackle illegal deforestation in our supply chains. It is one of our much wider packages of measures to improve the sustainability of our supply chains. I hope that the EAC Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow—and indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith—will be pleased to hear that the cross-Government net zero strategy will be published ahead of COP26. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been leading on that, and has been commissioning work across Whitehall that will feed into it.
I take slight issue with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who says that there is no ambition and no direction for this COP, or, indeed, from this Government on their entire agenda. I will therefore rattle through a few things where I feel that we are demonstrating extreme ambition.
The UK was the first major economy to adopt a net zero target. We have the highest levels in terms of the UK’s nationally determined contributions. We are the fastest nation in the G7 to decarbonise cars, and we are doubling our investment on international climate finance. We have also set a target aiming to halt the decline in species abundance. I think that all that demonstrates that we really are leading by example, which is very important.
Mr Chairman, I know that you are wondering what will actually happen at COP26. We have now published our high-level programme. COP26 will open with a summit of world leaders, where each leader will set the direction for the following two weeks of negotiations. Then, there will be a lot of themed days, including on finance, energy use, public employment, gender, science, innovation and transport—a raft of different themes.
All Members will know that they should have received a letter just this week to invite them—both MPs and peers are invited—to register their interests in attending the summit and to specify which themed day they would like to attend. This will be for the blue zone and day passes will be issued. Allocations will be made per day, but obviously that will depend on the covid mitigation measures that are in place. Out of interest, 4,000 different organisations and bodies have applied to have a presence at the event and the team are trawling through those applications right now. We can see the interest in this tremendous opportunity to come and get involved.
I will also just flag up that a whole lot of resources are being made available to hon. Members and hon. Friends, which we hope everyone will engage with and then use within their constituencies, to go out to schools, to hold events with businesses and all the rest of it. There is an engagement pack. There is also a “Together for our Planet” schools pack, which is actually really rather good. It also shows schools how they might want to hold a green assembly, in which an MP could take part.
I must also flag up our own DEFRA-launched initiative called “Plant For Our Planet”. This is a hands-on initiative whereby we can all get involved in planting something, whether it is just something in a window box or on a verge in a town, or doing something with the community, so that we can all do our bit to tackle emissions and also help to tackle the biodiversity crisis—it genuinely will help. There is great information on the gov.uk website.
Penultimately, I will just turn back to the international stage for a minute. As we all know, the UK hosted the G7 event in June and at that event leaders committed to end international coal power finance in 2021 and replace it with more funding for renewables. The summit also spawned a number of climate finance commitments, including from Canada, to double its private finance, from Japan, and from Germany, which announced that it will increase its climate financing from €4 billion to €6 billion. Leaders also committed—
Matthew Pennycook
Do the Government agree that the $100 billion commitment needs to be met in full by the UN General Assembly in September, and that the $17 billion shortfall needs to be made up and cannot wait any longer if COP26 is going to be a success?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman raised that crucial point in his speech. That is why we are using our diplomacy to get other countries to help to commit to get to this sum, and it will be a key focus of the meeting he mentions. I was about to flag it up, but I now do not need to, because he has done it for me. And that comes ahead of COP26.
In conclusion, we have a momentum building up with that G20 leaders summit. We even have events with a COP26 focus, such as the Chelsea Flower Show. People will understand much more about what COP26 is about when they see plants and other things that will help us in climate change and in tackling the crisis.
COP26 will be a pivotal moment in securing our path to global net zero emissions by 2050. Together with our Italian partners and with leaders from across the globe, we will work to prevent global temperatures rising above 1.5° C. This is absolutely crucial. We have to act now; we cannot wait until we get to the end of the century, and we get to 3° C, and literally it will be a crisis. I think we all understand that. I believe that everyone in this room, whatever our views about whatever else, is all agreed on that, and that we must work together, using this COP26 opportunity and our influence on the global stage, so that we can literally save the planet.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Mr Clarke, I think you have about 35 seconds to wind up.
Mr Simon Clarke
I will just put on the record my thanks to everyone who participated in this afternoon’s debate. The sheer volume of interest in a Westminster Hall debate on the last day of term testifies to the importance of its subject matter.
I warmly welcome what the Minister said in her closing remarks about the intense efforts to get climate finance at the heart of the programme for resolution, either at or before COP26. It would be a major—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Support for Carers
(2 years, 9 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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that social distancing is no longer in operation, and that Mr Speaker has encouraged us to wear masks. There have been some changes to normal practice to support the hybrid arrangements. Members participating physically and virtually must arrive for the start of the debate and are expected to remain for the whole debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and those of us here in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which is westminsterhallclerks@ parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for unpaid carers and Carers Week 2021.
We are a nation of carers. Millions of people every day look after one or more loved ones—a family member or a friend, or someone who is elderly, disabled or sick. I want to thank and celebrate carers and to speak up for them and the many challenges so many carers face. To be clear, when I use the word “carer”, I am not talking about professional, paid carers—amazing though they are—or child carers and the important work of parents and childminders. Instead, I am focused on the millions of people working as unpaid carers in homes across our country, many of whom would not even call themselves carers. Millions of vulnerable adults and children depend on the efforts of our country’s carers, and yet the voice of these unpaid millions is rarely heard and listened to even less.
Covid has made the job of carers even more challenging. A recent survey by Carers UK found that 81% of carers are spending more time on their caring responsibilities during the pandemic, whether due to the needs of the person they are caring for increasing, or because the local care services they used to rely on have been reduced or closed. Despite all that, carers have too often been forgotten or ignored in so many ways. Take money. Right at the start of the pandemic, when the Chancellor put up universal credit by £20 a week, he refused to do the same for carer’s allowance. He is still resisting calls by Carers UK, the Liberal Democrats and others to put that right, despite the evidence that so many carers are in real financial distress made worse thanks to covid.
Take vaccinations. When the Government initially published the list of priority groups for vaccination in December, they left unpaid carers completely off the list, even though the case for including them is obvious, with so many caring for vulnerable people. Only after campaigning by carers organisations, the Liberal Democrats and carers themselves did Ministers finally U-turn. Even then, the effort to get the message out to carers and the vaccination services was, frankly, lamentable.
There are many more examples. The Government’s 80-page health and social care White Paper left out unpaid carers altogether, as did the Queen’s Speech in May. I am glad that the Health and Care Bill does at least include a requirement to involve carers in decisions about the people they care for, but the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough. There should be an explicit duty on the NHS to identify carers and promote their health and wellbeing, yet that it is sadly missing.
Here is the nub of the problem: the Government do not seem to understand that improving care is fundamental to improving health. Yes, there is debate about reforming and investing in social care to support the NHS, but I note that even there we are still waiting for the Government to publish their social reform proposals two years after the Prime Minister told us he had them ready to go. However, the link between health and care goes far wider than the relationship between social care providers and the NHS. It is shocking that that is still not properly recognised.
The reality for every family with an elderly, sick or disabled relative is this: the health and wellbeing of their loved one is not determined primarily by the hospital or the GP. So much of improving the nation’s health comes down to the quality of care that can be provided by family and friends. Yet millions of those unpaid carers do not even register in the core thinking and planning of the Department of Health and Social Care.
That is why this debate is so important. It is a chance for us to stand up for carers and say that they must not forgotten and ignored any longer. That is carers like Gayna, who looks after her two daughters with complex disabilities. Before the pandemic, Gayna got support from social services and her local carers’ centre, as well as a much-needed break when her girls were at college or with a youth worker. However, that all came to a halt when we entered lockdown, and Gayna’s amount of time spent on caring more than doubled.
Elaine had a similar experience as she cared for her husband, Mark, who is suffering with dementia. Throughout lockdown, Elaine struggled to cope without regular visits from Mark’s care workers. She deeply missed her respite time, and worried that Mark was not getting the mental stimulation he needed from the activities that he used to do with his care workers. She felt exhausted, stressed and like she had no one to turn to for advice or support. In Elaine’s own words:
“When you’re caring alone, you just have to keep going.”
That is all taking a huge toll, especially on the mental health of carers. Back before the pandemic, the 2019 health survey for England showed that for those carers undertaking 20 hours or more of care a week, the rate of depressive symptoms was double that of the rest of the population. I shudder to think of the state of mental health of many carers now, nearly 18 months into the pandemic.
Let us not forget Britain’s 800,000 young carers. The combination of lockdown, school closures and extra caring responsibilities has taken a toll on their academic progress and their mental health. Some have not been able to return to school, because they are worried about bringing the virus home with them, and about leaving their loved ones without care.
What should be done for our nation of carers? I have already mentioned the need to raise carer’s allowance by at least £20 a week, or £1,000 a year. So far, the Prime Minister has refused time and again to do that. He must do it now. One of the next most urgent things to do is to give carers a break. The survey by Carers UK found that 64% of carers have not been able to take any breaks from their caring role during the pandemic; 74% said they feel exhausted and worn out as a result of caring during covid; and 44% said they are reaching breaking point. Local authority budgets are already stretched way past breaking point, so the Government must give councils immediate emergency funding to offer every unpaid carer the support services that they need to take a weekly break.
Ministers must also provide more cash to councils to fund the voluntary sector’s work for carers. In my constituency, we have an amazing organisation called Kingston Carers’ Network, which is dedicated to improving the lives of carers in Kingston. From support groups to advice on benefits, from special projects for young carers and young adult carers to carers’ assessments and mentoring, Kingston Carers’ Network helps more than 4,000 carers in our borough. With a professional team of 21 and a volunteer group of 72, KCN provides extraordinary value for money. With a bit more help, it could do so much more, helping the thousands of carers locally it knows it has not yet reached.
KCN has risen to the challenge of covid, providing new services. One example is the telephone befriending service it set up in March last year. It recruited and trained 23 volunteers to provide one-to-one telephone support to carers. KCN believes that that simple, extremely cheap service has helped to reduce the anxiety and stress in many adult carers and prevented serious deterioration in carers’ mental health. I hope other colleagues have similar groups in their areas and I hope that the Minister will work with local authorities so that this critical work for carers can receive far more investment.
There is much more I want to say, but I am keen to let colleagues contribute, so that the Government can hear the huge cross-party support for our carers and realise that they need to do far more. Before I finish, however, I want to declare an interest—perhaps I should have done so earlier.
I am a carer and I have been at many stages of my life. My first time was as a young carer, starting aged 12. My dad died when I was four, so when my mum became terminally ill, when I was 12, the daily care fell largely to my brother and me, and finished when she died when I was 15. Later, I cared for my wonderful Nanna, my mum’s mum, organising her care and trying to make her last few years as comfortable as I could. And now as a father, my wife Emily and I care for our gorgeous disabled son John.
I think my experience as a carer is similar to that of millions of people. Caring for a close family member or friend can be rewarding and full of love, but it is far from glamorous and can be relentless and exhausting. That is why this debate is so important. Political debate in our country needs to reflect far better the experience and needs of our nation of carers. The Government need to do far more, especially because of covid, especially to support the nation’s health and the mental health of carers, and especially because our nation depends on those carers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 4.45 pm. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 12 minutes past 4. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Ed Davey has three minutes at the end of the debate to sum up the proceedings. Until 12 minutes past 4, there are seven extremely distinguished Back Benchers seeking to contribute, and if we impose a limit of six minutes, everybody will be able to get in. I call Wera Hobhouse.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone, and a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate.
Tomorrow, schools will close for the summer holiday. For most children, that will mean a well-earned break after the most difficult of school years, spending more time with family and friends and taking a holiday. For up to 100,000 children in England alone, school holidays are particularly difficult. During the six-week break, some young carers will have to fit in up to 30 hours of caring responsibilities every week. Caring for a sibling or parent will come before any summer holiday plans.
The 2011 census identified nearly 200,000 young carers in England and Wales. One in eight were under eight years old. Recent research suggests that that figure represents only the tip of an iceberg. Young carers are a very big silent community. Some estimates suggest that one in five schoolchildren are young carers.
That is one in five schoolchildren watching over family members, carrying things for them, making sure that they do not fall. That is one in five schoolchildren cooking meals, collecting prescriptions or doing admin tasks for parents with learning disabilities. That is just the number we know about. The challenges that these children face can vary greatly. As in many areas, the challenges have been made much worse by the pandemic.
A recent Carers Trust survey found that 58% of young carers are caring for longer, spending an average of 10 hours a week more on their caring responsibilities. These children face these challenges for somebody they love. While they would not do anything differently, that does not make it any easier. Young carers carry with them a great deal of worry—worry that can often make those they care for feel guilty.
Being a young carer can have a massive impact on the things that many of us take for granted as an important part of growing up such as education. The Children’s Society found that young carers were likely to have significantly lower educational attainment at GCSE level. Some 73% report having to take time off school. Carers aged 16 to 18 are twice as likely not to be in education, employment or training, and 45% of carers report mental health problems. That is not good enough. Like every child, young carers deserve an equal chance in life. They do a remarkable job, but they need more support. This Government owe them that.
The Government must bring forward plans to reform social care, so that we have a well-funded sustainable system that can deliver consistent high-quality care. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly called for an immediate £1,000 per year increase to the carer’s allowance. I urge the Government to go one step further and extend the eligibility criteria to those in full-time education.
I would also like to see the Government work to increase social awareness. Too many people are unaware that they can self-identify as carers and access the support they are entitled to. Caring is often poorly understood by peers, and teachers need to be better trained to identify young carers.
To finish, I pay tribute to one of the most exciting young carers’ programmes in this country, which happens to be in my own constituency. Bath Philharmonia is the only UK orchestra that delivers a music-making programme for young carers. It has reached more than 1,000 young carers and helped them benefit from the power of music. It supports them to play, create and perform their own original music. The programme gives young carers a safe space to express themselves, make friends and build their confidence and self-esteem. One young carer said:
“Bath Phil has taught me how to take part in something with a team. It has shown me how to be confident in myself, even if it’s just for a moment. It has given me something to look towards, which has helped me through some really tough times.”
This positive environment not only reduces isolation but raises aspiration. Gaining skills in not only music but communication, teamwork and confidence helps many of these young carers find a way forward, and it has helped young carers and their families when they are struggling. I leave Members with a comment from Jason Thornton, BathPhil’s music director, about the power of programmes that support and lift young carers:
“We’ve got children being children. And that’s wonderful.”
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]
It is a real pleasure to take part in the debate under your stewardship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) for enabling us to tease out the issues relating to unpaid carers. I concur with much of what he said.
I am disappointed to see only Labour and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers taking part in the debate. I genuinely would have liked to listen to Tory MPs’ views on the matter, given that it affects so many people in our constituencies. It is worth reiterating a few figures. In 2019-20, around 7% of the UK population were providing unpaid care. That is just under 5 million people, or an average of more than 7,500 people in each constituency, providing unpaid care.
In my own local authority in Sefton, around 5,000 people aged over 65 have dementia. In my constituency alone, that is around 1,700 people. I expect that figure could be higher if we take into account non-diagnosed dementia and people who are below the radar. By 2030, that number is set to rise to almost 6,500 people and over 4,000 of them will have severe dementia, meaning they are most likely to need support and social care. As many as 700,000 informal carers support people with dementia in the UK. They are asking to be helped out—not to be given a free ride. Of course, a significant number of carers themselves will be older and have their own physical and/or mental health issues. The real human impact on the lives of so many people and individuals can be clouded by the figures, but the figures cannot be ignored.
When I use the word “clouded”, it actually brings to mind the Alzheimer's Society report, “The Fog of Support”, which I exhort Members to read. In short, it sets out the challenges faced by both informal and/or unpaid carers, and formal carers. Some of the examples are heartbreaking. One carer says:
“Because I’ve got to be back within a certain time…you’re clockwatching. You can’t relax.”
Another quotation reads:
“He doesn’t want to go and if he goes in for respite he packs his case every night, ready to come home.”
Covid has thrown a cloak over the needs of many, and those two examples are not just reflective of reality; they are reality. For those who have no family and are the only carer, the strain and pressure are intolerable. In the first wave of covid, family and friends spent an additional 92 million hours caring for people with dementia—unpaid care. Since the pandemic began, unpaid carers have provided £135 billion-worth of care. It has been a long 16 months, and many relationships are under strain.
Members will have seen the Alzheimer’s Society briefing for the debate, and I thank it for that information. I am afraid that the Government’s policy on support for carers is in complete disarray. The Commons Library report is, as ever, a measured assessment of the current state of affairs. It says:
“The Government has said that it intends to publish a final evaluation of the Carers Action Plan in 2021…When the Government decided not to proceed with the publication of a Carers Strategy it stated that carers would instead be included in a then expected Green Paper on the reform of adult social care. However, the expected Green Paper had not been published by the time of the 2019 general election and the current Government no longer specifically refers to plans for a Green Paper.”
There is delay after delay, with more delay for good measure in case there was insufficient delay in the first place. A meeting between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the former Health Secretary—a so-called “do or die” meeting—was postponed in June. Asked about the postponement on Radio 4, the Business Secretary said he did not know that it was happening, and that it had been called off. If three senior members of the Government cannot even co-ordinate their diaries on one of the most important social issues affecting millions of people, what confidence can we have in their getting to grips with the substantive issue?
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Health Secretary and every single member of the Government and their supporters are letting down not just older people but younger people, children and working-age disabled people. The Disabled Children’s Partnership produced an excellent briefing for the debate. Time does not allow me to go into its findings in any detail, but I hope it will be a salutary and informative read for the Minister. How much more evidence do the Government need to prove that the care system in general is in disarray, as is the informal, or unpaid, care system?
The Prime Minister likes things to be oven ready. He claims to like to get things done. He has promised action on this time after time, so perhaps he could use his isolation in Chequers productively and get to grips with this issue. It is time to deliver. Actions speak louder than words.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) for securing this hugely important debate.
Last month, during Carers Week, I had the very great privilege of visiting Gateshead Carers, situated in the constituency of my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), but covering my constituency of Blaydon. Its chief executive, Steve Cowen, tells me that there are 25,000-plus unpaid carers across the borough of Gateshead, and that they save the council, the NHS and all of us over £500 million in care costs per year. That is an incredible figure. While I was there, I met some of the carers it works with and heard about their lives, the situations that they face, and what they need to make their lives and those of the people they care for better.
I met Ian, a carer who had been working on the association’s allotment, welcoming the chance to have some time away. Sadly, covid-19 restricted his ability to get away from home, but he is ready to get back to that now. I met Irene and Trisha, befriender and befriended, who have been talking together for over a year during lockdown, and met for the very first time on the day that I met them. Trisha had been an unpaid carer for her husband and, even after he went into residential care, was spending all her days with him in the residential home. Covid-19 meant that she was no longer able to do that. She was really missing it, and welcomed the chance to strike up that new friendship.
I met Lynne, who is a carer for her husband, an army veteran—but not so old—who told us that it had taken her some time to understand that his health meant that she was a carer. “I was just his wife”, she said, “it’s what you do.” She has realised that she is an unpaid carer, and like many unpaid carers, there comes a time when the caring takes over from what other paid work she has. She is making a huge contribution, and thankfully is now receiving support from Gateshead Carers Association. Stuart had become involved in Gateshead Carers Association as a carer, and now lends his skills to that association as a trustee while still being an unpaid carer.
I could mention so many other people: constituents who have found that they have become unpaid carers, whether for a child with disabilities, for someone who has developed dementia, or for someone who, because of illness or age, younger or older, needs that full-time caring support. Many of those carers—dare I say it—were the 1950s-born women who saw their retirement age changed as a result of legislation. They have looked after parents who need care and have given up work, only to find that when the person they care for dies they are not entitled to their pension, and have been left destitute. Covid-19 has made this worse. Less access to external support and company increases isolation, but let us be clear that, even before covid-19, things were not easy for carers, so we do not want to return to the situation pre-covid. We want to address those pre-existing conditions. Of course, for those caring for children with disabilities, the pressures have been even greater than they were before covid.
I want to say a word on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who hoped to be here, but is unable to. She has told me what she would have said: “I want to talk about the impact that lifting coronavirus restrictions will have on carers for people who are clinically extremely vulnerable. I have heard from unpaid carers who say they are at a loss as to how they and the people they care for are ever going to be part of society as restrictions go and they follow the clinically extremely vulnerable guidance.”
Katy Styles is a campaigner for the We Care campaign. She cares for her husband, who has motor neurone disease. She says:
“I am worried that unpaid carers’ lives will be further pushed back into the shadows and we will essentially live a twilight existence, not engaging with others, trying to stay safe, not taking any risks and being not only unheard but unseen by the rest of society. There is no end to this. No road map for us, just the very edge of the map and no coming back from there. It’s particularly tough for those caring for people with dementia or Learning Disabilities. If you are Clinically Extremely Vulnerable we know the vaccine works differently than from the whole population. We will effectively be back to shielding, but with no support and whilst the rest of the country this time cracks on.”
In the time left, I will talk about some of the things we need. Unpaid carers need proper carers’ breaks and respite care. As we have heard from other Members, we need an increase in the carers’ allowance: £67 is just not enough for the people who devote all that time. Most of all, we need a proper care plan for adult social care, so that the people for whom they are caring are able to access the support they need, and the unpaid carers can also access support. I hope that the Minister will be able to talk to us today about what would be done for carers under the adult social care system—a system that needs to be properly funded, not just to be a cap on how much an individual spends.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hollobone, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) for securing this massively important debate. I should declare an interest, because I am a carer, and have been for the past 22 years; however, I do not want to talk about that today.
Although I thought I knew everything there was to know about caring as an individual, I was taken by surprise at a clinic I held when I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I was at a clinic in Castletown in Caithness, and a gentleman in his early 60s came to see me. He was a bachelor; he was on a very low pension; and he told me how he was looking after his mother, who was bedridden and incontinent. He told me that he was not going to put her in a home; she had looked after him all his life, and he was now going to look after her. He then broke down in the middle of the clinic, which as a new Member of the Scottish Parliament I found rather disturbing, and told me his tale. The national health service had afforded him an allowance of four adult diapers—nappies—for his mother, per day. Each fortnight, or month—whatever the period was—the requisite number of diapers would be delivered to his household. He then told me that what was awful was that, at the flick of an unknown health mandarin’s pen, this allowance had been decreased to three diapers a day. He said that the reason he broke down was, “I’m not in my first youth—I’m not as young as I was. It’s the bed linen. It’s nighties. I can’t cope with this. I can’t cope. I’m desperate.” I gritted my teeth and said that, “If I do nothing else as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I’ll sort this for you.”
I was so angry the next day that I went to Heather Macmillan, who runs my constituency office, and said, “Take a letter! Words fail me. I cannot believe it.” She said, “Jamie, go for a walk. I’ll write the letter. I’ve got the gist of the problem.” We got it sorted and he got back up to four diapers a day. One little thing had been destroying his life, and that was an unexpected aspect of caring that I had not foreseen—it was a real curveball. I can only tell this anecdote now because the gentleman concerned is no longer with us—I have kept quiet all these years—and the point of it is that there are things that can impinge on caring that can be entirely unexpected. It is not always about money; it is about a clumsy and thoughtless decision that was, I fancy, taken far away from where this man lived in Caithness.
Another point, to echo what other Members have said, is about young carers. In my constituency, we are very fortunate to have an organisation called Tykes Young Carers, based in Golspie, Sutherland. I have waited a long time to go on the record and commend that organisation here in this place. I take my hat off to it. Having met its representatives over the years, I have learned certain things and I am sure that all Members will be familiar with similar examples. A young carer who returns home from school, perhaps to a remote croft in the highlands, might have to look after a single parent who is alcoholic and feed and look after younger siblings. Then, when they go back to school the next day, they get roasted by the teacher for not having done their homework. That is an oversight on the teacher’s part, but the teacher cannot be blamed for not knowing all the facts about that particular family. That, however, is another unintended occurrence for carers. Over 22 years of looking after my better half—as we say in the highlands—I thought I knew it all, but I did not.
My appeal to the Minister is, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) has just said, for the Government to take an overall look at this situation. Yes, it is about resources, but it is also about having the radar, being truly three-dimensional and working this way and that way to identify all the things that can go wrong with caring—they need not necessarily be related to money—and make a care giver’s life truly miserable. I go back to my fist anecdote: what was the cost of one adult diaper? It was probably a fraction of a penny—it was not so difficult to provide. However, because of the bureaucracy, and because the unknown mandarin’s pen ticked what it did, that gentleman’s life had been destroyed. I often wonder whether I did any good as a Member of the Scottish Parliament; I like to think that, if I did nothing else, at least I sorted that chap’s life out.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this very important debate; reflecting on his own family experiences, he has been championing carers for some time.
Our unpaid carers ought to be supported for the vital work that they do for their loved ones, not left to struggle and, as in far too many cases, left to rely on services such as food banks. Other Members have outlined the importance of unpaid carers and the many difficulties that they face. As my party’s Department for Work and Pensions spokes- person, I will take a moment to outline what we are talking about when it comes to the carer’s allowance. To be entitled to carer’s allowance, a person must be at least 16 years old, which obviously leaves out some of the young carers whom Members have already mentioned. They must spend at least 35 hours a week caring for someone in receipt of a qualifying disability benefit. They must earn less than £128 a week and not be in full-time education or studying for 21 hours or more a week—we can see more exclusions there—and not be subject to the no recourse to public funds immigration rule. Carer’s allowance is non-contributory. It is not dependent on someone’s national insurance record, and it is not means-tested, but it is taxable. As other Members have mentioned, the weekly rate is currently £67.25.
I want to highlight the overlapping benefits rule. There are 1 million claimants who meet the requirements for entitlement to carer’s allowance, and the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) referred to the likely number of carers in the UK who do not receive benefits. Just over 900,000 receive the payments, and that is mainly because of the overlapping benefits rule. If someone receives another overlapping income replacement benefit worth at least £67.25 a week, they do not receive carer’s allowance. If the overlapping benefit is worth less than £67.25 a week, their carer’s allowance payments are reduced so that the total is £67.25. What does that mean? In his anecdote about his constituent, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned that the gentleman was on a low pension income. The reality is that the overlapping benefits rule impacts most on people receiving a state pension. Some 79% of claimants who are entitled to carer’s allowance but who are not receiving it are aged 66 or over. To put it another way, 92% of eligible claimants aged 65 or under receive carer’s allowance, but 97% of eligible claimants aged 66 or over do not do so.
Simply put, £67.25 is not enough of an income and does not reflect the value that we as a society put on the work of carers. It is less than £2 an hour for 35 hours each week, and we know that full-time caring is not limited to 9 am to 5 pm on Monday to Friday. Of course, people who care for others do not do so for payment; they do it out of love. However, that is not a reason to leave so many people in poverty, from which they have no means of extracting themselves.
Many of my constituents have written to me, asking for a fairer system that recognises the contribution of carers and that does not penalise them if they manage to balance unpaid caring and work—a system that truly understands the needs of those it serves and that recognises circumstances whereby carers may be delivering care to more than one person, such as an elderly relative and a disabled child. I have constituents who have stopped receiving carer’s allowance but have continued having sums deducted from their universal credit. Like other Members, I have constituents who are simply in dire need of a break, but who cannot afford respite because of the limits on personal budgets. I also have constituents who are pushed on to the breadline because of payment deductions, clawbacks and inflexible assessment periods.
Unpaid carers, almost three quarters of whom are women, have simply been forgotten by the Government, who increased universal credit and working tax credit basic elements by £20 a week during the pandemic but who failed to offer such support to those on legacy benefits—predominantly disabled people and their unpaid carers. It is true that my constituents in North East Fife are able to claim a supplement of £8.83 each week from the Scottish Government. Although that helps, and I recognise the Scottish Government’s more compassionate approach, it is still simply a fraction of what is needed. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an immediate increase to carer’s allowance of £1,000 a year, with a £20 increase to the universal credit carer’s element, in order to prevent this from being a deduction that is immediately offset by other reductions, as I have referred to.
Our unpaid carers are all too often our unsung heroes, and I want to recognise groups in North East Fife that provide support to carers and those for whom they care—specifically, the Fife Carers Centre, its North East Fife wellbeing group, and Families First in St Andrews, which I have had the privilege of visiting. This debate gives us the opportunity to sing their praises, and we must keep fighting for a just system of benefits payments to support the most vulnerable in our society.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) for securing this important debate. I agree with everything he said about the plight of unpaid carers. We must increase and expand the carer’s allowance, properly fund respite breaks and recognise unpaid carers in legislation.
The situation for paid carers is equally dire. The Resolution Foundation found that between 2017 and 2019 more than half of care workers were paid well under the real living wage. Despite this, after a decade of cuts and Government underfunding of care, Salford has done its best to try to lift wages to a standard that carers can actually live on. Salford City Council and Salford clinical commissioning group, following a campaign by Salford City Unison, set aside funds to give care workers a significant wage increase and covid sick pay when isolating. This so-called Salford offer was offered to private care providers, but staggeringly, even when public money is made available, some companies have actually refused to take it if it means improving pay or terms and conditions for workers. What can the Minster suggest to address this?
Sadly, that is only one symptom of the structural problems that exist in care. As the Women’s Budget Group states,
“the structural problems with the sector…have arisen from allowing uncontrolled consolidation by private providers, including private equity.”
Salford City Unison further told me:
“We also see every day that even where we are able to secure contractual guarantees for workers, companies invest so little in back-office services that workers are regularly paid the wrong amount, get rotas at the last minute and find that the days they booked for leave are not recorded in the system and are therefore cancelled at short notice.”
I will read the Minster two quotes from care workers in Salford. Paul says:
“Private companies—and even so-called charities—only care about how much money they make. Not us workers or the people who need our care and support. We want more Government money for social care, but we’ve seen in Salford that loads of private companies would rather turn down public money offered by the council and the NHS, than use it to improve our wages or pay us when we’re off because of COVID.”
Diane, another care worker, says:
“I work in Homecare, often working 7am until 2pm, then back on at 4pm until 10:30pm and then back on at 7am the next day to do it all again. Bear in mind that means I have to get to my first call at 6:30am and don’t get home until 11pm. I am not the same carer when I work that many hours and that breaks my heart. When I ask for holidays, the company asks ‘Are they important? Do you need to be off that long?’ They tell you your days off have changed so that you have to cancel your appointments made in your own time. I am always being given extra calls. Once I actually covered 32 calls in one day. You cannot be a good carer when you are forced to work like that.”
That is not how we should treat those people we charge to look after the most precious people in our lives, is it? It is no way to run a care system. I hope that the Minster agrees that care workers must receive the pay and security they deserve; that unpaid carers must receive the allowances and respite they deserve; and ultimately that the Government must recognise care as a form of public social infrastructure and fund it as such.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing the debate and on his powerful introduction, which included his personal experience.
Like other Members, I will contribute specifically on the issue of young carers. A couple of years ago, when I led a Westminster Hall debate on young carers, I was struck by the number of colleagues from this snapshot of 650 people who came along and shared their personal experience as young carers, including the right hon. Member. It was striking that so many had that experience. I cannot offer that. I simply became involved in the issue after meeting Sheffield Young Carers and being blown away by these extraordinary young people as they juggled all the huge challenges for everybody of their age with responsibilities for caring that would daunt many of us. They include young people such as Holly, who started caring when she was just nine or 10 for her mum and her sister. Her mum had an underactive thyroid and her sister had reflux in her right kidney. Holly said of her life:
“I don’t get much time to be a child or to spend time with friends. I don’t mind but it sometimes gets really frustrating if I can’t sit down for 5 minutes on my own. My life is different to young people who aren’t carers because I struggle a lot with life and have people to care for. They get to be kids and live their life. I still get to live my life but I have to be an adult and be very careful. The highs are that I get to spend lots of time with my mum and sister. The lows are that I have no other family around so it’s just us 3. It’s very painful for me and very emotional to have to watch my sister screaming in agony.”
Holly’s experience is reflected in that of too many young people across the country. Young carers’ average age is just 12 and their family income is at least £5,000 lower than others’; 68% are bullied at school, 26% are bullied and about their caring role, and 45%, unsurprisingly, report mental health problems. They achieve on average nine grades lower at GCSE than their peers, and they are four times more likely to drop out of further and higher education.
With all those challenges, the right support is vital. Clearly, we owe them nothing less. Reaching out to those we know is only one part of the challenge, because so many young carers are hidden from view and are not recognised in the places they can be best supported. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, the 2001 census identified 166,000 or so young carers, but research suggests that there are as many as 800,000 in England alone. The truth is that we do not know how many we are talking about, so the first step in supporting them is to identify them.
Just over three years ago, I secured a Prime Minister’s question and described the experience of some of the inspiring young people I have worked with through Sheffield Young Carers. I asked the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), whether she would meet them. To my surprise, and to her credit, she agreed, so I took eight young people down from Sheffield.
In advance of the meeting, I said to them, “Look, you need to sit down and work out what your priorities are.” What was impressive was that they did not choose issues relating to their immediate circumstances; they landed on the issue of support for others in their position who were not recognised. They put three main points to the Prime Minister: that schools should be required to have a young carers lead, just as for children with special educational needs and looked-after children, with a responsibility to identify and support young carers; that Ofsted should inspect schools on what they are doing to support young carers; and that GPs should be required to play a role in identifying young carers, and the Care Quality Commission should check that they hold a register of young cares in their practices.
We had a great discussion with the Prime Minister. In a press release after the meeting, No. 10 said that
“the Government will be undertaking a review to identify opportunities for improvement in these spaces.”
Arising from that, the Carers Trust published a useful toolkit on identification practice for young carers in England, but we need to go further. I appreciate that there is a responsibility on local authorities under the Children and Families Act 2014 to proactively identify young carers, but it is hard to see how they can comply with that duty without working in partnership with schools and GPs.
It is not just about identification. A designated lead in schools can tell children about the types of support that are available, be somebody to talk to, address the issues of flexibility with homework and lateness, get young carers to talk about shared experiences and ensure school staff can provide a support plan. GPs are also well placed to identify support. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what progress has been made in giving schools and GPs that role in identifying and supporting young carers in the two years since the Government gave that commitment.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this incredibly important debate. His contribution was very powerful.
I begin by noting two things. First, the story of the young girl named Holly recalled by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is a stark reminder that many carers are young people. I am sure many Members in the room felt emotional listening to that story. The right support is vital, and that can be given only when young carers are correctly identified. Secondly, I am disappointed to see that there are no Tory Back Benchers speaking in the debate.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton stated, Carers Week is an annual campaign to raise awareness of caring, highlighting the challenges faced by unpaid carers and recognising their contribution. As many Members have noted, Carers Week also helps people who do not think of themselves as having caring responsibilities to identify as carers and access the appropriate support. I reiterate an important matter raised by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd): many carers will not be accounted for. It is important that we work cross-party to ensure that we continually highlight the wide-ranging issues that constitute caring responsibilities and to consider how we can advertise that aspect further. The SNP is happy to give that support where possible.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made an incredibly valid point that I had not thought about too much—the gendered impact of caring responsibilities. Many young carers, unpaid carers and carers in general are women, and it is important that any Government intervention reflects that. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) recalled stories from carers, and we need continually to humanise debates and put names to stories so that we remember we are discussing real people.
This year’s Carers Week ran in June around a theme of making caring visible and valued. In Scotland, Carers Week is co-ordinated by Carers Scotland, which is funded by the Scottish Government. A Carers Scotland survey of around 230 current and former carers found that 36% felt unable to manage their caring role due to reduced support from health and care services, as well as limited help from family and friends; 71% have not had any breaks from caring during the pandemic; 77% felt exhausted as a result of caring during the pandemic; and only 23% felt confident that the support they receive with caring will continue following the pandemic. Our carers have been at the heart of the pandemic, and it is a priority for the SNP in Government to ensure that caring is visible and valued—prior to, during and after the pandemic.
The Scottish Government fund the co-ordination of Carers Week in Scotland to highlight carers’ immense contribution to our society and the extra pressures they may have faced during the pandemic. The Scottish Government also passed the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 to deliver real change for carers, enshrining in law each carer’s right to support and a
“personalised plan to identify what is important to them”,
such as a short break or their wish to return to work. An additional £28.5 million has been invested for local carer support in this year’s budget, bringing investment under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 to £68 million per year.
Over the past 16 months, the covid-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on carers, as many Members have said, which has further exposed and underlined the challenges that many carers face. Significant number of carers have been on call all day every day over the past year—on duty, not getting a night’s sleep, no time to themselves or proper time with family or close friends.
Unsurprisingly, many carers are now exhausted and worried about how they will continue to care without increased support, especially financial. That is why during the pandemic the Scottish Government invested an extra £1.1 million in the short breaks fund, plus an extra £300,000 in benefits and leisure opportunities for young carers via the Young Scot card. The Scottish Government also launched their national wellbeing hub in May last year to empower carers who had never done so before to address their physical and mental health. It signposts unpaid carers to relevant services and provides a range of self-care and wellbeing resources.
During the pandemic, in April 2020, the Scottish Government established a £500,000 remote working fund to help local carer organisations to transition to remote working, so they could continue to provide advice and emotional support to carers, such as telephone counselling and online sessions. As the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) explained, the pandemic has highlighted some real concerns with regard to carers around isolation and creating friendships. I hope the Minister is taking note of the constituents’ stories that Members have been recalling.
To ensure that carers are supported, the SNP has made a number of changes while in government, including the fact that Scotland is the first UK nation to extend the provision of personal protective equipment to unpaid carers. The Scottish Government also prioritised unpaid carers for vaccination, proactively scheduling many via GP and social security records and ensuring others were encouraged to register for a priority vaccination in March and in April.
The financial implications of being a carer can be challenging for many. That is why the Scottish Government have delivered improved support for carers as a priority through Scotland’s social security powers. The carer’s allowance supplement is the first payment made by Social Security Scotland and it increases the carer’s allowance by 13%, with eligible carers receiving £231.40 every six months. Since the launch of the carer’s allowance supplement in 2018, the Scottish Government have paid out £129 million to more than 100,000 carers.
In 2020-21, the Scottish Government invested £358 million in carer’s allowance and carer’s allowance supplements combined, and they paid a coronavirus carer’s allowance supplement of £230.10 in June 2020 to support carers with the impact of the pandemic. They will bring forward legislation to make another extra payment with the December supplement this year.
I have recited what the Scottish Government have done and what the SNP has championed in Scotland. The SNP is proud of its record as the Scottish Government in supporting unpaid carers. We will continue to advocate for unpaid carers, but we are happy to work across parties to ensure that unpaid carers across these islands are supported.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing the debate. His speaking about his personal experiences over many years was powerful; the House is often at its best when people share such experiences. I am sure many carers across the country will have heard what he said and been grateful to him for raising those points.
My main argument is that transforming support for families who care for elderly and disabled relatives must be at the heart of any plan for social care reform. This will be a critical test of whether the Prime Minister finally delivers on his promise to
“fix the crisis in social care”,
which he made two years ago on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street. That is vital for the 11.5 million unpaid family carers in England, who provide the vast majority of care and support in this country, but who are all too often relegated to the bottom of the list when it comes to attention, investment or reform.
This is vital, too, for the taxpayer, because if unpaid carers’ own physical and mental health suffer, or they can no longer provide support for the people they love, which means more people end up using more expensive NHS services, the cost to the public purse will be far greater. It is vital for our wider economy. If millions of people struggle to balance their work and caring responsibilities and end up having to give work up or reduce their hours because they cannot get the support they need, they will lose their income, employers will lose those people’s skills and the Treasury will lose taxes. We have never been able to afford that, let alone now, as we begin to emerge from the horrors of covid-19.
In this century of ageing, we cannot build a better future for our country without transforming social care, and unpaid family carers must be at the heart of our plans. Even before covid-19 struck, millions of family carers were struggling to look after the people they love most following a decade of cuts to local authority budgets. I will talk briefly about what I think are the two most important issues that have been raised with me in talking to carers across the country. I also want to thank Carers UK for organising so many events both before and during the pandemic, as well as in my constituency of Leicester West.
The first thing that many families say is what a battle it is to try to find your way around the system of the NHS and social care. My constituent David Towers is a self-employed carpenter. When his parents fell ill, he rang me to say, “Am I going wrong here, Liz? I don’t understand. I have to organise everything and tell my story time and again. I don’t know what my rights are. I don’t know any information. Is this how it is supposed to be?” I answered, no, that is not how it is supposed to be, but we do not have the changes in the system to pull things together.
The second issue is that of breaks. Even before the pandemic struck, almost half of family carers had not had a proper break from their caring for five years. The stress and the strain that that puts on people are huge. I vividly remember speaking to an unpaid family carer called Della during an event organised by Carers UK. Della was looking after her husband who had been very poorly. She told me she used to go for a half-hour swim in the mornings. That was all she wanted. It was her dream to have just half an hour. She was not asking for much—just that space and time for herself. Surely, in the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world, that is something we can deliver.
We know that the situation has got worse since the pandemic struck. People who were already family carers are doing even more hours, and an extra 4.5 million people have taken on new caring responsibilities. At one of my recent surgeries, an unpaid family carer said, “Liz, I am done. You cannot pour from an empty cup. I have nothing left to give.” She was looking after her mum, so she had no choice. For new carers, the pandemic has been hugely stressful. People have been very frightened of infecting the person they care about, and they have not known what support is out there. They get even fewer breaks, money is running out and they were almost completely absent from all the focus during the pandemic.
In Leicester, we have been working hard to address the problem. Over the past nine months, I have brought together our local hospital, ambulance service, primary care, the city council, mental health community services, voluntary groups such as CLASP—the Carers Centre and Age UK, and unpaid family carers. We have talked about how to improve the system. We are working together better to identify family carers, because most people do not consider themselves carers. They are a son, a daughter, a husband or a wife trying to look after the person they love. We want to make simple information more widely available and to have much better co-ordination of services.
We have a long way to go to make the system work, but I am very pleased that services such as East Midlands Ambulance Service have agreed to involve families in training paramedics so that paramedics can better identify carers, and that the city council has completely changed its language so that it does not talk about “carers”, because most people do not think they are a carer. However, services, voluntary organisations and families need a Government who back their efforts.
This Saturday, it will be two years since the Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street promising to
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”
Yet the plan is still nowhere to be seen. The papers are full of briefings that an announcement is imminent, but in reality—and as with so much else with the Government—all we get is chaos, confusion and broken promises.
First, we see that there will be a levy to fix the crisis in social care, then the levy is for the NHS backlog and to fix the crisis in social care. Now it is for the NHS backlog, social care and the NHS pay rise, and we hear from the papers that it is to be funded through an increase in national insurance contributions, which the former Chancellor, who is now Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, explicitly promised not to raise under a majority Conservative Government. The people who use care, the staff who deliver it and the unpaid family carers who rely on it deserve better, especially following the horrors of covid-19.
Will the Minister say when we are finally to see the Government’s plan? Are the Government considering raising NICs, in direct contradiction of the explicit promise they made before the last general election? Is the rise in NICs how they plan to pay for the NHS backlog and the NHS pay rise, leaving virtually nothing for social care? Does the Minister understand that while a cap on care costs is vital, that alone will not fix the crisis in social care? That is because it will do nothing for the third of social care users and half the social care budget represented by working-age adults with disabilities. It will do nothing for the 1.5 million elderly people who need help with getting up, getting washed and getting fed who cannot get that help. It will do nothing for the paid care workforce, and it will do nothing for unpaid family carers, who are the subject of today’s debate.
After a decade failing to transform social care, nothing less than a full plan will do. That is the test the Government will face when they finally come up with their plan, and that is the test of whether the Prime Minister fulfils the promise he made on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate on such an important topic. The right hon. Member spoke powerfully of his own first-hand experience of care, first as a child and now as an adult caring for his disabled child. As others have said, sharing such personal experiences adds so much to the conversations we have in this House. I am also truly grateful for all the work he does to champion the voice of carers.
Other Members have also spoken powerfully. For instance, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about Holly, and what he said really brought to life the experiences of a young carer. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) described some things a Member of Parliament can do for their constituents. Sometimes, they seem to be small things, but they make such a big difference to an individual’s life. The things we can do as constituency MPs to unlock something that has been locked away because of a decision made somewhere up there makes all the difference. The hon. Gentleman really brought that issue to life.
I pay tribute to all the carers and young carers across the country. Caring for a relative, a friend or a neighbour is something that many people do. In fact, around one adult in 10 provides care, and about 23% of carers have high-intensity caring responsibilities, providing more than 50 hours of care a week. Carers do an amazing thing. The compassion and fortitude they demonstrate, often in difficult circumstances, are truly inspiring to all of us, but their task is hard. It can leave people with so little time and energy for themselves.
I come back to the numbers. There are at least 6.5 million unpaid carers in the UK, and about 5.4 million in England. That is based on the 2011 census, which is now around 10 years out of date, so we know that the figure is now significantly higher, and may have increased due to the pandemic.
The last sixteen months have clearly been incredibly challenging—especially in the early weeks and months of the outbreak, when we all found ourselves facing the steepest of learning curves. For carers, as for frontline health and care workers, the complex and demanding routines that they follow became even more complex and intense due to the restrictions. Many carers were also looking after somebody who was likely to be vulnerable to covid, so had the added worry of what would happen if that person was to catch the virus. However, just like our dedicated NHS and social care colleagues, carers of all ages kept going throughout the pandemic: they kept caring and doing what was needed for the person close to them.
I want to briefly mention the support the Government have provided to carers during the pandemic. We have focused on supporting them—a focus that continues to this day, even as the remaining restrictions lift and we try to move towards a new kind of normality. That is why we included exemptions from some regulations and added flexibility to help carers, including allowing emotional support to count towards the 35 hours of care provided by carers, and relaxing the rules for breaks in care. We listened to carers’ concerns about access to testing, and made them a priority group alongside other essential workers.
There is one vital achievement that I want to mention: the fact that hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers have now received their vaccine—an important step in protecting them and the people they care for from coronavirus. I would beg to differ from the portrayal presented by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Ministers have worked hard—and I can say this for myself, personally—to ensure that carers were prioritised to receive the vaccination after recognising their concerns, often, for the individuals who they cared for.
A huge collective effort went into identifying carers during the vaccination programme—identifying those already known to GPs, the DWP and local authorities, and working with local carers’ organisations to identify carers eligible to be prioritised for the vaccine. That work has also brought other benefits; it has fostered new local connections and dialogues, and has helped to raise awareness across primary care services about the critical role that carers play and the significant contribution that they make.
I will pick up on a point made, I think, by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, on the importance of identifying carers. There has been ongoing work to better identify who carers are. We know that carers do not necessarily even think of themselves as carers, and that young carers can often be overlooked. There is a particular line of work in working with schools to identify young carers and provide them with more support.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for giving way, for her response and for her clear understanding. Will she listen to our demand to look at the eligibility criteria so that all in education can be included in the carer’s allowance?
Helen Whately
Yes, I have heard that. I have also received correspondence about the situation of somebody who may be in full-time education and seeking eligibility for the carer’s allowance. Yes, I am absolutely listening to that. I truly recognise the pressures that carers experience, whether it is juggling caring with work or with education. I have spoken myself to younger carers in that situation as well.
I want to go further on identifying carers—overcoming some potential data protection issues—and on trying to bring together our data sources, so that we have a clearer sense of who carers are and so that we will be able to contact them to offer support. During the pandemic, I found that it was not possible to write to all the carers in the country and say, “This is what is available to you.” I want us to go further on having the best data that we can.
Ed Davey
What the Minister is saying about identifying carers is absolutely critical for future Government policy on carers. It is why we talked about putting an explicit duty on the NHS in the Health and Care Bill, which is before Parliament. That would be a real step forward. Is the Minister willing to meet me and carers’ organisations to discuss the critical issue of how we can work together with the health service and local authorities, so that we can identify the carers in our communities?
Helen Whately
I am very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to talk about that. It is about the technicalities of data, data sitting in different places, and how we can overcome that so that we have a better and common information source. Yes, I am absolutely happy to meet him.
I will come back to some of the things that we did during the pandemic, because I want to cover the topics that have been raised in the debate. We published guidance specifically for carers to try to support them through the pandemic, including on maintaining their own health and wellbeing. We provided PPE for unpaid carers who live separately from those for whom they care, in line with the clinical advice on when it is appropriate for a carer to use PPE. Crucial to all that was drawing on the experiences and insights of carers, including young carers, during the pandemic. We held a series of roundtable discussions in order to do that. Young carers frequently fly under the radar of services and community networks that would otherwise help them.
We provided extra funding to charities, including £500,000 to the Carers Trust in order to provide support to those who experienced loneliness during the pandemic, and over £150,000 to Carers UK so that it could extend its helpline opening hours in order to provide information and support to unpaid carers. We have supported initiatives for young carers, including providing over £11 million to the Sea, Hear, Respond programme, which ran from June 2020 until March 2021, in order to support more vulnerable children and young people.
We have also worked to give extra support to young carers in education. During the national lockdown, schools and colleges remained open for the children of critical workers and vulnerable children, including young carers. I recognise that if a young carer looks after somebody who is more vulnerable to covid, they will be more worried about going to school, so I am determined to ensure that, as part of our catch-up programme for children, some of the £3 billion education recovery package can be used to support young carers who have missed out on school.
I want to talk about day services, which provide essential respite for carers. It is so important that carers, particularly those who do high-intensity care, have time to see a dentist or doctor, to go shopping or to do something for themselves. Such respite is so important, and the day service or respite care is of great value to the individual who attends it. I was truly disappointed to read Carers UK’s new research report, “Breaks or breakdown”, which was published during Carers Week. It said that
“72% of carers have not had any breaks from their caring”
during the pandemic. However, many respite services and day services have not been fully operational for much of the last 16 months. I want to see the reopening of such services. That is one reason why, as part of the infection control fund, we have given nearly £1.5 billion to social care during the pandemic. One use of that fund has been to support the reopening of day services.
I know we can go further. Just last week, I spoke to local authority leaders and emphasised to them the importance of reopening day services and respite services, and I urged them to take advantage of the support that is on offer. I personally commissioned two surveys of day service provision—one last October and one in spring this year. During that period, that provision has increased; the situation in the recent report was better than last year’s, but it is not yet back to the pre-pandemic level. I will continue to work with adult directors of social services, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local authorities to fully understand the challenges in getting day services back to the level that they were at before.
Liz Twist
I very much welcome the efforts made to reopen day services. However, will the Minister accept that many local authorities already find their social care funding stretched incredibly hard and so find it difficult to maintain some of those services? Does the Minister accept that there is a funding issue here?
Helen Whately
Of course, there are financial pressures across public services, and more widely across our economy we face an extremely challenging time, but we have given significant extra funding to local authorities to support them through the pandemic. That is why I urge them to prioritise this issue. I emphasise the importance of the carer’s needs assessment that local authorities carry out, because that is such a crucial way of identifying what support a carer may need for themselves and their wellbeing, including the need for respite and taking a break from caring, and then making sure that that happens.
Jamie Stone
Further to what the Minister just said, Migdale Hospital in my constituency has in recent times lost a lot of beds. That is a combination of the NHS, and—because healthy policy is devolved—the Scottish Government. Does the Minister agree that that is a real problem? This is not joined-up government. Whatever influence she can bring to bear on the Scottish Government to reverse those decisions, which fly in the face of good government, would be helpful.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman has made his point very clearly. He knows that that is a devolved matter, but SNP Members are listening, and I hope that they take up his concern.
Effective support for carers can never be created or offered in isolation, and it is critical to me that the views of carers are central to how my Department develops policy. Just a few weeks ago, Carers Week provided an opportunity to highlight the invaluable contribution of carers and for others to commit to improving their quality of life. I personally made a pledge to work nationally and locally in my constituency to promote caring communities, and I wrote to all MPs urging them to do the same.
I will continue to play my part and will listen to and champion the needs of all carers as our country continues its recovery to a new kind of normality. I have and will continue to meet a wide range of carers’ organisations and to speak to Ministers from across Government to ensure that our regulations, policies and services are fit for purpose and consider the needs of carers. That engagement has included roundtable discussions and regular calls with individual carers charities, including Carers UK, Carers Trust and the Children’s Society, and I will continue to work with colleagues across Government, MPs and local authorities to increase our support for carers.
The Government do not have all the answers. Several hon. Members have spoken today about local organisations and initiatives that support carers. Local carers’ groups play such an important role—by putting carers in touch with others in similar situations, for instance, so that they discover that they are certainly not alone; and by providing practical support, advice and respite. That is from Carers UK and the Carers Trust to any number of local groups; during the debate, I have heard mention of Kingston Carers’ Network, Gateshead Carers, a young carers organisation in Bath, Tykes Young Carers in Sutherland and Sheffield Young Carers. I should mention Crossroads Care Kent, who I met the other day in my capacity as the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent. I heard about the excellent work that it does. Across the country, these voluntary groups, charities and charitable organisations do such an important thing in supporting carers, and I recognise that.
Several hon. Members mentioned social care reform, and they know well that we are committed to bringing forward proposals this year for reform of the adult social care system. As part of those proposals, we are absolutely considering unpaid carers. We want to build a system in which unpaid carers are truly supported and those who receive care have more choice and control over their lives. We are working closely with local and national organisations so that our approach to reform is informed by diverse perspectives, including those with lived experience of the care sector.
On the Health and Care Bill, I want to ensure that the voices of unpaid carers, as well as care home residents and others who receive care and support, are truly heard in integrated care systems. That is why the Bill places new duties on integrated care boards and NHS England to involve carers.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this important topic. I know that all those who have spoken share my deep commitment to supporting our unpaid carers and young carers, who have sacrificed and given so much, especially in the past 16 months, and continue to do so. As Minister for Care, I have seen at close hand how challenging and unwelcome the pandemic has been for people caring, as well as those being cared for.
We should all be humbled, inspired and strengthened by everyone who has endured this most stressful of times. I hope that the House will join me in a heartfelt thank you to each and every carer and young carer across the country for all that they are doing to support, protect and care for their loved ones.
Ed Davey
I thank every Member who has contributed. Members have made some really powerful speeches, and I think that carers in their constituencies are very grateful for the work that they do as parliamentarians.
I will single out, rather unfairly perhaps, two colleagues who have spoken, for different reasons—first, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). The story about his constituent needing an extra diaper a day for his mother brought home to us all what we are talking about when we are talking about carers: the stresses, the fact that they are providing very basic care—whether it is dealing with toileting, doing washing, dressing, eating or drinking—to ensure that a loved one can have a quality of life, and how the emotional impact of that can affect people. I am grateful for his contribution, which I think brought us down to earth on what we are talking about.
I also thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for talking about the need to identify young carers. The Minister picked that up, agreeing that we need to talk about that more generally. There is an issue about helping people to identify themselves, because many people do not understand that they are carers. They see it as just looking after their wife or husband, son or daughter, or mother or father, but we need to identify them to ensure that they are getting the support that they need, whether for their own mental health, respite care or whatever it might be.
We also need to ensure, as we plan health services, social services, or whatever it may be, that we have proper information. The census, when it comes out, may refresh the figures of 2011. Many colleagues were involved in the efforts to encourage people, when they took the census, to identify themselves as carers. I would probably multiply whatever figures come from the census because I am not sure that all carers will identify themselves as such. However, if we can do that more effectively I think we can bring home to policymakers how significant the issue is. It has been massively underplayed by Government after Government, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. He mentioned young carers. I cannot see, for example, why that cannot be central to the annual school census. That is a pretty easy thing to do. I am very happy to work with him and others to try to work with the Government to bring that about.
If we value carers for the work that they do and properly identify them, I think we can come together and really improve the support that we give them, which is so essential. In so doing, we can dramatically improve the health and wellbeing of the people we are elected to serve, which is utterly crucial. May I end, Mr Hollobone, by thanking everybody—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am afraid not. The sitting stands adjourned.
Written Statements
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Innovation and R&D Strategies, Post Office Horizon and Framework for Better Regulation
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Today the Government are publishing the UK innovation strategy, “Leading the future by creating it”.
Innovation is central to tackling the largest challenges the world faces, from climate change to global pandemics. The UK must be in the vanguard of the response to these challenges. That is why the Government have placed innovation at the heart of our plan for growth and so much else we want to achieve, from fighting coronavirus to achieving net zero and building global Britain.
The UK has a long and illustrious history of world-leading innovation, from the industrial revolution to the vaccine development of the past year. Now we have left the EU, we can move even more quickly to respond to emerging challenges and global opportunities, and cement the UK’s position as a world leader in science, research and innovation.
To this end, the UK innovation strategy sets out the Government’s vision to make the UK a global hub for innovation by 2035, placing innovation at the centre of everything this nation does. Through this we seek to generate disruptive inventions, the most tech-centric industry and Government in the world, more tech “unicorns”, and a nation of firms and people that all aspire to innovate.
To achieve these objectives, we want to unlock business investment in innovation. This is a core objective of the innovation strategy, and my officials have consulted with over 400 businesses and organisations to determine the factors that could lead to an increase in business innovation.
In the innovation strategy we set out our plans against four key pillars, which will support the achievement of our vision:
Pillar 1: Unleashing Business—we will fuel businesses who want to innovate.
Pillar 2: People—we will make the UK the most exciting place for innovation talent.
Pillar 3: Institutions & Places—we will ensure our research, development and innovation institutions serve the needs of businesses and places across the UK.
Pillar 4: Missions & Technologies—we will stimulate innovation to tackle major challenges faced by the UK and the world and drive capability in key technologies.
Through these pillars, the innovation strategy aims to both establish the right underlying policy environment and clearly signal those areas where the Government will take the lead.
This innovation strategy is only the first step. In the coming months and years, we will maintain a laser-like focus on realising our ambitions for innovation. We will track a range of quantitative metrics to measure our progress in delivering our commitments, alongside in-depth intelligence from businesses and other innovation stake-holders. Innovation will also be a crucial element of our efforts to level up the UK economy. A detailed strategy for levelling up through research and innovation will be set out as a part of the Government’s forthcoming levelling up White Paper.
I will place a copy of the innovation strategy in the Libraries of both Houses.
R&D People and Culture Strategy
I am also delighted to announce that the Government have today published their “R&D People and Culture Strategy”, delivering on the commitment we made in the R&D road map last summer. The road map recognised that people are at the heart of research and development, and that we need talented, diverse people, with the right skills, working in an environment that allows them to do their best work and deliver positive outcomes for our society and the economy.
The R&D people and culture strategy sets out, for the first time, a whole sector vision that is backed by clear Government commitments. It is a call to action to create a more inclusive, dynamic and sustainable UK R&D sector, in which a diversity of people and ideas can thrive.
Through this strategy, we will set out actions that will bring the best out of people and enable talent and ideas to flow freely between academia, business, and other sectors. We will ensure that everyone’s contribution is valued, and the UK has an outstanding research culture that truly supports discovery, diversity, and innovation, and offers varied and diverse careers that bring excitement and recognition.
The strategy identifies three priority areas across which action is needed:
People: redefining what it means to work in R&D in the 21st century—valuing all the roles that make it a success and ensuring the UK has the capability and capacity it needs.
Culture: co-creating a vision of the culture we want to see within the sector—working together to make lasting change happen so that researchers and innovators with diverse backgrounds and ways of thinking can thrive and do their best work here.
Talent: renewing the UK’s position as a global leader in R&D in attracting, retaining and developing talented people, making sure careers in UK R&D are attractive to talented individuals and teams both domestically and internationally.
A talented and thriving R&D workforce will be key for realising our science superpower ambitions, and the R&D people and culture strategy will play an important role in supporting the vision I am setting out in the innovation strategy to make the UK a global hub for innovation by 2035.
We have engaged widely with the sector to date on the issues identified in this strategy, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation and I are very grateful to the hundreds of individuals and organisations who have contributed to their respective development. The Government will continue working closely with the sector to ensure the successful implementation.
I will place a copy of the R&D people and culture strategy in the Libraries of both Houses.
Post Office Horizon Update
This House is aware of the distressing impact that problems with the Post Office’s Horizon IT system have had on the lives and livelihoods of many postmasters.
Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in branches. These shortfalls were treated by the Post Office as caused by postmasters, and this led to dismissals, recovery of losses by Post Office Ltd and, in some cases, criminal prosecutions. We now know this data was unreliable.
The Court of Appeal handed down a landmark judgment on 23 April 2021, which quashed the convictions of 39 postmasters. A further 12 were quashed in the Court of Appeal earlier this week. Further convictions have been quashed in the Crown court. The Government have been clear that we want to see compensation delivered fairly and as quickly as possible. We have also been clear that it is for the Post Office to engage with the individuals in the first instance regarding how compensation can be paid. I am pleased to provide an update on the steps to begin providing compensation to postmasters whose criminal convictions were based on Horizon data and have been quashed.
We have listened to affected postmasters and want to see them receive compensation quickly. The Government have therefore decided to support the Post Office so that it can make interim payments of up to £100,000 promptly to individual postmasters whose criminal convictions relied on Horizon data and have been quashed, ahead of final compensation settlements being agreed with them. I am providing this support in my capacity as sole shareholder in the Post Office.
While we recognise that these interim payments may not represent the full compensation that postmasters may ultimately receive, and which will need to be determined between the Post Office and the individuals concerned, it is a means of providing monies to individuals at an early stage in the claims process. The process for finally determining the compensation to be paid will take time and will involve POL obtaining a full quantification of all claims. These claims need to be carefully examined so that postmasters ultimately receive fair compensation and the payments that they deserve.
In the meantime, the Government thank the postmasters for their patience, recognising the impact that being wrongfully prosecuted has had on individuals, and believe that an interim payment is a way to begin to address the hardships they have faced ahead of when the final sum can be determined and paid.
The Post Office is contacting the legal representatives of postmasters whose convictions have been quashed with further information about interim payments. We expect the Post Office to issue offer letters for interim payments within 28 days of receiving a claim from eligible postmasters.
The Government are committed to supporting and maintaining the post office network, which, along with the postmasters, provides essential services to our urban and rural communities. This decision supports the Government’s priorities to support postmasters and to see the longstanding Horizon issues resolved. This support is in addition to the financial support BEIS has provided for the historical shortfall scheme to proceed, which was opened to recompense postmasters who repaid shortfalls and did not have a criminal conviction. In addition, BEIS launched the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, which recently converted to a statutory footing, following the Court of Appeal judgment.
We understand that the Post Office has already begun work to deliver the full compensation sum to postmasters and we will work with them towards this. With my status as sole shareholder in the Post Office, my Department continues to engage actively with Post Office Ltd on this and will maintain strong oversight of this process.
Reforming the framework for better regulation
Our exit from the EU provides us with the opportunity to think boldly about how we regulate and for the first time in a generation, we have the freedom to conceive and implement rules that put the UK first. The UK will use its newfound freedoms as an independent trading nation to boost growth, increase competition and create jobs by revamping the way rules and regulations for businesses are set. We will use this freedom to unlock cutting-edge technologies, unleash innovation, and propel start-up growth, levelling up every corner of the UK. This will be a crucial part of boosting our productivity and helping us bring the benefits of growth to the whole of our country.
In seizing this opportunity, we are launching a consultation to seek feedback from interested parties on how we can reform the UK framework for better regulation.
The consultation sets out five principles that will underpin the Government’s approach to regulation to ensure it benefits the British people:
A sovereign approach: the UK will use its freedoms to take a tailored approach to setting rules in a way that boosts growth and benefits the British people.
Leading from the front: we will act nimbly to support the development of new technologies.
Proportionality: we will use non-regulatory options where we can, while acting decisively to put in place strong rules where they are needed.
Recognising what works: regulations will be thoroughly analysed to ensure they work in the real world.
Setting high standards at home and globally: we will set high standards at home and engage in robust regulatory diplomacy across the world, leading in multilateral settings, influencing the decisions of others and helping to solve problems that require a global approach.
Proposals explored in the consultation
The consultation follows a report from the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform, which the Prime Minister convened earlier this year, and examines a number of the taskforce’s proposals for reforming regulation, including the adoption of a less-codified, common law approach to regulation. There is also a focus on the process for measuring and reporting impacts under the better regulation framework. Areas examined in the consultation include:
the adoption of a less codified, common law approach to regulation;
a review of the role of regulators, especially around competition and innovation;
delegation of more discretion to regulators to achieve regulatory objectives in a more agile and flexible way counterbalanced by increased accountability and scrutiny;
streamlining the process of assessment of impacts;
moving to earlier scrutiny of impact assessments and evaluation of existing regulation;
consideration of options on measuring the impact of regulation;
reintroduction of regulatory offsetting; and
baselining the UK’s regulatory burden.
[HCWS246]
Supply Chain Finance in Government: Boardman Review
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
On 12 April, the Government announced that the Prime Minister had asked Nigel Boardman to investigate the development and use of supply chain finance in Government, especially the role of Lex Greensill and Greensill Capital (including associated companies or companies in its group) and any related issues that Mr Boardman considered were in scope.
In accordance with the terms of reference, Mr Boardman has provided the Prime Minister with a report which sets out Mr Boardman’s findings of fact. This was provided to the Prime Minister yesterday and is being made available to the House today.
In producing this report, Mr Boardman interviewed 45 individuals, for a total of over 100 hours. Mr Boardman had access to all the papers he requested, totalling several thousand pages of written evidence. This is a non-statutory review, but in line with long-standing convention, the Prime Minister made clear at the outset his expectation that all Ministers, special advisers and civil servants, whether current or former, should co-operate fully. Those individuals who participated, or their personal representative where applicable, were provided with relevant documents to assist their evidence. They were then offered the opportunity to discuss the relevant documents and provide any comment during an interview with Mr Boardman. These comments were considered, in good faith, as part of the review.
The purpose of the review was to establish the facts and any lessons to be learnt. As set out in the terms of reference, the review does not form part of a disciplinary process, nor is it intended to apportion blame or criticism to individuals. In establishing and setting out the facts, however, Mr Boardman attributes actions to named individuals, some of which could be read as critical of individuals. Where this is the case, the individuals concerned, or their personal representative where applicable, were given the opportunity ahead of the report being finalised to make representations on those sections of the report that could be perceived as criticisms to correct factual inaccuracies.
The Government thank Mr Boardman for all of his work in examining the evidence and setting out his judgement on the facts of what occurred. Mr Boardman will be providing the second part of his report, including any specific recommendations, shortly. The Government will respond to Mr Boardman’s findings, and any recommendations, in due course.
I am depositing a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and publishing it on gov.uk.
[HCWS237]
Cross-Government Functions and Digital Delivery
(2 years, 9 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. To achieve these changes, Government must be reformed.
The recently published “Declaration on Government Reform”, set out a plan for the renewal and rewiring of Government, as a means to deliver the better Britain that the public demands and deserves. As part of its focus on improving performance, the declaration committed to improving the cross-Government functions and strengthening standards and spending controls, to ensure the Government are delivering both excellence and value for money.
The Government are today publishing two independent and separate reports which each contain recommendations on how to improve the cross-Government functions and digital delivery. These two reports are:
1. A review of the cross-cutting functions and the operation of spend controls, by the right hon. Lord Maude of Horsham; and
2. Organising for digital delivery report presented to the Digital Economy Council.
Lord Maude’s advice and the “Organising for Digital Delivery” report presented to the Digital Economy Council are critical to driving reform activity within the cross-Government functions, and the reports were invaluable input in finalising the commitments and actions in the declaration.
Lord Maude’s recommendations are centred around a strong functional model with three essential elements of leadership, capability and mandate. Strong progress is being made on the functional reform activity, overseen by myself and Lord Agnew, and a board chaired by Alex Chisholm, the chief operating officer for the civil service. Some examples of progress so far include:
New leadership put in place for the digital data and technology function, as announced in January this year. This included the establishment of the central digital and data office to work with the Government digital service and lead the digital, data and technology function for Government, also taking on responsibility for the Government automation taskforce.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s publication of its mandate in January, which sets out clearly its own responsibilities and those of departmental accounting officers for major Government projects and programmes. This is critical to making sure they are set up for success from the outset, supporting the Government to meet their ambitions.
Steps have been taken to strengthen spending controls, and increase their reach and effectiveness. More organisations are now in scope and the controls are being applied more consistently within Departments.
Lord Maude’s report advises on the need to set in train (or complete, where already underway) assessment and accreditation programmes; multiple functions are actively exploring how this should be achieved. Investment in professional expertise, recognising its importance, will be an integral part of Government functions. For example, the training and accreditation of contract managers across Government is being led by the Government commercial function, which is critical to driving excellent value for money for taxpayers.
We are implementing a programme of modernisation to strengthen and unify the communications profession across Government, to provide more efficient, responsive and effective communication which delivers Government priorities with one voice. This will build fulfilling careers for people and allow us to attract and develop the best talent.
The shared services strategy for Government was published in March 2021. Following Lord Maude’s advice, and working across Government, a core element of the strategy is the plan to consolidate all back office services into a maximum of five centres. This will achieve better quality services for staff, better people data and reduced cost, encouraging greater collaboration and improving interoperability across Government.
Copies of both reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS247]
Covid-19: Contingencies Fund Advance
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will incur new expenditure in connection with the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic in 2021-22.
Parliamentary approval for resources of £4,206,110,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £4,206,110,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
Further requests to the Contingencies Fund may be made as necessary to fund covid-19 activity delivered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
[HCWS239]
Dealing with Rape and Serious Sexual Offences: Defence’s Strategy
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
Today I am pleased to announce the Ministry of Defence’s intent to publish a defence-wide strategy for dealing with rape and serious sexual offences in the service justice system (SJS).
As set out in the cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy published yesterday, crimes against women and girls is an unacceptable, preventable issue. To echo the Lord Chancellor in his statement on the end-to-end rape review on 21 June, rape and serious sexual offences are some of the most horrific crimes dealt with in both the civilian criminal justice system and the service justice system. They have devastating and lasting effects on victims, and it is only right that action is taken to improve public confidence, make the system fairer and more effective and encourage victims to come forward.
The SJS deals with significantly fewer cases of rape and serious sexual offending compared to the civilian criminal justice system. However, service personnel must have confidence that they will receive the same high-quality care, support and justice in either system. Viewed as a proportion of allegations reported rather than just the cases which reach court, in 2020 the conviction rate in the service justice system was around 8%1 compared to around 2% in the civilian criminal justice system2. While we are confident the SJS is capable of dealing with the most serious offences, it is still not good enough. Both systems must do better, which is why we will be producing a strategy that will pull together ongoing work across the whole of the SJS.
The Ministry of Defence has already been working with the agencies and bodies within the SJS to introduce improvements by implementing the majority of recommendations made in the service justice system review (2019) by HH Shaun Lyons. This includes measures such as the creation of a defence serious crime unit; changes to how the court martial operates; and better support for victims and witnesses.
In addition, the Defence Secretary has asked Sir Richard Henriques to conduct an independent review of policing, and prosecutorial and other processes for addressing allegations emanating from overseas operations. The review, which is due to report shortly, will set out recommendations on improving the investigative processes within the SJS.
Furthermore, the Defence Select Committee inquiry into women in the armed forces is due to publish its report shortly. The Committee has been looking at the experience of our female service personnel from recruitment to transition and considering whether there are unique challenges that are not adequately addressed by the current policies and services. The Committee received evidence from current and former female service personnel in their thousands, for which serving personnel were given special permission to contribute. We expect this report to make a number of recommendations in relation to the handling of rape and serious sexual offence cases, and we will review its evidence and recommendations with the full seriousness and sensitivity they deserve.
To build on these developments, and the recent publication of the violence against women and girls strategy, the Defence Secretary and I have commissioned a defence-wide strategy for how rape and serious sexual offences are dealt with in the SJS. The strategy will aim to reduce the prevalence and impact of rape and other serious sexual offending in the armed forces and improve the handling of those cases in the SJS. It will learn from the Government’s recent response to the review of the end-to-end handling of rape cases in the civilian criminal justice system and provide reassurance that the SJS is also determined to do better and hold component parts of the system to account for delivering improvements.
The strategy will recognise the importance to our people and to the wider service community of the damage caused by sexual offending. With that in mind, we will ensure that support is provided to those who want it, and reassurance that it will remain in place for as long as it is needed. In addition, we will be open and transparent about what victims can expect from the SJS at all stages of their case.
The strategy will bring together in one place all the provisions which the service justice system already has for dealing with cases of rape and serious sexual assault and ensure they are coherent across the whole system and that the interests of the victim are prioritised.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/sexual-offences-in-the-service-justice-system-2020
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/end-to-end-rape-review-report-on-findings-and-actions
[HCWS241]
Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme: Contingencies Fund Advance
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
DEFRA has sought a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £275,000.
The requirement has arisen because there is an urgent requirement to proceed with the procurement of scheme administrators for the packaging extended producer responsibility scheme and the deposit return scheme in advance of Royal Assent of the Environment Bill.
Under managing public money rules, expenditure to make preparation for the delivery of a new service prior to Royal Assent requires an advance from the Contingencies Fund. The cash advance will pay for essential expenditure related to procurement activities. The need to spend now in advance of Royal Assent is driven by the necessary timelines associated with procurement.
Parliamentary approval for expenditure of £275,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for DEFRA. Pending that approval, urgent resourcing estimated at £275,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS236]
Global Anti-corruption Sanctions
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Today, the UK has imposed asset freezes and travel bans on five individuals under the Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021.
This is the second set of designations under this regime since the regulations were laid in April 2021. The regime can be used to impose sanctions for serious corruption around the world. As set out in the regulations, the activities covered are bribery and misappropriation, plus a range of different kinds of involvement in such bribery or misappropriation.
These designations address cases of serious corruption which have deprived citizens of vital resources in Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
In Equatorial Guinea, the sanctions target the Vice-President, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, for his involvement in the misappropriation of state funds, corrupt contracting arrangements and soliciting bribes to fund a lavish lifestyle in various countries abroad. We have designated Nawfal Hammadi Al-Sultan, a former Iraqi governor, who misappropriated public funds intended for reconstruction efforts and to provide support for civilians, and improperly awarded contracts and other state property. We have designated Alex Nain Saab Moran and Alvaro Enrique Pulido Vargas, businessmen with links to the Maduro regime, for exploiting two of Venezuela's public programmes which were set up to supply poor Venezuelans with affordable foodstuffs and housing. They benefited from improperly awarded contracts, where promised goods were delivered at highly inflated prices. Finally, we have designated Kudakwashe Regimond Tagwirei, a Zimbabwean businessperson whose involvement in misappropriation was at the expense of the country’s macroeconomic stability.
These latest designations show the UK’s ongoing commitment to the fight against corruption. They send a powerful message to deter those involved in serious corruption around the world: you and your dirty money are not welcome in our country. We will continue to keep future designations under close review, guided by the purposes of the sanctions regime and the evidence.
[HCWS244]
British Council: Sale of IELTS in India
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I can today inform Parliament that the British Council, a non-departmental public body of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will sell its IELTS English language test business in India to IDP Education, for £130 million. The business will be sold on a debt free, cash free basis. Metric Impact (over a five-year horizon) Net sale proceeds £120 million Retention value range Above Public sector net borrowing No immediate impact Public sector net debt Improved by a total of £120 million Public sector net financial liabilities Improved by a total of £120 million Public sector net liabilities Improved by a total of £118 million
Rationale
Like many organisations, covid-19 has had a significant financial impact on the British Council’s operations. The proceeds from the sale will strengthen the British Council’s financial position and support its modernisation process.
Format and timing
Due to the nature of the agreement between the British Council and its IELTS partners, there is only one possible buyer of the British Council’s India IELTS business. Ernst & Young provided an independent valuation, which concluded that the offer for the business was fair and reasonable.
UK Government Investments has worked closely with the FCDO providing valuable advice on commercial aspects of the British Council’s outline and full business cases for the transaction.
Fiscal impacts
I can confirm that the net sale proceeds of £120 million were above the Government’s retention value range.
[HCWS240]
Integrated Care Systems
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Earlier this year, Ministers asked NHS England to set out options for boundary alignment in integrated care systems in specific geographies where upper-tier local authorities currently have to work across more than one ICS footprint and to assess the impact of changes to deliver alignment in each case. Over the last six months NHS England has worked with stakeholders to develop advice and analysis for each of the affected areas to inform the final decision.
This work has now concluded, with advice provided to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This statement sets out the final decision that has been taken for the areas in scope of the review:
East of England
Frimley
Bassetlaw
Glossop
West Birmingham
North Northamptonshire
This work has been underpinned by the principle that coterminous boundaries deliver clear benefits in integration between local authorities and NHS organisations. As approaches to integrated care develop it is crucial that we have a system that helps support closer working both across NHS organisations and between the NHS and local government.
On the ground, coterminous boundaries can also improve joined-up decision making on delivery of services for patients. Improved alignment can allow areas to build joint care models around a wide variety of services including children’s and adult social care services, public health, as well as community and mental health services which are often also aligned along local authority footprints.
There has therefore been a strong presumption of moving towards coterminosity, save for in exceptional circumstances where there were strong reasons for not doing so.
NHS England regional teams have conducted robust engagement activity with local stakeholder organisations to develop analysis of the risks, mitigations and benefits for any options for coterminous boundaries in the affected areas. This engagement has included roundtables with local NHS organisations, including the ICS’s themselves as well as providers, commissioners and local authorities.
The Department of Health and Social Care has engaged at ministerial level with parliamentarians as well as national organisations such as NHS Providers and the Local Government Association to ensure their views were reflected in the final advice to the Secretary of State and they had an opportunity to feed into the development of this work.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care’s decision process has involved careful consideration of a wide range of issues, perspectives and interests and a careful weighing up of risks and benefits, outlined in the analysis provided by NHS England for each area as well as having regard to his legal duties.
These have been considered on an case-by-case basis for each area and where NHS England has made a recommendation based on broad (not universal) local consensus, including a recommendation to retain the status quo, the Secretary of State has listened and has accepted these recommendations. There was not a broad local consensus for three of the areas within this review and as such no recommendations were made by NHS England. In these areas a balanced judgement was taken, weighing up the risks and benefits of a change in boundaries and having regard to his legal duties by the Secretary of State.
Following this review, the Secretary of State has concluded:
East of England—this area is considered an appropriate exemption to the principle of coterminosity. No changes will be made to the existing boundaries.
Frimley—this area is considered an appropriate exemption from the principle of coterminosity. No changes will be made to existing boundaries.
Glossop—The decision has been taken to move the area of Glossop from Greater Manchester ICS into Derbyshire ICS.
Bassetlaw—The decision has been taken to move the area of Bassetlaw from South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw ICS into Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICS thus delivering coterminous boundaries for the area.
West Birmingham—The decision has been taken to move west Birmingham from the Black Country and West Birmingham ICS into Birmingham and Solihull ICS thus delivering coterminous boundaries for the area.
North Northamptonshire—The decision has been taken to move the Lakeside Healthcare GP practice into Northamptonshire ICS and retain the Wansford and Kings Cliffe GP practice in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICS. This moves the region much closer to coterminous boundaries and reflects specific local considerations.
Local areas may still wish to keep under review how their boundaries are working in the light of any new legislative framework. Therefore, this decision does not preclude the important work many systems undertake naturally to ensure they have a system and boundaries that best suit local needs. We have already heard such requests from local stakeholders around Cheshire and Merseyside ICS, as such the Secretary of State has also announced his intention to review this system. The Secretary of State also intends to review the areas of Cumbria and North Yorkshire, as we are now aware, they will remain non-coterminous following the conclusion of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s unitarisation process. These reviews will take place in two years, following the implementation, subject to parliamentary passage, of the Health and Care Bill.
Full details of these decisions and the decision process will be published on the Department of Health and Social Care section on the gov.uk website shortly.
[HCWS248]
New Plan for Immigration
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
On 6 July, the Government introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill in Parliament. This is part of the Government’s new plan for immigration, delivering the most comprehensive reform in decades to deliver a fair but firm immigration system.
The Bill—and the wider plan—has three key objectives:
To make the system fairer and more effective so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum
To deter illegal entry into the UK breaking the business model of criminal trafficking networks and saving lives
To remove from the UK those with no right to be here
The introduction of the Bill was preceded by a consultation that was launched in March. The Government have carefully considered that consultation, and I am today laying before the House a Command Paper (CP 493) setting out their response.
This has also been published on gov.uk.
[HCWS245]
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person Reports
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—POCA—appointed person reports covering England and Wales for the period 2017-18 to 2020-21 are today being laid before Parliament.
The appointed person is independent of Government and scrutinises the circumstances and manner in which the search and seizure powers conferred by the Act are exercised in instances where prior approval is not gained from a justice of the peace and either no seizures are made or any cash or property seized is not detained for more than 48 hours.
I am pleased that we are now able to publish Mr McCourt’s reports covering the period from 2017-18 to 2020-21.
The House will note that there has been a delay in publishing the appointed person reports since the 2016-17 report, when the previous office holder’s tenure ended. Greg McCourt was subsequently appointed to the role for each of the three jurisdictions—England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—with effect from 1 August 2019. Despite the pressures and challenges of covid, since his appointment he has been working across the jurisdictions and with POCA stakeholders to receive and assess reports on the use of the relevant powers of search and seizure.
Importantly, Mr McCourt is satisfied with the operation of the powers in the period. There is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being followed in accordance with the Act. While the figures for 2019-20 and 2020-21 show a small increase in the number of reported cases, that reflects more regular use of the powers in a broader range of live police operations, supporting the recovery of the proceeds of crime whenever they are encountered.
Mr McCourt has made two recommendations: first, that a template should be developed to standardise the information that law enforcement officers provide; and secondly, that law enforcement agencies be regularly reminded of their reporting requirements under the Act. I support Mr McCourt’s recommendations and my officials will work with him and our stakeholders to implement both.
These powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime. As the reports show, these powers have been used appropriately to combat crime. We will continue to monitor closely the way the powers have been used. Copies of the reports will be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS249]
Abortion Services Directions 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Today I am issuing a direction to the Department of Health, the Minister of Health, the Health and Social Care Board, and to the First and Deputy First Minister, to commission and make abortion services available in Northern Ireland as soon as possible, and no later than 31 March 2022. I am also directing that there should be immediate support for interim services of early medical abortion, which are at risk of collapse.
I have a statutory duty to protect the rights of women and girls in Northern Ireland, imposed by section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. This duty requires me to ensure that the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) report are implemented in full. I therefore have a duty to “provide women with access to high-quality abortion and post-abortion care in all public health facilities”. I acknowledge and respect the deeply held views that individuals hold on this issue. However, it is the clear will of Parliament that the rights of women and girls in Northern Ireland are properly upheld.
The Government laid the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 and they came into force on 31 March 2020. Those regulations delivered a framework for abortion services which struck the appropriate balance between delivering a CEDAW compliant legal framework that ensures the health and safety of women and girls, and gives clarity and certainty to the healthcare profession, but is also sensitive to the circumstances in Northern Ireland.
In March 2021, we took a further step and made the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021. We took this important step because a year after the 2020 regulations were made, women and girls in Northern Ireland are still unable to access high-quality abortion and post-abortion care in Northern Ireland in all the circumstances allowed by the regulations we made on 31 March 2020. This remains the case today.
The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 gave me a power to direct a Northern Ireland Minister, a Northern Ireland department and the Health and Social Care Board of the Public Health Agency to take action necessary to implement all the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report. The regulations were debated on 26 and 28 April 2021 in the House of Commons and House of Lords respectively and both Houses supported the regulations overwhelmingly, with a majority of 431 to 89 on a free vote in the Commons.
For over a year, the Northern Ireland Office has continued to work closely with the Department of Health, and other relevant Northern Ireland Departments, trying to progress this work. Some service provision commenced on the ground from last April and I put on record my thanks to the medical professionals and Informing Choices Northern Ireland who have ensured that women and girls have had some local access to abortion services in Northern Ireland, and the organisations that have supported this work.
Though I recognise the huge strain that covid-19 has placed on healthcare in Northern Ireland, I remain extremely disappointed that full commissioning proposals have not yet been brought forward by the Department of Health and that the Executive has not an opportunity to discuss them. This ongoing stalemate leaves me no choice but to issue a direction. I have a legal and moral obligation to ensure the women and girls in Northern Ireland are afforded their rights and can access the healthcare as set out in the 2020 regulations.
I am now directing the Department of Health to secure the commissioning and availability of the relevant healthcare services. The direction also includes an immediate requirement for the Department of Health to continue to support the central access point provided by Informing Choices NI (ICNI) who are key to providing early medical abortion services. I have chosen to impose a deadline for the availability of commissioned services of 31 March 2022 to account for the Department of Health’s estimate that it would take 8-12 months to make fully commissioned CEDAW compliant services available.
I am also directing the Department of Health and the regional Health and Social Care Board. The direction includes a requirement to commission, provide and fund abortion services so that they are available in all of the circumstances in which abortions are lawful. This includes access to services in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and severe foetal impairment in line with the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No 2) Regulations 2020 in any service commissioned. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to allocate all necessary funding for abortion services from its Barnett-based block grant or its own resources.
I am also directing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister that once proposals are brought forward by the Department of Health, they must be included on the agenda at the next meeting of the Executive Committee.
At the heart of this matter are the women and girls in Northern Ireland, who have been, and continue to be, denied the same reproductive rights as women in the rest of the UK. Parliament determined that this should be corrected and by exercising the power to direct, we will ensure that it is.
[HCWS238]
Machinery of Government Change: Vaccine Taskforce
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government change.
With effect from 1 August 2021, the vaccine taskforce will become a joint unit of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Health and Social Care.
To support this, responsibility for the taskforce’s work on vaccine and antibody procurement and supply and clinical development will transfer, on the same date, from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Department of Health and Social Care. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will remain responsible for vaccine and antibody manufacturing.
[HCWS242]
Intelligence and Security Committee’s GCHQ Procurement Report: Government Response
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
On 19 November 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) published its report entitled “GCHQ Accommodation Procurement: A Case Study”.
The procurement of Nova South as the headquarters of the National Cyber Security Centre was a unique challenge, undertaken within a demanding timeframe and as a result, the Government acknowledge there are lessons that can be learned from the procurement process.
Today, the Government are publishing their response to this report.
I remain grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its continued independent oversight and scrutiny. I would like to thank the former Committee for its work in the last Parliament, and I look forward to working with the appointed Committee in the future.
Copies of the Government response have been laid before both Houses.
[HCWS243]
National Policy Statement for National Networks: Review
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
In 2019, our roads handled 88% of all passenger travel by distance, the vast majority of it by car or van. Even doubling rail use across the country would only reduce this proportion to 75%, assuming that overall demand did not rise. The roads also carry more than three quarters of freight traffic, and of course nearly all pedestrian, cycling, bus and coach journeys.
Continued high investment in our roads is therefore, and will remain, as necessary as ever to ensure the functioning of the nation and to reduce the congestion which is a major source of carbon. Almost half of our £27 billion programme for England’s strategic roads, though often described as being for road building or capacity expansion, is in fact for renewing, maintaining and operating the existing network, or for funds to improve safety and biodiversity, deliver active travel schemes and tackle noise or pollution.
In the coming years, our ambitious and accelerating plans to decarbonise all road traffic will transform roads’ impact on greenhouse gas emissions. We have always said, however, that we must ensure the road network meets today’s demands, not those of the past. In the last 18 months, fundamental changes have occurred in commuting, shopping and business travel, which before the pandemic made up 30% of all road journeys by distance, and a much higher proportion at the times and places of greatest pressure.
Trends already under way in home working, online shopping and videoconferencing, all of which had reduced trip rates even before the pandemic, have dramatically increased, and seem unlikely to be fully reversed. Against that, though, must be set the effects on road demand of the hopefully temporary move away from public transport during the crisis; of increases in delivery traffic; and potentially of increases in driving when electric and autonomous vehicles become common.
The current national policy statement (NPS) on national networks, the Government statement of strategic planning policy for major road and rail schemes, was written in 2014, before the Government legal commitment to net zero, the 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, the new sixth carbon budget and most directly the new, more ambitious policies outlined in the transport decarbonisation plan.
While the NPS continues to remain in force, it is right that we review it in the light of these developments, and update forecasts on which it is based to reflect more recent, post-pandemic conditions, once they are known.
The aim is to begin the review later this year, and for it to be completed no later than spring 2023. This review will include a thorough examination of the modelling and forecasts that support the statement of need for development, and the environmental, safety, resilience, and local community considerations that planning decisions must take into account. Reviewing the NPS will ensure that it remains fit for purpose in supporting the Government commitments for appropriate development of infrastructure for road, rail, and strategic rail freight interchanges.
While the review is undertaken, the NPS remains relevant Government policy and has effect for the purposes of the Planning Act 2008. The NPS will, therefore, continue to provide a proper basis on which the planning inspectorate can examine, and the Secretary of State can make decisions on, applications for development consent.
[HCWS235]
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, which remains in place in Grand Committee. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Cultural and Education Exchanges
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the value of cultural and education exchanges for (1) students, and (2) others who may benefit from such exchanges.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, having started my Question by referring to “cultural” exchanges but wishing to focus on educational exchanges, I requested—just to be on the safe side—that the debate be answered by the Department for Education. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, is here to do so. However, in truth, on reflection, my Question could have been directed in some sense at almost every government department, including, and perhaps especially, the Home Office—I will come back to that.
I first became aware of the term “cultural exchange” in the 1980s, when there was a trend for exchanges of artists between countries. From my time in Sheffield, I remember that there was a huge interest, there and elsewhere, in the culture of countries that are less visited or difficult to visit, including those behind the Iron Curtain or just released from it. Georgia was one such country.
However, one of the things that you quickly observed was how cultural exchange can, at least potentially, get very complicated because the artists concerned have this new, exciting relationship but might also have quite another relationship with their own respective countries—they do not necessarily represent them. One was particularly aware of these undercurrents at the time, even if the wider world then took little notice, at least on our side.
I detect an echo of this today, in a more reverberative way, in the fairly clear unwillingness of our current Government during negotiations to sign up to those aspects of Erasmus+ that they would have been uncomfortable with. Therefore, they could not sign up to Erasmus at all, certain that the schemes would, to the ears of some Brexiteers, have sounded a little too much like an overly cosy relationship at best, and EU propaganda at worst.
My belief is that the reason that the Government dropped Erasmus+ had very little to do with money, as they claim, but everything to do with ideology. Educational exchanges are cultural exchanges and, as with physical borders, this Government are just as keen to control the borders of such exchanges if they feel that their side of the border is in any way threatened. Curiously, they have a very different view of scientific collaboration, with our continuing membership of Horizon Europe, into which we are ploughing large sums of money. This is perhaps ironic, given that science subjects are as much affected by the decision to drop Erasmus+ as any other.
We presently seem to be in a kind of lull between the loss of Erasmus+ and discovering the results of Turing applications. On the plus side, relief has been expressed that something, at least, has been put in place. Also on the plus side is the appointment of the British Council and Ecorys to oversee the scheme, providing both experience and the possibility of a degree of continuity, at least. However, the debit side is long. From what we have heard, Turing woefully lacks the range, depth and ambitions of Erasmus+. The greatest apprehension concerns the potential loss of the links built up over many years by staff and colleges and through associated projects.
One of the major claims for Turing is that it will be global, but figures from 2017-18 show that four out of the five most popular destinations for students are the US—by a wide margin—Australia, Ireland and Canada. Remove the English-speaking countries and France, number 3 on the list and our closest neighbour, becomes the most popular. The language barrier, then, acts to some extent as a disincentive to the majority of UK students. The point here is that emphasising that Turing is to have a global reach only confirms a bias that is already there. Moreover, many universities already have arrangements with other countries, and Erasmus+ itself now reaches beyond Europe. The non-English speaking countries are the ones that really need targeting.
Knowledge of languages, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, would point out, is a key factor in deeper cultural exchange, and is, moreover, hugely important for academic and scientific advancement. As someone very interested in the contemporary arts across Europe, I am aware of how much language differences can be a barrier to understanding. Yet, as a number of recent reports point out, language learning in the UK is decreasing. Andreas Schönle, of Bristol University, says:
“A particular concern … is the increasing social divide in foreign language ability. Yet bilingualism opens many doors and fosters social mobility”.
This is an important point to consider, if educational exchanges are also to help the disadvantaged.
In an answer to a Parliamentary Question on 17 June, the Universities Minister wrote:
“The Turing scheme is targeted at all students, particularly the most disadvantaged. While the UK was part of Erasmus, the most privileged were 1.7 times more likely to benefit from studying abroad”.
I ask the Government: what is the evidence base for that statement, and are they referring only to UK students?
A major intention of Erasmus+ is to help the less well-off, and there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence to support its effectiveness in this respect. A 2019 survey of 31 colleges by the Association of Colleges found that three-quarters gave that programme full marks for benefit to their institution. How will the Government monitor their intention to help the disadvantaged through study abroad, particularly in Europe, where post-Brexit logistical difficulties may well deter many, including the disadvantaged? Perhaps a better measure of success would be in absolute numbers, rather than ratios.
An interesting aspect of what has happened since the announcement about Erasmus has been the divergence in terms of opportunities available to students and others within the UK, across England and the devolved nations. The £65 million promised by the Welsh Government in March for the period 2022 to 2026 is not just an influx of money; it is an attempt, alongside Turing, to restructure opportunities according to the Erasmus+ model, and not to lose out on the partnerships that have already been built.
The press release, rather pointedly called “New International Learning Exchange programme to make good the loss of Erasmus+”, has this to say:
“The Programme will provide funding to enable students, staff and learners across universities, Further Education and Vocational Education and Training, Adult Education, youth work settings and schools to undertake a period of structured learning or work experience overseas, as well as enabling strategic partnerships … A fundamental principle of the programme will be reciprocity. Where necessary, the programme will fund costs related to the inward mobility of learners, teachers and young people from partner organisations abroad. This will enable existing partnerships which have been built up under Erasmus+ to continue and help to create new ones”.
Quite simply, Wales is trying to recreate Erasmus+. Scotland has said it wants Erasmus+ back, and Northern Ireland looks as though it will get both Erasmus+, courtesy of Ireland, and Turing. Meanwhile, England, without the direct political representation that could make the case for itself, as is increasingly true on so many matters, is left having to make do with Turing on its own, with no promise of further development of that scheme.
I have some other questions. The applications for Turing have now closed, so when will the Government publish detailed statistics, including the educational establishments participating, the number of participants involved per country, and the numbers per type of exchange? How will they monitor the effectiveness of Turing, and what criteria will they use? Will they commit to a longer cycle of funding? Will they, as Wales has decided to do, expand the scheme to take advantage of the links that already exist, and include other types of exchange, as well as the staff trips that so many colleges, including further education colleges, have, through Erasmus+, found so valuable in developing new ideas?
Will Turing be expanded to include partnerships and collaborative projects, such as the skills sector partnerships, crucial to the identification of emerging skills gaps across Europe, including gaps in digital skills? For so many current projects simply to be dropped through the loss of Erasmus+ would surely be a massive waste and a blow to educational development in this country—not to mention the jobs that would be lost. Will Turing reintroduce reciprocity in funding? That would be a key aspect of any claim for it to be a viable cultural exchange programme. I look forward to the Government’s response.
Finally, with regard to school trips from the EU, it is, again, the obsessive need to control our borders—we come back to the Home Office—that has led to the passport and visa changes on 1 October. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said in the House on 9 June that this would not lead to a fall in trips to the UK, and the Minister here today may back that view up, but the people we should all listen to are surely those who run the relevant businesses. The Guardian reported on 4 June the trip organisers’ view that there might be up to 375,000 fewer trips. The noble Baroness’s response —that the Government were bringing the regulations into line only with those for non-EU countries—was disingenuous, because within Europe the EU identity card is used as a passport, while on both sides the loss of the list of travellers scheme will mean the cancellation of trips, because some students will not be able to participate.
It will be the less well-off students who lose out—the opposite of what the Government claim they intend to achieve on our side with the Turing scheme. Will they monitor what effect these actions have on the number of school trips from Europe? If the numbers do fall, what effect will that have on the economy, including that of cities such as Canterbury, which depend so much on education?
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate. It is not the first time we have talked about this matter. The last time I spoke to it was on 9 June in the Chamber, when the Home Office was dealing with it. I simply want to say that because I was foolish enough to think that the existing arrangements that allow people to come from schools in Europe might be extended to pupils anywhere in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is a perfectly lovely woman, rapped my fingers and slapped my wrists and made me aware of my own ignorance on such matters—whereupon I undertook to find out whether such school groups on collective passports can continue to enjoy the benefits that the noble Earl so eloquently adumbrated.
Those inquiries yielded this fact: the Council of Europe, through a 1961 treaty, holds a reciprocal arrangement—still valid—whereby countries that ratified it are able to use collective passports. Those countries are Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Council of Europe has also confirmed that the United Kingdom has expressed no intention to withdraw from the treaty, in which case the collective passport is still valid, the visits can still take place and the fears the noble Earl expressed for poorer pupils can be met. What is to stop us doing it? I hope that the noble Baroness from the Department for Education will not rap my wrists in the same way the Home Office did, and will give us some assurances on this point and on how well they can take the publicity for this forward at present.
Baroness Featherstone (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on what will be a brief but important debate. The Government must up the offer on the Turing scheme so that it becomes the equal or better of Erasmus+. To take away a successful scheme and replace it with a lesser one is unforgiveable. Yes, on the plus side, the new Turing scheme widens the potential destinations from the EU to worldwide; that is a big plus but the losses are greater.
No longer will the scheme include teaching and college staff and youth workers. UK students will still have to pay tuition fees while they are studying abroad and the scheme is funded for only its first year. I am sure that noble Lords more knowledgeable than I am will talk to the advantages, if any, and disadvantages—many—of the Turing scheme.
What I really want to say to the Government, however, is: invest more in our young people. Make sure that we create restless minds and an understanding of culture and cultures other than our own, promote different experiences, and ensure that all young people have this experience and opportunity.
Erasmus versus Turning is but part of a bigger picture, which paints a reductionist attitude to our future by the Government. It is as though they do not understand that the future well-being of our nation rests on the quality of young people’s thinking, understanding, behaviour and ability. These are terrible times, particularly for our young people, and I really fear for their future. We need to show them that we care and that we want the best for them, setting them an example of leadership, generosity, understanding and empathy. For now, however, and for this debate, I will be happy if the Government make the changes that ensure that Turing is the equal or better of Erasmus+.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl on securing this debate. I declare an interest as an academic. I have taught, and do teach, exchange students. I also had the benefit of doing one of my degrees in the United States, at the University of Pennsylvania, where I was a Thouron scholar.
As we have heard, existing exchange programmes are wholly beneficial for the student, the sending and receiving institutions, the local community and the sending and receiving nations. As a nation, we benefit enormously from overseas students.
I advocate utilising more of the overseas aid budget to fund exchange scholarships. This could be through using aid to allocate scholarship vouchers to developing nations, enabling them to send bright students to study at UK universities. The vouchers would be wholly redeemable at UK higher education institutions. The developing nations would gain graduates who can contribute to the economic well-being of the nation; aid would thus be an investment for the future. UK universities would benefit from having these students, as would local economies where the universities are based. The United Kingdom would benefit from the expansion of soft power, and utilising aid in this way would avoid problems of tracking where the money is going.
We already have some excellent scholarship programmes for overseas students. Expanding substantially what we already offer is in everyone’s interest. I hope my noble friend the Minister will indicate a willingness, at the very least, to discuss the proposal with colleagues and feed back the result of her deliberations.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, this year’s language trends survey, just published by the British Council, shows that the pandemic has exacerbated the decline in international opportunities for primary and secondary schools in England. This includes trips abroad, partnering with a school abroad and involvement in cross-cultural projects.
Some 64% of primaries and 38% of state secondaries reported no international activities at all, compared with only 11% of independent schools. These experiences give pupils an opportunity to use the languages they are learning, which helps motivation and access to a different culture. Nearly two-thirds of language students at university say they were inspired by an exchange trip at school.
In addition, the journal Schools Week has reported that “One little-noticed casualty” of Brexit
“is Britain’s lost access to the EU’s ‘list of travellers’ scheme, which lets non-EU migrant pupils travel on school trips without usual visa rules.”
Some pupils now risk exclusion from school trips, with disadvantaged pupils the most affected. Can the Minister comment and raise this with the Home Office?
Problems at school affect languages at university. UCAS figures show a staggering decline in MFL applicants, and one of the main reasons is the end of UK participation in the Erasmus+ programme, which took students to well over 100 countries—not just Europe. Language skills and cross-cultural experience gained during the year abroad are qualities that employers value. Graduates who have spent a year abroad are 23% less likely to be unemployed than those who have not.
The replacement Turing scheme is full of uncertainty. Echoing some of the questions asked by other noble Lords, I ask the Minister to say whether there are any plans to make Turing reciprocal, as Erasmus+ was, and if not, why not; whether there are any plans to continue its funding for more than just one year; and whether its scope will be as broad and inclusive as Erasmus.
Trips and exchanges enhance language learning and benefit the students themselves and their employability and mobility, but also the UK more widely as we seek to redefine our post-Brexit place and influence on the international stage.
Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and other colleagues have clearly laid out the risks of our young people, especially artists and students, being disadvantaged by the loss of the Erasmus scheme and the difficulties in accessing work and travel visas. I declare my interests at Oxford University, as noted in the register.
However, it is not the particular needs of students and the issues relating to the replacement Turing scheme to which I wish to refer. Before Brexit and Covid, there was already a widespread move away from international and cross-cultural engagement towards nationalism and what one might call community introversion. Like many other problems, this has been exacerbated and accelerated by the pandemic, not only because of the difficulties of travelling but because, when faced with the anxiety created by the risks of travel and engagement with others we do not know well, turning back towards known people, places and activities is only natural.
We cannot therefore assume that, in the post-pandemic era, people will naturally create, or even take up, opportunities to engage with other communities, countries and cultures, despite it being hugely enriching and maturing. We will need to provide extra encouragement and facilities for young people to engage with those in other countries.
There are already networks that could facilitate this with those young people less likely to go to university. I am referring to international networks associated with faith communities—among Christian communities, the Scouting and Guiding movements, the Boys’ Brigade, the Girls Brigade and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme—and those organisations of other faith communities. My early experience of other cultures came through such networks, and the value and connections were maintained long after the visits. They are inexpensive because accommodation is often provided by families associated with the organisations. Can the Minister advise us whether the Government are prepared to consider including such approaches to enable our young people to expand their cultural awareness and experience?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Earl confirmed, the issue here goes much further than simply school and college cultural exchange visits, although all the points he and others made about the disaster that will follow the lack of Erasmus+ and all the human, cultural and institutional contact that will be lost rang very true, as did the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the need for reciprocity.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House have been appalled by the way the Government sold the cultural sector, one of the most important and vibrant sectors of our economy, down the river when the Home Office refused to allow in the EU-UK trade deal a sensible, pragmatic and mutually beneficial visa and associated permits system for those who wish to perform abroad—something that operated successfully since 1972, as many others said.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has repeatedly answered questions on this at the Dispatch Box. He continues to blame the EU for the failure to arrive at a deal on this, although all the evidence seems to say otherwise. He has said at the Dispatch Box that, absent a pan-EU- UK deal, bilateral agreements are the way forward, but details are extremely hard to establish. Which countries are involved? Where are we with each of them? What is the timescale? Has the Home Office agreed with the approach? Is it prepared to offer the reciprocal arrangements and visas necessary for EU citizens to visit this country?
As others have said, the Minister has a reputation for openness and transparency at the Dispatch Box. The issue before us is vital to the creative industries. I hope she can give clear and unequivocal answers to the questions I have asked and the others that have been raised today.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interest as master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. This is an important if brief debate, founded on a simple and important truth: young people, especially students, have their education and personal development enormously enriched by meeting and sharing experiences with people from other cultures and backgrounds, especially if they themselves experience that culture and background too.
Of course, we had a programme that delivered precisely this: Erasmus+, which many noble Lords referred to. In 2019, 30,000 UK students and trainees travelled to all parts of Europe to take up places on the scheme. No less importantly, 17,000 EU students came here. More than 4,000 university institutions across Europe participate in Erasmus. Yet we have thrown it all away, all in search of some kind of little Englander, pure Brexiter mythology.
The Government claim that their replacement Turing scheme will be better and more global, but here is the rub: it is a pale shadow of Erasmus. The UK Government are putting in less money than the EU put into Erasmus just for the UK. Universities up and down the land are already doing exchanges across the globe. It is not either global or EU; it has been, up to now, both, but no more. This is a tragedy for our young people. We have thrown away access to the largest, most active and best-developed exchange scheme in the world. Our country and our life chances are diminished by this decision.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who introduced this debate, I urge the Government to have a cross-party, cross-departmental approach to address the issues being raised today, particularly those involving the Home Office. For a number of years now, I have had a link with a school in the suburbs of Paris, in a disadvantaged area, where an inspirational teacher has done so much to open the eyes of her pupils to other countries and cultures. Every year, she has brought a class over to London, sometimes just for a day, to learn about Parliament and our system of government. The Home Office’s recent announcements seem to have cast a pall and caused doubt about whether these visits can continue, particularly when they involve pupils from disadvantaged and least prosperous backgrounds. My noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port put some very interesting points to the Minister, and I hope she can be reassuring about the continuation of such group and class visits in her reply.
The other issue I want to raise is the au pair system. It allowed opportunities for young people to learn our language and become familiar with our culture while being part of a family. However, the system no longer functions as far as our European neighbours are concerned, given that, under the Immigration Rules, au pairs now come under the category of skilled workers who need to show that they will earn £20,000 a year to be admitted. Au pair agencies across the continent have reported drops of up to 90% in applications as a result, with many French newspapers carrying articles deploring the Home Office’s stance, which is seen as yet another way in which the Government seem intent on portraying Britain as an unwelcoming country. Will the Government think again very carefully about these two issues—school visits and the au pair system—and come up with a much more generous and welcoming policy?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, given the time limit, I will focus on the student part of this debate, particularly in higher and further education. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for securing this debate.
I pay tribute to the many contributors to the session of the Westminster Higher Education Forum on the Turing scheme, which I chaired last week. They are too numerous to name individually, but much of what I am about to say draws on their thoughts. There was universal agreement that the Turing scheme is far inferior to the Erasmus+ scheme that it half-heartedly replaces, that we had by international standards, even under Erasmus, a low number of students going to study abroad and that that level is sadly likely to decline. When we are thinking about our productivity, international competitiveness and quality of life, that is a serious disadvantage as the academic and social benefits of studying overseas and having contact with overseas students and academics is well documented.
It is clear that 100% of students would benefit from cultural and educational exchanges. It is obvious that not 100% will be in a position to travel overseas, so we need a far more creative, flexible, effective and better funded scheme than Turing as currently structured, particularly one that brings foreign students and academics here. We need to give home students the opportunity to benefit from classroom and informal exchanges with overseas students and staff as a practical alternative and cheaper method to ensure that crucial contact. We need stable, steady funding, not based on competition. There are all kinds of reasons for that, one being that when students are considering which institution to attend, they need to know what that institution will be able to offer throughout the course in terms of international exchanges. We need to involve students and academics at all levels. This should be part of our efforts to offer reparations to the global south for our previous damage.
We also need to see Turing covering virtual exchanges. An excellent example I came across is called the Australia- Indonesia Co-operation for the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage. It saw students and academics from across the archipelago joining Australian counterparts to explore an area of work which is, as yet, little developed in Indonesia to the benefit of all. We need something much better than what we have now.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate, as we too often take for granted the impact of living in another country or another culture. Perhaps the Covid pandemic has helped to highlight how much we have all missed the value of cultural and educational exchanges, as international travel has been so curtailed.
As my children were growing up, I recall the pen pals they each had: another secondary school pupil abroad, to help improve their French skills. The excitement of the visit when the pen pals would finally meet, and each child would play host in showing off their hometown before a return visit, had a great impact on their lives and their understanding of other cultures.
I have also been lucky enough to see first-hand the benefits of the Rhodes scholarship, which was first awarded in 1902 and is perhaps the most prestigious international scholarship programme, enabling young people from around the world to study at Oxford University. A great-nephew and a great-niece have been awarded this scholarship in recent years—the latest, Freya Willis, arrives this September to take up a place at Oxford to study gender, race and political economy in care work. In each of these cases, we can see how much an individual brings, learns and shares of their culture and ours. We are all the richer for the experience.
I must comment that I had a lot to do with au pairs in the days when my children were young. The points just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, are important. I look to the Minister to assure the Committee that visas, where required, will be easily available so that these exchanges may continue long into the future.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl on securing this debate. I am going to speak about school trips from abroad. My younger daughter is a schoolteacher at a small rural lycée in the Sarthe region. She has lived there nearly 28 years and has a French husband and three children, who have British and French nationality. As a result of Brexit, she has become a French citizen.
Every other year, travelling by Eurostar, my daughter used to lead a party of her 16 to 18 year-old students to visit London. There were never fewer than 21 in the party; the largest group had 43. Typically, they stayed for five nights at a youth hostel in Canada Water. During the week, they visited all the major museums in London, the Cabinet War Rooms, Roman London, the Houses of Parliament, Camden Town, the National Gallery and much more. A lot of what they visited reminded them of the common history and close links of friendship between the people of France and the United Kingdom. I asked my daughter: what was the value of the visits? She said, “It’s hard to put into words how much it gives them. So many have barely left the region. So many have never taken the train before. The majority come from simple backgrounds with few opportunities for travel. Going to London is just such an amazing experience for them”.
The visits have now stopped and French schools are turning to Ireland instead as an English-speaking destination. A major problem is the British refusal to accept the French identity card, as almost none of the students holds a passport. The disappearance of the European health insurance card from the UK is another major obstacle.
Open-mindedness, cultural and linguistic enrichment, the building of character and increased independence and confidence: that is how my daughter describes what the visits give her pupils. The UK is now barely offered as a destination, so future generations of international pupils are being deprived of a wonderful opportunity. This is also the case for European and British students, who of course can no longer participate in the wonderful Erasmus programme.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on securing this important debate about the value and benefit of cultural and educational exchanges. I do not think the comparison can be well made between the Erasmus programme and the forthcoming Turing programme, because it is generally felt that Turing is a substandard replacement for Erasmus and replicates only the university element. This means that, in many instances, it is not available across the board to lots of young people who have been able to avail themselves of the Erasmus programme.
In Northern Ireland, young people will be able to avail themselves of Erasmus with the help of the Irish Government. However, to evaluate fully the benefits and value of such exchanges, I talked to young people, youth workers and teachers. They told me that the importance of the programme is that it develops personal, professional and academic attitudes; broadens horizons to understand and appreciate other cultures; develops cultural awareness and open-mindedness; improves and enables the gaining of new language skills for use in future workplaces; boosts employability opportunities through a broadened CV; and gains and gives new perspectives and understanding, to the benefit of these young people’s degrees. Moreover, youth cultural exchanges provide those who would not normally be able to holiday in continental locations a means of visiting and appreciating other cultures.
I urge the Minister to look at the possibility of regaining and returning to Erasmus+ because of the many benefits gained from it right across the devolved regions and in England itself.
Lord Parekh (Lab) [V]
My Lords, an exchange has benefits of all kinds, both tangible and intangible. Among the tangible benefits, it increases the employability of the individual concerned, makes them familiar with the international markets and tastes of other societies and gives them the capacity to imagine new products and relationships. It also increases their contacts.
However, the intangible benefits are far more important. An individual grows up in a particular culture. We are able to see its strengths and limitations, but they can do so only if they are able to step of their country. However, they cannot step out of their country because there is no cross-cultural Archimedean standpoint from which they can look at their culture and observe its strengths and limitations. The only mini-Archimedean standpoint is another culture. If you look at your culture from the standpoint of another, you get to see its strengths and limitations. In so doing, you acquire a new pair of eyes, a new pair of ears and new sensitivity. This is why I think the word “exchange” is quite appropriate. You exchange—you give up your old self and acquire a new one. For all these reasons, an exchange creates a new individual, a new self. Through him, it has an impact on his family and on the social environment in which he lives and functions. It has a transformative effect on the entire community of which he is a part.
I end by asking two or three simple questions of the Minister. First, exchanges are not limited to university students, although they have tended to be thanks to Erasmus+. Exchange can be a lifelong activity, beginning at the age of 15 or 16 and going on for a long time. Secondly, we could change our visa rules and regulations; we cannot afford to be too stuffy about them. Thirdly, of course, there are the ethnic minorities. There will be a temptation to send them to their own countries of origin, which would be counterproductive. We need to devise more imaginative ways. Fourthly, and more importantly, we will need to think of a variety of countries and cultures to which individuals can be exposed. They cannot simply be sent to countries like their own. A variety of civilisations is just as important as a variety of communities.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, having spent many years in the higher education sector—at Universities UK, with the British Council, on the Fulbright Commission and as chair of International Students House—I have seen the impact and huge benefits of cultural and educational exchanges. Every speaker today has reinforced that, and I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge it.
I will make two points to the Minister. The first is in relation to home students. In a recent report, Universities UK compared the academic attainment and employment outcomes of students who were mobile during their studies against those who were not. It argued that there was a clear correlation between “outward mobility” and improved academic and employment outcomes. This was particularly true—in terms of both graduate- level jobs and earning more money—in relation to disadvantaged and black and minority ethnic students. Yet, despite that great advantage, those students are unfortunately much less represented in the schemes available. Could the Minister say what the Government are doing to ensure that these opportunities are available to all students who can benefit?
Secondly, for international students coming to this country, there are still negative messages, particularly in relation to the visa programme—several speakers have made this point. Will the Minister reinforce the need to be more open and welcoming in our approach to international students coming here for what should be a life-changing experience? Will she act to integrate messages across government departments?
Finally, we should be enabling these students to get out into their local communities, experiencing local activities—not mentioned at all in the International Education Strategy. I hope that the Minister agrees with this and will encourage greater integration, to the benefit of institutions and localities as well as the students themselves.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, if I were to declare all the interests that would be relevant this afternoon, I would go well beyond my two minutes. Therefore, I am minded to give just one: a school exchange transformed my life and, without it, I would not be sitting here today. On 1 April 1984, I went on an exchange—I remember the date because someone put a fish on my back, which is the French equivalent of an April fool. It changed my life because it gave me the confidence not just to speak French but to understand other cultures. I teach European politics and have worked abroad, and this is all thanks to a school exchange.
How many people are being deprived of that in the 21st century? Things that were second nature when I was at secondary school and when your Lordships were at school are now no longer as possible. Surely, if Brexit and “going global” are to mean anything, we need to find schemes that are not just as good as Erasmus or individual schemes but even better, as my noble friend Lady Featherstone said.
Exchanges are about cultural exchange and understanding. They matter for the individual and society, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice pointed out, but they also matter for the economy. What “assessment” have the Government made, in the words of the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about the impact of exchanges on the economy, individuals and the ability of the FCDO to recruit? If we want the best diplomats, and to engage internationally, surely we need people to have developed linguistic skills. Finally, if the Welsh Government can replicate Erasmus+, why cannot Her Majesty’s Government?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his introduction to this debate, in which he made a persuasive case for cultural and educational exchanges, underscored by my noble friend Lord Parekh and backed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, speaking so persuasively, as she always does, on foreign language exchange and its effect on us. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Warwick, who talked about the power of outward student mobility. I hope that the Minister has listened, can respond thoughtfully to them and can give good answers to the excellent questions from my noble friend Lord Stevenson on the creative industries, my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lord Faulkner on school trips and my noble friend Lady Quin on au pairs. These questions affect the lives of very many people, and they deserve answers.
Brexit did not mean that the UK had to leave Erasmus+—we could have carried on as a programme country or a partner country—but we chose to throw it away, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, put it. Ministers made great claims for their alternative, but the reality is much more modest, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, highlighted very clearly. Turing is very much Erasmus-minus. Theoretically, it has a global reach, but so much about it constrains our students, such as the failure to provide funding for tuition fees. This was not an issue with Erasmus, which was reciprocal, but Turing is not. If another country wanted to send its students to England in a non-reciprocal deal, would the Minister advise English universities to waive their fees? If not, why should they do it for us?
We have heard wonderful celebrations of the Welsh Government’s decision to invest £65 million in an ambitious and genuinely reciprocal exchange scheme. Are Ministers looking to Wales for inspiration? Might the Government think again about reciprocity or tuition fee support?
Unlike Erasmus, support for travel costs is offered only to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Can the Minister clarify who this is? The Turing website specifies:
“Learners with low household income or low socio-economic status (including those with an annual household income of £25,000 or less)”.
What are the criteria, other than income?
We have heard lots of criticism of the short notice and the short duration of funding. If we cannot have Erasmus, let us at least make sure that Turing is sustainable. That means longer commitment and plenty of notice. Does the Minister agree?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for bringing to your Lordships’ attention the important matter of cultural and educational exchanges. International exchanges in education open up new and exciting possibilities for participants, broadening their horizons, exposing them to new cultures and languages and, by doing so, developing critical new skills—and perhaps even shaping a career, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, outlined.
I agree with the noble Earl that he could have had a selection of government Ministers sitting in my seat this afternoon. Although I will make the utmost attempt to answer noble Lords’ questions, I am afraid I will have to write to noble Lords or ask my colleagues from the Home Office to write on all the specific questions relating to visas. I will not attempt to answer them in the time available or with the information I have to hand.
We agree that there are life-changing benefits to students from having the opportunity to study abroad. The Turing scheme is backed by £110 million, and we will provide funding for 35,000 UK students in higher education, further education and vocational training. The latter two groups have not had much focus this afternoon, and it is important that we make clear that the proportion of funds that Erasmus+ dedicated to these different groups is remaining the same under the new Turing scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, mentioned schools. Schools can travel abroad for these life-changing educational exchanges from this September.
This pioneering scheme represents a landmark step in developing our vision of a truly global Britain, enhancing our existing partnerships while forging new relationships to provide exciting opportunities for students, who will benefit well beyond their time in education. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Norton for his comments on the other countries we have relationships with. The FCDO already funds a number of Commonwealth and Chevening scholars to come to the UK.
I turn now to the Turing applications. The application period for the first year has now closed, and we are pleased to say that we have had a good number of applications from across higher education, further education, vocational training and the schools sector, indicating a strong national appetite for placements across the globe. We will announce the details of this in the next few weeks, and I will make sure that noble Lords are further updated. We have not seen the decline in applications from these sectors that noble Lords’ comments and fears might have led us to believe, even bearing in mind that during this time many educational institutions have of course been dealing with the effects of Covid.
In relation to further questions from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the evidence base for our saying that the most privileged were 1.7 times more likely to benefit from studying abroad was Universities UK International’s Gone International: Rising Aspirations report from 2016-17. Using data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, it stated that 9.5% of students from more advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds were mobile, compared with 5.6% of students from less advantaged backgrounds—so that is where that statistic come from. We will of course evaluate the first year to see whether it has met the aims and outcomes we wanted.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, mentioned that it is just one year of funding. That is because we were given a one-year spending review. There is nothing more sophisticated than that, and we anticipate having a multiyear spending review later this year.
As many noble Lords have outlined, the Turing scheme is not, though, a like-for-like replacement for Erasmus+. We have focused on and prioritised pupils, students and learners to ensure that as many students as possible can benefit. We have focused on those elements, including on widening access to disadvantaged students, as we recognise that they provide value for money. I know that many noble Lords will not agree, but one of the reasons we did not proceed with Erasmus+ is that over seven years, we would have put £2 billion more of UK taxpayer money into the scheme than we would have received out of it.
There were questions from many noble Lords about the effects on foreign tourism and whether there is a decline in school trips, which are relevant to the economy of many areas of the UK. I will raise these matters again with colleagues from BEIS and the Foreign Office and update noble Lords. But the Committee, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, may be interested to know that one of the initiatives from the Department for Education has now helped 38% of all schools. They are part of the self-insurance scheme that the department set up, I believe, under my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Agnew. That scheme is to make it easier for schools to get insurance and protection when they undertake these activities, such as school trips. Of course, we have been much involved in paying out to schools under that scheme when they had to cancel trips. We are doing structural things to help the sector have the confidence to organise those school trips as well, which are important.
We also want to ensure that students have the kinds of opportunities to go to the countries they want to go to, and not be limited by the EU. As many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, have said, the scheme will enable schools and education settings to be global and students to go to a wider number of countries. I understand that well over 150 countries have been suggested in the bids that we have received. Already, five of the top 10 destinations for UK university students who undertake a mobility are outside the EU. Students who have participated in the Turing scheme will, we hope, return to the UK more motivated and independent, with new skills to add to the global job market.
In relation to the specific points raised about disadvantaged students, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, mentioned the evidence that students with such experiences then do better academically and in employment. Yet under Erasmus, the most privileged students were 1.7 times more likely to participate in study abroad. No young person should be excluded from that kind of opportunity because of their family’s income.
The Turing scheme is designed for everyone but reaches out especially to the most disadvantaged. It should increase the participation of disadvantaged students by asking providers to demonstrate in their application how their project will support widening access. The scheme additionally provides financial support for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, including increased grants for living costs. We are introducing funding for travel costs for disadvantaged students, as well as for extra related costs, which are often barriers to disadvantaged students, such as visas and passports, regardless of the destination.
Finally, we have reduced the minimum duration of higher education outward mobilities compared to Erasmus+ from one term to four weeks; we identified this as a barrier to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. For instance, they may have caring responsibilities or a part-time job alongside their studies. The Turing scheme also provides funding to help meet additional costs for students with disabilities. This is not only to pay the costs of any adjustments needed when they get their destination; we have added on the costs of a preparatory trip that might be necessary for staff to assure themselves that those adjustments have been made before the young person arrives.
Funding is not ring-fenced, therefore providers across all nations of the UK can competitively bid—with no cap on the amount of funding that institutions in each nation can potentially receive. The UK Government intend to deliver a scheme that will see all parts of the UK flourish, by tailoring it to UK needs and targeting promotion on areas which did not previously have many students benefiting from Erasmus+. If I have left any of the definitions in relation to disadvantage unanswered in replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I will write to her afterwards.
The scheme is demand-led and education providers have the flexibility to form partnerships that will offer the best benefits to their students. Successful applications will also receive funding towards the cost of administering the scheme on behalf of those students. I add for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we are the second-most popular HE destination, after the United States, so we are confident of our attractiveness.
UK education providers may use the Turing scheme funding to support mobilities for any student, regardless of their study subject. This is great news for students, including those studying languages—the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred to them; she is known for her interest in modern foreign languages—so that they can do exchanges and visit those countries. Obviously, languages provide an insight into other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, mentioned, and can open the door to travel and employment opportunities. Exchange can enrich the languages curriculum and provide exciting opportunities for students.
We are grateful for the continued role of the British Council, a provider known to and trusted by many noble Lords. It helps us to administer schemes such as UK-German Connection, Connecting Classrooms and the Singapore head teachers exchange programme, all of which help to develop a generation of globally mobile, culturally agile people and professionals across the systems.
The noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Griffiths, mentioned the youth side of things. Although it is not part of Turing, DCMS is leading a youth review; it was specifically commissioned by the Treasury to do so in last year’s spending review. Within that will be consideration of the opportunities for youth groups outside educational settings, such as the Scouts, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, outlined.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this matter. I am aware that I have left many questions unanswered due to the time allowed, but I will seek to answer them. I look forward to working with noble Lords to help to ensure that all disadvantaged people in the UK have access to life-changing international experiences.
I just want to add that I first got on a plane as a result of a school trip. I had never experienced an aircraft before. I did not know what I was doing; I did not know that I could leave my seat on such a vehicle. That was through a school trip. I think we all have testimonies as to how valuable these can be.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.35 pm. 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, which remains in place in Grand Committee. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Cadet Forces: Funding
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lingfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the social impact of their funding of cadet forces.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I am so grateful to noble Lords, who have given up their time on the last day of term to discuss the importance of the cadet services. I remind your Lordships of my registered interest as chairman of CVQO, the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation, which I shall address shortly.
It is now two years since I last addressed your Lordships on cadets. There have been several significant developments since then, which are worth discussion. However, first, I will praise the extraordinary way in which the cadet services have risen to the challenges of the pandemic. The Sea Cadet Corps, the RAF cadets, the Army Cadet Force, the Combined Cadet Force and the Volunteer Cadet Corps have all offered contact, support and activity for thousands of young people remotely.
Among the many projects of which I am aware, I was particularly impressed by the bands and corps of drums and bugles of the Army Cadet Force, of which I am honorary colonel. Their officers, under the leadership of Colonel Mike Neville, sent out musical scores to hundreds of cadet players, who performed their parts individually in their bedrooms, gardens and kitchens throughout the country. Via the technological wizardry of their adult leaders, these performances were mixed into a number of concerts, of which that from Scotland, with its screen full of young bagpipers, was particularly inspiring. It was especially good to see so many girls taking part. We tend, too often, to think of cadet activities as boy pastimes, yet 34% of cadets are girls and they form an even greater proportion of our bands.
In March this year, I asked a Question of the Minister concerning when cadets will be able to start face-to-face activities again, given that schools were about to resume. However innovative and useful the virtual training programmes such as those I have mentioned are, I hope she reassures me that we will see cadets able to parade once again soon and to attend some regional camps.
Central to our previous debate on cadets was the cadet expansion programme for schools, to which I turn next. It is a joint departmental programme, run by the DfE and the MoD. When it started, I had doubts that co-operation would be easily achieved. I need not have worried, and I pay sincere tribute to officials from both departments for progressing the programme extremely well. The target was to establish enough new Combined Cadet Force units in schools to create a total of 500, and that has been achieved. Around 300 of these are from state schools. The next aim is to grow the number of participating students from around 45,000 to 60,000, it is hoped by 2024, although the pandemic may set this back.
What would the barriers to such an expansion be and what challenges will have to be overcome? Because the majority of current CCF units have been established lately, their roots are rather shallow and their continued existence is finely balanced. Some could find it difficult to survive now that Libor-funded grants have ceased.
Cadet leaders report that four enabling elements can lead to an individual school’s success in building its cadet corps. The first necessity is to identify and incentivise teaching staff to become adult volunteers. Secondly—this is vital—there is a need for a paid, hopefully full-time school staff instructor, or SSI, to support the teachers and other adults involved. The third element is the availability of dedicated regular training from armed services sources to ensure that programmes for young people are up to date, exciting, varied and, of course, safe. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, in this area. However, we need the Minister and her colleagues to consider further interim funding, especially for SSIs, if all the new CCF units are to succeed.
There is a fourth element. It cannot be overstated just how much cadets love sea, air or field training, and how much that is exciting and memorable they gain from it. This is especially important for army cadets, who form the majority of school-based units. It can involve live firing on ranges and the use of training areas and camps. The sad fact, however, is that the condition of some of those training sites is very poor. Indeed, one that I visit regularly has changed very little since I first saw it when I was 15. The MoD has, quite properly, had to reduce its expensive holdings of land and buildings, but I hope that the field training needs of cadets and their officers are taken into full account when decisions have to be made about which parts of the defence estate have to be sold off.
Another significant event since our last debate has been the publication, just two months ago, of the results of a four-year research project on the cadet forces from all services, commissioned by the Ministry of Defence. A reading of this, which considers What is the social impact and return on investment resulting from expenditure on the Cadet Forces in the UK?, spurred me to apply for this debate.
The main conclusions of the excellent Professor Simon Denny and his colleagues at the University of Northampton, who conducted the review, are that participation in the cadet experience has very significant and positive impacts on young people—especially, as we have always suspected, on those who suffer “economic and other disadvantages”—and that expenditure on cadet forces is
“a very good use of taxpayers’ money”,
and supports social mobility and social cohesion.
Among the findings of the report are that the joining of a cadet unit often led to improved school attendance, especially for boys and those for whom English is a second language, better behaviour, with consequential better educational outcomes, and improved career prospects. The research also revealed that participation in cadet forces leads to a better ability to communicate and to lead others, to be resilient when a situation is difficult, to work as a team member, to use social skills to achieve positive outcomes, and to accept diversity freely.
For many cadets from disadvantaged backgrounds, there is a real sense of belonging—of being part of a group that is not a street gang. All this is immensely encouraging, and provides an excellent example of the Ministry of Defence’s corporate social responsibility.
The Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation—the CVQO—directed by Mr Guy Horridge and funded mostly by the Department for Education, has a very special value for cadet training. It enables young people, via their local units, to take qualifications at levels 1, 2 and 3, which add greatly to their employability. Some 12,000 undertook courses—online, inevitably—during the past year.
Teenagers are not the only people to benefit from CVQO’s work. The five cadet forces together have some 29,000 adult volunteers, to whom we own an enormous debt. Of these, last year some 1,300 took CVQO qualifications, of which 126 were at graduate or master’s level. I hope very much to be able to confer their awards at Sandhurst in the autumn.
The first cadet units were founded in about 1860, and had their roots in the rifle volunteer battalions for defence. Their aim was to grow good soldiers. Today, 160 years later, the aim is to grow good citizens, and they all do it extraordinarily well. I hope your Lordships will agree that public money expended on cadets is extremely well spent.
Lord Jones (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for this debate and I acknowledge his most loyal, persistent and influential work for the cadet movement. I declare an interest as president of our superb local sea cadets and the training ship “Tuscan” in Flintshire and a 40-year close connection with 2247 (Hawarden) Squadron ATC. I was also president of the Army Cadet Force Association in Wales for some five recent years. In these matters, one noted the continuing relevance of the reserve.
Our cadet movement is at the very grass roots of our towns and villages, and this is certainly so in my homeland, the lovely land of Wales. In five years, Lady Jones and I attended 15 cadet camps, three per year, across the length and breadth of England and Wales, covering thousands of miles. One saw hundreds of cadets close up. It was instructive, inspiring and informative. One also saw the annual British national cadet rugby sevens championship at Christ College Brecon. Of course, the Wales seven always won. In a packed theatre, the England and Wales annual cadet band concert celebrated the anniversary of Rorke’s Drift with 90 young women and men displaying superb musicianship. It was an event of powerful emotion with the cadets proud of their achievement. The annual national sports meeting showed the advancing numbers and achievements of the many female cadets.
The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, emphasised the true worth of cadet life. It is truly worth its weight in gold and just a scintilla of MoD gold can prolong the most useful life. For example, prosperity is unevenly shared across Wales. Some former steel and coal communities are still readjusting to fundamental economic and social change, and some communities are just getting by. Here, cadets and their dedicated professional leaders are making a magnificent contribution through, for example, funds for charities, help for pensioners, linking with the high sheriff for remembrance parades and civic service. It helps, it counts and it is acknowledged locally. Cadet life is gift for British youth. When she or he presents for a job with a cadet record of achievement, that CV will always gain a positive response from the prospective employer. Cadet life encourages fitness, teamwork, co-operation, smartness, discipline and confidence. There are certificates, too, and always humour.
Finally, from our steep-sided Welsh valleys, the open central heartland—cefn gwlad—the slatey slopes of the Snowdonian massif and the urban townships of the eastern border, cadet life does great good. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, I hope very much that we might keep it.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for once again drawing the attention of the House to the cadet forces. He is a great champion of cadets and his enthusiastic support is greatly appreciated. I declare an interest as I chair the cadet health check team and my late husband started his brilliant RAF career with the cadets. He had a gliding licence and a pilot’s licence while still at school and always took a keen interest in the cadet force as he progressed up the ranks.
I followed that interest. For some years I have been a member of the council of the Air League which supports air cadets and other young people fascinated by aviation. The Air League offers scholarships and bursaries for flying, gliding, engineering and drones. It aims to change lives through aviation, particularly for disadvantaged and disabled young people, wounded and injured service men and women and now veteran offenders. The Air League’s recent Soaring to Success initiative, in partnership with Barnsley Council in South Yorkshire, saw a pilot project. Some 600 young students aged 14 to 16 attended an event organised by the Air League and a number of aviation and aerospace companies, including British Airways, DHL Aviation and Rolls-Royce. Some then obtained a fully paid short training bursary to participate in an air experience day at gliding clubs in South Yorkshire and the Peak District, nearly 170 were awarded a flying lesson and the most eligible were selected to fly a powered aircraft.
The purpose was not to train young people to be pilots as such, but to cause students to believe that such an achievement was possible and inspire others to do so too. More than 1,000 young people have been involved in the programme so far and we are aiming towards over 3,000 each year in the future. The video of these youngsters was inspirational: the sense of achievement and palpable pleasure from young people unused to achievement or praise made us realise that the social impact of these activities is immense, especially since the driving force is to encourage aspiration and achievement. Of course, the Royal Navy and the Army have similar exciting programmes too.
Our role on the health check team is normally to visit as many cadet meetings and camps as we can. This year, of course, that has not proved possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, indicated, we have been heartened to be invited to virtual meetings to witness the wonderful enthusiasm and engagement of cadets and the inspiring adults who give so much time and energy to ensuring that young people get cadet opportunities. The ingenuity of the activities was mind-boggling, and the cadets responded by turning up smartly in uniform on Zoom and throwing themselves into whatever exercise or activity was proposed.
Of course, many of the most senior military personnel started their careers with the cadets, both men and women, so we always hope that funding is secure, but perhaps the Minister can say something about cadet accommodation, some of which is very substandard and dilapidated.
Our health check team was very grateful to the University of Northampton, which again the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned, for the independent report on the social impact of the cadet forces, which concluded that expenditure on the cadet forces was
“a very good use of taxpayers’ money that supports social mobility and community cohesion”,
and that particularly for cadets who suffer economic and other disadvantages
“it is very possible that being a cadet is … a key factor that enables them to achieve positive life outcomes.”
Among the benefits the report named were “reduced vulnerability”, for example to bullying and to criminal or extremist organisations, “increased social mobility” and “enhanced employability”. Surely these are all very good things for our young people. Of course, there are benefits for the hard-working adult volunteers who support the cadets. Adults and cadets can now access qualifications. These, too, can be life changing.
I am proud and delighted to be involved with the cadets. I trust, with the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, that they will increase and flourish along with all the benefits they bring to society.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, on securing this debate, following on from Questions on 1 March. I am very encouraged when I see people of the calibre of the noble Lords, Lord Lingfield and Lord West, and other Peers in your Lordships’ House take such an interest in voluntary youth organisations such as the cadet force, which are based on the fine traditions of the British Armed Forces but, of course, are not part of them.
I pay tribute to all those who give up their talents and time in promoting our cadet force. I do not overstate it when I say that it is a wonderful organisation that the whole of the United Kingdom can be rightly proud of. The Government say that it offers challenging and enjoyable activities. This statement could not be bettered.
My remarks will centre on the Army Cadet Force, or ACF, because as a teenager I was a member of the ACF located in a small rural town in the west of Northern Ireland—a town then, in the 1950s and 1960s, with a population of fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. It was there, through the dedication and commitment of volunteers, that I learned many important lessons that would stay with me for the rest of my life. The late Captain McAfee, our dedicated senior officer, instilled in all those under his command the importance of living lives that will enhance the lives of others. He sought to make good citizens of us all and in most cases that is exactly what resulted.
The briefing notes provided by the Library state that an independent analysis suggests that the cadet forces
“provide benefits both for participants and wider society”—
something I know to be undoubtedly accurate. The notes continue:
“An ongoing government scheme aims to increase the number of cadet units in state schools.”
I hope this can be extended beyond our schools and into wider society. The unit I was privileged to belong to was not attached to any school but was part of the whole community of that small rural town in Country Tyrone in Northern Ireland.
I encourage the Government to take a closer look at the funding for our cadet forces with a view to investing in more resources and funding. New incentives should be adopted to encourage more of our youth to join the cadets and ensure the future of our voluntary youth organisations. A study by the University of Northampton, in a report commissioned by the Ministry of Defence, concluded that
“expenditure on the Cadet Forces is a very good use of taxpayers’ money that supports social mobility and community cohesion.”
Others have already quoted this. In addition, cadets are able to access the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation—known as the CVQO—which can equate to GCSEs; the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned this.
I conclude simply by saying that cadets provide an excellent and positive return on the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. The benefits of being a cadet cannot be overstated. I look forward to our cadets being fully operative again, subject to the conditions of the pandemic permitting.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I speak as one who has been a member of a school CCF and a university TA regiment. I also spent a short time as a police special constable, so there are no guesses as to where my loyalties lie in this short debate, so well brought by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield.
My more recent experience came about through a visit to some sea cadets when I was High Sheriff. I was approached by a man and a woman after a cathedral service, asking if I could inspect their charges on the water in a parade thereafter. On the water, I saw two boats being rowed by the cadets. One was a lightweight fibreglass vessel, the other a heavy, wooden, corked lifeboat. Neither was fit for purpose—both were barely usable—but the commitment given to the rowing effort and the enjoyment derived from it was palpable. There were too many sea cadets for places in the boats.
They were then called off the water. After a short while, they all reappeared in immaculate pressed and clean uniforms, and a well-drilled parade took place. My evening finished with a request for help find £2,000 to buy another boat—the most modest financial request to provide a fantastic opportunity for those cadets, and future ones, to feel like valued members of a team and to enjoy a feeling of self-worth.
I mention this visit to illustrate a wider point. The two adults who originally approached me were volunteers who ran this branch of sea cadets with 70 young people, boys and girls, in their charge. “In loco parentis” is no exaggeration. Nearly all the young people were latchkey kids whose parents—they were lucky if they had two—would be working when they came back from school. Without the camaraderie, sense of belonging and palpable pride in being part of such a disciplined and purposeful organisation, they would have been exposed to all the temptations of the drug and gang culture by which they were surrounded.
The most recent figures from the House of Lords Library show that the direct cost to the MoD of the ACF, the ATC and the CCF is a mere £175 million, with indicative benefit figures to society of £479 million—a return that speaks for itself. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, mentioned, a report from the University of Northampton on the social impact of the cadet forces showed significant educational benefits deriving from the CVQO that were, in many cases, potentially life-changing. Enormous value can thereby accrue to those not necessarily talented in the schoolroom, so it is good to note that more than 500 schools have involvement of some sort with cadet forces.
The sadness is that membership figures have fallen—from 130,000 in April 2020 to 120,000 in April 2021—as has the number of adult volunteers, which has fallen from almost 29,000 to 27,500 in the same period. This cannot be put down to Covid-19, nor to government, since all parties have supported the increase in cadet numbers. Anyone who has been closely involved with cadet forces of whatever association can see for themselves the hugely beneficial social impact that they bring about, as I saw with those sea cadets. We must all do whatever we can to encourage making this opportunity available to everyone, as it was to me.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports; I have two cadets annually as my Lord Warden cadets. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for securing and initiating this important debate.
There can be no doubt that the sea, Army and RAF cadets are a force for good for our country. I intend to focus mainly on the sea cadets, but much of what I have to say applies equally to their Army and Air Force counterparts. My general point is that they are all invariably a credit to the uniforms they wear and that, over time, thousands of young people who might otherwise have gone astray or not realised their potential have had productive and fulfilling lives as a result of having been cadets.
When looking at youth interventions, there is a perennial problem of whether the difference made is a sustained change to someone’s life into adulthood, and therefore whether it is good value for money. However, earlier this year we saw the publication of My LegaSea: Launching into Life, a report launched by former Prime Minister Theresa May. It involved independent research with 3,000 20 to 90 year-old former sea cadets and found clear evidence of sustained positive change for former sea cadets, long after they left their cadet forces.
The current reopening of society from Covid is leading to an increase in demand without the resources to respond. Children and young people have spent months locked up, so unsurprisingly there is a massive interest in engaging with youth work. Waiting lists are now growing and overall sea cadet numbers are already up by 3% from 1 April. Maybe it is the same for the Army and Air Force cadets. Right now there are increasing funds to kick-start the economy, but nothing is being applied to help kick-start the cadet youth sector in the same sort of way.
As an independent charity, Sea Cadets has been able to innovate to develop new models to reach out to hard-to-reach groups. For example, its On The Water outreach programme will support 1,200 hard-to-reach young people in Liverpool, Birmingham and London in July and August. The programme is pretty well externally funded by trusts, foundations and corporates, such as the Stelios Philanthropic Foundation, the Gosling Foundation and Capita, but if there were some government funding for these sorts of programmes, they could be scaled up substantially.
Across the cadet forces, a massive amount of value is added through volunteers, but the processes are not in place to unlock more volunteering. They are not what is increasingly becoming the norm in youth work: a brief intervention over a few weeks. Instead, adult volunteers work with young people over years to give them the skills they need to face the world. The biggest barrier to expansion is often insufficient adults coming forward. These volunteers provide a remarkable resource. For sea cadets alone, volunteers contribute the equivalent of over £54 million of work per year. The scale of the work of cadet forces would simply not be possible without them.
When thinking about funding cadet forces, it is vital to think about how we can unlock interest in volunteering. Examples of this could include providing tax incentives to employers to make it easier for their staff to volunteer, providing income tax breaks for the volunteer or introducing volunteering leave as a standard practice. Any discussion about the funding of cadets must take into account supporting the whole cadet ecosystem, not just the bottom line.
Lord Mountevans (CB) [V]
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as president of City of London Sea Cadets and a vice-president of the Marine Society & Sea Cadets, the charity that runs sea cadets in the UK. Sea cadets are the Royal Navy’s main MoD-sponsored cadet force, receiving a grant in aid equivalent to 49p in the pound of the total cost of the delivery of sea cadets, with the balance funded by the charity.
We have heard a cascade—a litany—of tremendous tributes to the value and positive impact of cadets. Following the noble and gallant Lord, my case study is also substantively the sea cadets, but I hope I may add some points to our debate.
Three essential elements make the work of the sea cadets so critically valuable at this time. First, it delivers structured youth activity that lets young people try something challenging, but in small chunks and a supportive environment. Secondly, they become a part of the sea cadets community at unit, regional and national levels, cemented by trusted adults—the volunteers. This is particularly important for some of the hardest-to-reach young people, who often lack strong mentors elsewhere. Thirdly, it is all bound up with the customs and traditions of the Royal Navy, with a rank structure helping to encourage ongoing engagement and development, and with the uniform making everyone feel part of something special.
After the last year and a half, structured, well-supported youth work is really important to all young people. The sea cadets, for example, are seeing a substantial upswing in demand as the nation reopens, as we heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. It would be wonderful if some resources could be made available across the cadet movement to help finances.
I will particularly focus on the work of cadet forces in relation to disadvantaged backgrounds, which I have witnessed at close quarters in my City of London unit. The sea cadets have created a system that is truly open to all, irrespective of background. This has paid off, with really strong representation from young carers, looked-after young people, autistic cadets and white working-class students—all groups that can be incredibly hard for youth workers to reach.
The three core themes I mentioned earlier provide a fantastic equalising factor, helping cadets to mix with people from different backgrounds, creating a real sense of unity among young people and reducing so many of the divisions that can lead to longer-term entrenched inequality elsewhere. This is all delivered alongside effective outreach. Noble Lords heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, about the On The Water programme, which will be very valuable and offers potential, if we can encourage others to join such activities.
Most importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned, we know that membership of cadet organisations has substantial impact. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, explained, the findings of the sea cadets’ recent My LegaSea: Launching into Life research report reveal that this is not just a brief, flash-in-the-pan difference for young people; it gets sustained throughout their life, long after they have left, with some of the most sizeable differences for cadets from disadvantaged backgrounds.
As we have heard from some speakers, cadet forces all over the UK are able to provide this intense, high-quality work at such scale only due to their amazing volunteers, whose commitment and talent is truly impressive. However, the backgrounds that they come from are also important, offering role models from the same communities as the young people. Without these volunteers, it would be impossible to deliver this work at scale, and noble Lords have heard what their contribution in hours monetised represents: £54 million a year. It is just as important to think about how we could encourage more volunteering.
This type of long-term intervention with some of the hardest-to-reach young people is critical to help to build back better and avoid the disproportionate impact of lockdown on our most left-behind young people, creating a chasm of inequality and reducing life chances. Providing support to help to scale up this sort of work should be an essential part of responding to this present need.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, unlike every speaker so far, I have no interests to declare in this debate: I was not a cadet and have not had the opportunity to engage with cadets. I am a member of COMEC, the Council of Military Education Committees, through my role in Cambridge, so I have had the opportunity to discuss, to an extent, the role of cadets and OTCs.
Of course, it is very clear that, despite the fact that the MoD partly funds the cadet forces, it is not intended to be a route to membership of the Armed Forces, although for my late friend and my noble friend Lady Garden’s late husband, Lord Garden, there was an opportunity to learn to fly as a cadet. Then, of course, he became a distinguished air marshal, so occasionally there can be a route from being a cadet to the Armed Forces. However, what we have heard so powerfully is that the cadet movement is hugely important in giving opportunities to young people, particularly those who are perhaps less advantaged, to take on challenges in “small chunks”, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, put it. These are opportunities to do activities that they would otherwise perhaps not have—particularly the opportunity to be trained in things that will be exhilarating.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned the importance of shooting ranges. As a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I, along with other parliamentarians, have had the opportunity to go out on a shooting range and be taught how to shoot by members of the Army. It is very rewarding when you suddenly realise you have got it and managed to hit a target. If I can feel like that in my 50s, what must a young person feel like when they are able to say, “I’m able to do that. That’s a skill I’ve acquired”? There are huge opportunities.
Several noble Lords have assisted the Minister to look at the financial benefits of the cadet forces, but the question asks what assessment the Government have made of the social impact. Have the Government looked at the social impact and to what extent, particularly in the context of 18 months of Covid? What are the Government thinking about ensuring that cadet forces go back to their normal activity? It is great to hear, as my noble friend Lady Garden said, that air cadets are attending Zoom meetings in their uniform and looking smart, but when will they be able to meet again in person? What are the Government doing to ensure that?
Have the Government given any thought to making sure that the new cadet forces formed in schools in the last decade are consolidated? If I read the briefing correctly, about half of school-based cadet forces are recent and are likely to be the most vulnerable. What support is being given to keep them going and, in particular, to support the adult volunteers who are crucial to ensuring that they are really successful?
I pay all tribute to the cadets and to the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for bringing this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for tabling this debate. I was not privileged to be a member of a cadet force at school, but when I went to university I joined the university air squadron and it shaped my life. The experience, at a young age, of excitement and the military environment shapes one in a special way, and my whole life has related to that.
On the last day before recess, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate on such a positive subject matter. We on the Labour Benches strongly support the opportunities that the cadet force offers our young people to socialise and learn skills, including leadership, resilience and team- work. For reasons that are only too clear, it has been a particularly difficult, disruptive and isolating past 18 months for our young people. Have government departments provided any support to the cadets to ensure that activities can go ahead in a Covid-safe way for the cadets and volunteers involved, and that organisers are supported in responding to changes in guidance and restrictions?
Covid-19 has clearly been difficult for cadets in limiting their access to face-to-face activities. Can the Minister give the Committee an overall assessment of the impact of Covid-19 and what plans the MoD has to ensure a rapid recovery?
I once again put on record our thanks to the volunteers who give up their precious time to make cadets possible. I am sure the Minister agrees that it is rare to read a report that says that government money is being so wisely spent. The report from the University of Northampton on the social impact of investment in cadet forces is extremely welcome. Our key concern should be ensuring that as many young people as possible access these opportunities. As other noble Lords mentioned, the report cites that
“The impact is particularly strong for those cadets that suffer economic and other disadvantages.”
I ask the Minister about the funding announced in April for the expansion of cadet programmes in state schools: what specific strategic planning will go into ensuring new places are made available to children from disadvantaged backgrounds?
The report also focuses on the life-changing potential of the vocational qualifications that can be accessed through the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation. The University of Northampton suggests that for the 2018-19 cohort, these qualifications added value in the region of £27 million for girls and £82 million for boys. This is welcome, but one cannot help but notice the discrepancy in impact due to the smaller number of girls who accessed these opportunities. What is being done to increase the participation of girls in the cadets? I look forward to the Minister’s reply on these points and those raised by other noble Lords.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lingfield for securing this debate and pay tribute to him in his role as chairman of the CVQO—the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation. I pay tribute to the fine work that organisation does to ensure that the skills individuals gain through cadet forces are recognised and rewarded. I also thank other noble Lords, not just for their valuable contributions but for the excellent support that many of your Lordships provide to the cadets. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, felt humbled listening to this. I am afraid that I too cannot claim a direct involvement—although part of my role as a deputy lieutenant is generic support for the cadet movement.
We all know, instinctively, that being a cadet provides outstanding opportunities and that the cadet forces offer young people the chance to develop key life skills. That is right across the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, so properly and rightly observed. Cadets are not just a fine component but a superb representation of the United Kingdom.
In the MoD and within CVQO, we wanted to go beyond the anecdotal and not only look holistically at the benefits the cadet experience provides for young people but assess the impact that the cadet forces have on society as a whole. So in 2016, the Ministry of Defence and CVQO commissioned the University of Northampton to carry out a four-year longitudinal study, the final report from which has just been published. A number of noble Lords referred to that report.
Thanks to this excellent research—again, I pay tribute to all those who worked on it—we now have clear evidence that being a cadet is not only fun and engaging, as many of your Lordships graphically and interestingly described, but transforms lives by improving social mobility, success in education, well-being and career prospects. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, gave a marvellous illustration of the varied activity possible. She also asked about cadet accommodation. Having looked through my briefing, I have no specific information but I undertake to investigate and to see what I can find out.
I was delighted to learn of the positive conclusions from this fascinating report. It emphasises the importance of the cadet programme for young people and the adult volunteers, and shows that participation in cadets leads to greatly improved communication and leadership skills, self-discipline, personal resilience and self-confidence. It can be clearly seen that many of the values which we recognise in our Armed Forces can benefit so many of our young people, with skills that they can rely on well into adult life. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, spoke of that. This, for me, is one of the biggest benefits of the cadet movement. It is why we continue to invest in sustaining the cadet forces in the community, while seeking to increase the opportunities available to pupils in schools in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the country.
One of the key findings from the report concerns the concept of self-efficacy—or, as I like to call it, believing in and empowering yourself. That is what it means: it refers to an individual’s confidence, motivation and self-esteem, and their belief in their ability to exert control over their environment. Generally, young people from disadvantaged backgrounds score lower than their peers on measures of self-efficacy, but the research revealed that there is no statistically significant difference in self-efficacy between cadets from disadvantaged backgrounds and more fortunate cadets from more affluent backgrounds. That is significant. It suggests to me that cadets who suffer economic and other disadvantages have improved self-efficacy because of the activities they undertake in the cadet forces and the people they meet as a result of that.
A number of your Lordships rightly identified the specific effects of being a cadet, as noted in the report. The report clearly demonstrates how our cadet forces benefit young people by broadening their horizons and unlocking their potential. As a result of participation in the cadets, young people experience positive outcomes including improved mental and physical well-being. It shows further that participation in the cadet forces develops many important attributes, such as the ability to lead a group of people to achieve an objective—many of us in political parties might envy that attribute—the resilience to keep going when things go wrong and the ability to work as a member of a team, sharing views and helping others. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, highlighted these benefits.
An important element of being a member of the cadet forces is an understanding that people are not all the same, and that leads to an acceptance of diversity. The report disclosed that participation in the cadet forces can also reduce a young person’s vulnerability and increase their resilience to bullying and extremism. Cadets form an important part of the communities they represent, with membership helping to forge inclusive community links across ethnic, religious and socio- economic dimensions. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, eloquently exemplified that with the support that he and his wife have been giving to that activity in Wales.
Society as a whole is also a beneficiary of cadet activity. My noble friend Lord Colgrain alluded to this. The research shows that participation in the cadet forces is associated with increases in school attendance and improved behaviour, particularly for those who are economically disadvantaged. It is also linked to a reduction in school exclusions. This can lead to enhanced employability and increased social mobility, promoting levelling up in disadvantaged groups. It is worth noting that school-based cadet units deliver personal development outcomes that are directly relevant to the Ofsted inspection framework.
I have to tell noble Lords that government departments and the private sector can also reap benefits from the MoD’s investment in the cadet forces. For government departments, there may be decreasing reliance on certain of their public service provisions. An important message to get across to employers is that cadets and adult volunteers have skills and behavioural attributes that are very valuable in the workplace. I certainly urge employers to look favourably at young people with cadet experience who are applying for jobs and to appreciate the value of adult volunteers who are either already working in their companies or seeking employment.
The report notes that although the calculation of the value of social impact is not an exact science, it is clear that the return on the Ministry of Defence’s investment in the cadet forces, some £180 million per year, is a very good use of taxpayers’ money. Estimates from the research include, for example, that activities associated with improvements in the health and physical and mental well-being of cadets and adult volunteers produce an indicative annual return on investment of more than £560 million. We also have to note the consequential benefits of cadet vocational qualifications, which deliver an extremely positive return on investment for the lifetime of a cadet.
A number of your Lordships raised the matter of funding. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, asked about that. He is aware of the level of current investment, and the level of funding for the cadet forces has to be seen in the context of competing priorities within the defence budget; I know he is sympathetic to that. We see our continuing strong support for the cadet forces as an excellent demonstration of the MoD’s corporate social responsibility, but as the noble and gallant Lord will be aware, our support is more than just funding. We are there to offer advice, encouragement, support and help—and that is what we have been trying to do during the difficult period of the Covid challenge.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, raised the vital issue of the adult volunteers, and of course, none of the benefits that I have just been describing would be possible were it not for the 27,000-plus adult volunteers who are the lifeblood of the cadets. I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to them for their tireless efforts in running the individual cadet units and allowing our cadets to have such wonderful opportunities and experiences.
This is all hugely positive and very encouraging, but most of your Lordships have identified the major challenge of the last year: the Covid pandemic. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, specifically asked about how we have tried to support the cadet movement through that difficult time. We have always been available with advice, and many people, in times of uncertainty, sought that advice.
As for restarting activities, we are beginning to see the relaxation of lockdown restrictions, and we are identifying road maps to return us, albeit cautiously, to a more normal delivery of the cadet experience. We are certainly looking at the opportunities available. Your Lordships will all understand that the responsibility for youth and education is devolved to the various Governments, which have different approaches, whether that is in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Throughout, the cadet forces in the UK have followed the appropriate rules and guidance. They are all doing their best to go forward positively.
The adult volunteers have been vital during this difficult time in maintaining activity and keeping morale going. They have been innovative and imaginative in finding ways to continue activity when physical social proximity was denied to us.
There is good news: a small pilot scheme run by the army cadets in Surrey resulted in 58 volunteer and 186 cadet applications, from over 600 expressions of interest recorded in one month. There are good things happening.
In conclusion, the cadet forces are indeed the embodiment of resilience. The effort now under way to recover the ground lost over the past year means that it is particularly important that we capitalise on the University of Northampton’s report, and exploit this good news story. I thank my noble friend Lord Lingfield for tabling the debate, and enabling your Lordships to do just that, and to conclude our debates on defence matters on, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, observed, a positive, upbeat and optimistic note.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.40 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
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 while remaining in place in Grand Committee. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Human Rights Situation in India
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the human rights situation in India; and in particular, of the impact it is having on (1) academics, (2) non-governmental organisations, (3) Muslims, (4) Christians, and (5) marginalised groups, such as the Dalits.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have enormous admiration for the people of India, especially for the resilience and sheer joy shown by so many of them even when living in dire poverty. I recognise the early birth of its culture 4,500 years ago in the Indus valley, and note the brilliant contribution of Indians in the fields of mathematics and astronomy over many centuries. I appreciate the long tradition of public debate and intellectual pluralism in India, as illustrated by Amartya Sen in his wonderful book, The Argumentative Indian. I marvel at the way in which a country of 1.4 billion people can hold democratic elections in which nearly 70% of the people vote. I also believe that many aspects of British policy and behaviour during the imperial period are deeply shaming. As Gandhi responded when asked what he thought of western civilisation, “It would be nice”.
So it is with real sadness that I have to bring this Question before the Committee this afternoon, sadness that, over the past few years, India has joined the growing list of countries that have combined an increasingly autocratic rule, an appeal to a narrow nationalism and a denial of fundamental human rights.
Fundamental to human rights and the long tradition of Indian public debate and intellectual pluralism is academic freedom. There are now numerous reports showing how this in increasingly under threat, with academics who hold views that the Indian Government do not like being put under pressure to resign, and with permission from the Government now being required to hold an international webinar if it relates to certain sensitive subjects. A recent headline in an Indian newspaper asked, “Is academic freedom any longer viable?” Another cited what can happen even in a privately funded Ivy League-equivalent university such as Ashoka. When Pratap Bhanu Mehta was pressured to resign, he said:
“After a meeting with founders it has become abundantly clear to me that my association with the University may be considered a political liability. My public writing in support of a politics that tries to honour constitutional values of freedom and equal respect for all citizens, is perceived to carry risks for the university.”
I should also mention journalists. Between 2010 and 2020, 150 were arrested, detained and interrogated, 67 in 2020 alone.
NGOs—in India, they are called civil society organisations—are another group being put under great pressure. Even before Covid, they were finding it difficult to obtain visas. Since Covid, they have been harassed by new laws against protesters, and some have had their bank accounts frozen. So serious is this that Amnesty International, for example, has had to stop its work in India.
A no less serious cause for concern is the position of Muslims. There are some 200 million Muslims in India—about 14% of the population. One recent survey revealed that 35% of Muslims in north-east India said that they had experienced discrimination over the past year and were now adopting a survival strategy in the realisation that an anti-Muslim Hindutva policy was now the dominant narrative.
Christianity in India is not a western import. Christians have been there for 2,000 years, and were certainly well established in Kerala by the sixth century. There are 28 million Christians in India—about 2.3% of the population. They, too, are suffering from the present Hindutva policies. Their stigma is increased not only by the fact that they are not Hindu but because they are sometimes regarded—quite wrongly—as a legacy of western imperialism and because many of them are Dalits who converted to Christianity, as others converted to Buddhism, partly to escape the stigma of being treated as untouchable.
So I come to the Dalits and other marginalised groups, such as the tribal peoples. It must be emphasised that the Indian constitution is in many ways admirable, in particular its emphasis on equality for all India’s diverse peoples. Its architect was the polymath, scholar and jurist Dr Ambedkar, who was recently honoured by having a new portrait unveiled at Gray’s Inn, where he studied. He was born into a family of what were then referred to as untouchables in 1891, and wrote:
“Untouchability is far worse than slavery, for the latter may be abolished by statute. It will take more than a law to remove the stigma from the people of India. Nothing less than the aroused opinion of the world can do it.”
His constitution was a step towards achieving that but, despite that constitution, Dalits continue to suffer disproportionately by every indicator. The policies and practices of the present reveal that the stigma is still there and being reinforced.
When it comes to access to clean water and sanitation, Dalits lag far behind; when it comes to access to education and health, again they are disproportionately failed. The conscience of India can rightly be aroused when a student on a bus in Delhi is abducted, raped and murdered—as happened not long ago—but rapes of young Dalit girls in isolated villages happen frequently and get very little publicity. A high proportion of Dalits are bonded or day labourers—groups who are particularly vulnerable to violence. It is particularly distressing when Dalits try to get justice for some outrage and, again and again, fail to achieve it. A Dalit Christian village might be burned, as has happened, and the perpetrators known, but justice is delayed and delayed.
At the moment, more than 24 Dalit rights activists are in jail on unproven charges, including 80 year-old poet Varavara Rao and, until he died on 5 July, 83 year- old Jesuit priest Father Stan Swamy. Father Swamy spent nine months in jail under the anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, was denied bail and medical care and was transferred to a hospital only when his condition became critical. At the time of his arrest, Stan Swamy was already suffering from Parkinson’s disease, significant loss of hearing in both ears and other serious underlying health issues. His death in custody and the continued incarceration of other defenders is a tragic indictment of India’s human rights record and the global community’s human rights commitments. India sits on the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations Security Council, which carry specific human rights commitments.
As I said at the beginning, it is a real sadness to note what is happening in India today. I believe that all true friends of India should protest about this and make it clear to the Mr Modi that this is a denial of what is best in Indian culture and is totally unacceptable. I know the Minister very much shares this concern about human rights, and I look forward to hearing from him about the action that Her Majesty’s Government are taking. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. I regret we cannot hear you, Lord Parekh. If you are on mute, could you unmute yourself? I call the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, again. We can hear you now.
Lord Parekh (Lab) [V]
I am happy to participate in the debate initiated by my good friend, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on the human rights situation in India, especially as it relates to academics, Muslims, Christians and Dalits. I will take these four groups in the order in which I mentioned them.
I need hardly remind the Committee that human rights have long been an integral part of the Indian constitution and inform every Indian citizen’s political inheritance. The Supreme Court of India has acted as the custodian of those rights and been vigorous in enforcing them. Religious minorities enjoy far better rights in India than elsewhere. They enjoy religious freedom and the right to set up educational and constitutional institutions, and are governed by their own personal laws.
However, this is the formal side of it only; at a more substantive level, Hinduism, Islam and other religions have interacted and created a composite culture, to which they all have contributed and in which they all participate. For example, the law of karma, which is supposed to be a Hindu doctrine, is shared by 77% of Muslims. As a result, it has become ridiculous to talk about Muslims or Christians “in India”; they are Muslims or Christians of India because India has shaped them.
Obviously, in a country with a population of 1.3 billion, incidents are bound to occur when minorities—and even majorities—feel oppressed or treated unjustly. The task is not to exaggerate those incidents but to ask whether the system has the robustness to deal with such situations. The Indian institutions—the Supreme Court and others—have robust capacity to deal with these situations.
I come to Dalits, who for centuries have been subjected to high caste oppression. Independent India devised a host of policies for their uplift, including positive discrimination in government jobs and university admissions. Dalits have occupied positions of power and influence, and have fought for their rights with determination. Obviously, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, pointed out, India still has a long way to go in this direction and could do with a greater sense of urgency, but public opinion will not be silenced. It is beginning to mount and put pressure on the Government. It is also worth bearing in mind that even after 200 years the Americans are still struggling with the legacy of racism, as witnessed by the Black Lives Matter movement.
I turn to academics. There have been cases of government agencies leaning on university authorities to harass or get rid of inconvenient academics. My good friend Pratap Bhanu Mehta, who had to step down as vice-chancellor of Ashoka University, is a good example of this. Some professors have suffered in this way. But although I regret all this, it is worth bearing in mind that these cases have been very few in number. Many academics have freely criticised the Administration of Mr Modi, but none has come to grief. My own family foundation has given 3 million rupees to Jawaharlal Nehru University and we have not come to any grief, nor have we done so for giving 1 crore rupees to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. We must also remember how much Edward Said had to suffer—or how much my good friend Henry Louis Gates has to suffer now—at the hands of Harvard University for supporting the Palestinian cause.
All I say to my good friend, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, by way of ending is that we are not on opposite wavelengths. How can we be? We are on the same wavelength. We all feel grieved and pained when things happen in India that should not happen, but it is a society with a great civilisational depth, a great heritage in the shape of Gandhi, Nehru and others, and shaped by certain values. That kind of society cannot be swept off its feet so easily or be dominated by a single, simplistic ideology. That kind of situation was shown recently when the Prime Minister, who is immensely popular, could not carry the state of West Bengal in the recent elections. He was defeated by Mamata Banerjee.
India welcomes critical advice—if not, it should welcome critical advice—provided that advice is accompanied by humility, is not condescending or patronising, and is based on a sympathetic understanding of India’s problems and predicament. It is very important that India should remain true to its democratic and pluralistic legacy, which can happen only if the watchful eye of Indians abroad and their good friends remains critically focused.
Lord Hussain (LD)
I too thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for introducing the debate. India’s current human rights record paints a very dark picture in many areas. According to a June 2021 report by a Christian advocacy group called Open Doors, daily life for many Christian and Muslim communities in India has become an unbearable struggle to earn a living and practise their faith while remaining alive and under the radar of the far-right Hindutva organisations that now dominate the Indian public and political sphere.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which provides citizenship to religious minorities, excludes Muslims, the largest religious minority in India. Furthermore, millions of people, most of them Muslims, are being put at risk of becoming stateless by the enforcement of the most controversial National Register of Citizens. This could potentially create another Rohingya-like situation.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights described the CAA as “fundamentally discriminatory in nature”. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom said that it was “deeply troubled” by the Act. Violence against the Dalit community never ends. An Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report of April 2021 said that the Dalits are
“born into a life of discrimination and stigma”,
highlighting the plight of the Dalit community in India.
Kashmir continues to remain an open prison, under the siege of an army with extraordinary powers granted to it by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Regular cordon and search operations of the Indian army, detaining and torturing young people, blowing up residential properties, injuring and killing civilians and assaulting men, women and children, have become the norm in Kashmir. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have reported extensively on the human rights abuses in Kashmir.
On 5 August 2019, the BJP Government unilaterally revoked Articles 370 and 35A, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir within the Indian constitution. This was done by totally locking down the state, cutting off all external communication systems—including telephones and the internet—and imposing a curfew. During the course of this, thousands of political workers and leaders, including Shabir Shah, Yasin Malik, Asiya Andrabi and others, have been detained on trumped-up charges.
Shabir Shah has spent most of the last 33 years in detention. In 1992, he was declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International. Mr Yasin Malik, who visited the UK, the United States and many other countries after his release in 2006, after many years of detention, has been arrested again since 2019 and is kept in the high-security Tihar Jail in New Delhi. Both leaders have millions of followers at home and abroad, and they believe in the democratic right of their people to decide about the future of their state, according to UN resolutions. Both suffer from serious health conditions and have cardiac issues, which make them more vulnerable to Covid-19.
Asiya Andrabi is a middle-aged lady suffering from hypertension and asthma. She has been held in Tihar Jail in New Delhi since 2018, charged under various sections of the Indian penal code. Evidently, the Indian Government are violating the UN charter, the Geneva convention and the values and principles of the Commonwealth.
I ask the Minister why, despite all that, India is not even mentioned in the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s latest annual report on human rights. Will he ask the Indian Government to, first, withdraw the most controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens to prevent another human catastrophe? Secondly, will he ask them to release all Kashmiri political prisoners, including the popular leaders I mentioned? Thirdly, will he ask them to demilitarise Kashmiri cities, towns and villages? Finally, will he kindly share the response of the Indian Government with the Members of this House by putting a copy in the Library?
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for this debate. It is always a great pleasure to listen to my dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and the wise way that he lays out India and its citizens.
Over the last seven or eight years, the current Indian Government have visibly gone to great lengths to remove deep-bedded cultural beliefs and traditions that prevent all people from progressing. Ensuring access to education, particularly for girls, has been at the centre of this Government’s mission through their first and second terms. The fact that they have pushed hard to enable women from the Muslim faith to get protections in the triple talaq legislation is a testament to ensuring that, regardless of their faith, women have access to their rights. This is a Government who, in the past eight years, have pushed hard for pensions and for the poorest in India’s communities to have access to bank accounts so that they can have pensions directly put into their accounts.
Of course, India is a huge country of 1.3 billion to 1.4 billion people. The birth rate is at a pace that is not keeping up with the needs of the people of India and it is right and proper that while we question the injustices and discrimination that people face, we need to do it in the context of the economy, social progress and economic progress, and of making sure that the barriers that prevent people being able to access and fulfil their potential are removed. We sit on the outside lobbing charges into India without contextualising all the progress that has taken place over the past eight or nine years.
I am one of those people who are incredibly critical of discriminatory policies of any kind, whether in India or here. I am a proud person who was born in India but has spent her whole life in the UK fighting discriminatory policies and barriers. We need to be incredibly mindful that, when we start pointing fingers, we first and foremost look at our own institutional discriminatory barriers.
When the Minister responds, will he remind us all that we have long-embedded relationships with India and other countries in the region and that all countries in the region are facing challenges? I am not going to start another debate today, but I ask the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, to look at minority communities in other countries in the region and see how they are faring and what is happening to them, so that we can have a wider debate on barriers to all communities and see how we as British parliamentarians and good friends of all those in the region can help cement cohesive internal growth.
I have often listened to some of the commentary that comes from your Lordships’ House and I ask one thing—that when comments are made, they are made on the basis of proper evidenced reporting because we do not want to add to the inflammatory discussions that take place across the waters where we have no say.
Citizenship legislation has been alluded to. If a country is to know the needs of its citizens, it needs to know who they are, where they are and what the population looks like to be able to service them properly. I have run out of time. This is a much bigger debate. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for raising it.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, any friend of India must be sad about the direction of the BJP Government in the past few years. There is plenty to be sad about, as my noble and right reverend friend said, especially the continuing discrimination against so many minorities, including the Dalits, and the attacks on the media. Journalists covering protests now get arrested alongside the protestors, just as if they were in Belarus, even during the pandemic. I am sorry about the feebleness of the opposition—Congress and the smaller parties—which ought to be able to stand up to the Prime Minister, but I am sad above all about the treatment of Muslims.
During the year my wife and I lived in India, mainly in Mumbai and Delhi, we made many Muslim friends. I regret having to state the obvious—that they are people of great honesty and integrity. I have to say it because there is an almost universal, mainly unspoken, prejudice against Muslims among many Hindus in India and here in the UK, and in France, hidden under the thin veil of anti-terrorism. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 led to violent communal riots in Delhi, costing many lives. It specifically excluded Muslim refugees from Indian citizenship and was condemned by the UN and human rights groups, as well as Indian Muslim leaders, as discriminatory.
In such a climate of fear, it should be up to that Government to face up to their own constitution, reassure Muslims and counter prejudice. But that would not fit in with the history of Prime Minister Modi, a member of the RSS who left a trail of persecution when he was Chief Minister of Gujarat back in 2002. He was widely accused of condoning the violence in Ahmedabad which left over 1,000 dead, on a conservative estimate, although he was personally acquitted by India’s Supreme Court.
We know that the Minister has dropped polite hints to South Block—Whitehall’s opposite number in New Delhi—about the virtues of human rights and democracy, and rightly so. We have a long, shared history, and we should be able to speak out much more bravely and frequently than we do. The high commission has done well in putting on programmes such as the interfaith leadership programme and cultural events promoting minority rights, and that is absolutely right.
A free trade agreement is in the offing and our expensive visa regime still presents Indian students and businessmen with an enormous obstacle. But we need more action, specifically to condemn the injustice and discrimination against Muslims, now being encouraged at a very high level.
The Indian Government should also amend their invidious Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, the FCRA, which regulates foreign donations in India. As my noble friend said, it restricts all international NGOs and has a damaging effect on local civil society. Amnesty has had to suspend its operations; even the Commonwealth human rights initiative, based in Delhi, had its FCRA certificate suspended and its bank account frozen. The Minister will be well aware of this; I expect he has mentioned it during his human rights dialogue. I would be grateful to hear whether that still continues.
Finally, I expect that the Minister has already perused the study by the Ethical Trading Initiative of India’s business and human rights framework. It is just the kind of quality academic work which can bring together all stakeholders, UK and Indian, including those benefiting from the new FTA. With that, I wish the Minister a restful summer holiday.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for securing this timely debate. I share his admiration for India but also his sadness. The criticisms that I offer in this short contribution, I offer as a friend of India. But it is true to say that in India civil society organisations, international institutions, multilateral organisations, human rights groups and others have publicly voiced their concerns that the situation has not improved on human rights. The Indian Government have ignored calls from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for states to release persons detained without sufficient legal basis, including political prisoners and those detained for critical, dissenting views, to prevent the growing rates of infection everywhere, especially in closed facilities such as prisons and detention centres.
The BJP-led Government have increasingly harassed, intimidated and arrested human rights defenders—as has already been outlined—journalists, peaceful protesters and other critics, including under draconian sedition and counterterrorism laws. Civil society organisations that have questioned or criticised the Government’s policies have faced similar challenges under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. This Act was envisaged in 2010 as a means to regulate foreign donations in India, but has now become an effective tool to silence Indian civil society.
As has been mentioned, in September 2020 Amnesty International India was also forced to halt its work in the country. Last week, it was announced that the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, based in Delhi, had its FCRA certificate suspended and its bank account frozen, effectively suspending the payment of all staff salaries and thereby the organisation’s ability to carry out its important work. The Indian authorities have also, sadly, enacted discriminatory laws and policies, referred to earlier, against Muslims, Dalits and other minorities. The appalling treatment of the Dalits has already been documented by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.
Yet despite the deterioration of the country’s human rights record under Prime Minister Modi, the Indian Government have so far shielded themselves from international criticism. It has been able to shield itself from widespread international condemnation is because some countries are desperate to strengthen trade and economic ties with India. Therefore, I seek the Minister’s specific reassurance that the United Kingdom Government, when negotiating a free trade agreement or strengthening economic ties with India, will ensure that there is a specific human rights clause within any such agreement, as is the case in EU free trade agreements. Such human rights clauses enable the parties to effectively raise human rights concerns and respect the international standards on human rights, and ensure that we never negotiate away the rights of those most in need and most at risk. Human rights clauses in any of our trade agreements say as much about our own country as they do those we partner with.
I remain deeply concerned about deteriorating human rights not only in India but around the world, and the accompanying demonisation and misrepresentation of minorities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said, we are witnessing such misrepresentations here in the United Kingdom where, sadly, some government Ministers and elements in our media pit one minority against another, misrepresent NGOs and deride those who take a stand against discrimination. This stoking of cultural wars must end. It harms individuals, puts lives at risk, diminishes all concerned and lays us open to charges of double standards when we raise human rights abuses in other parts of the world. There must be no double standards on human rights, in particular the rights of all minorities, wherever they may be.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for securing this important debate. Partition of the subcontinent on the fallacy of irreconcilable religious difference gave a green light to religious bigots in India and Pakistan. In 1984, Indira Gandhi’s mass appeal to bigotry led to the killing of hundreds of thousands of Sikhs, in what former PM David Cameron described as the greatest blot on post-partition history.
In 2001, Narendra Modi, a member of the RSS, a paramilitary Hindu fascist group, was elected Chief Minister of Gujarat. He was considered to be implicated in the killing of thousands of Muslims throughout the state and for some years barred from entry to the UK and the USA. Years earlier, the paramilitary RSS, modelled on the Hitler Youth, had demolished the centuries-old Muslim Babri Masjid. A compliant Supreme Court has now given permission for a Hindu temple to be built on the site.
Narendra Modi went on to become Prime Minister in 2014 and was re-elected in 2019. Backed by the growing power of the paramilitary RSS, he has never made any secret of his desire to turn India into a Hindu state—a view echoed by other Hindu leaders. The Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, openly refers to Muslims as “termites”. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 denies citizenship to thousands of Muslims. Christian worship is under constant threat in a supposedly secular state. Dalits, the lowest of the low in the Hindu caste system, are treated with brutality and contempt, and their women frequently raped.
Attempts are made by threat and flattery to absorb Sikhs into the Hindu fold, despite clear Sikh teachings repudiating the caste system, idol worship and discrimination against women. Some years back, I wrote to the Foreign Office about a young Sikh from Glasgow who was arrested and tortured by the Indian police for supposedly questioning the government line. He is still incarcerated.
Religious minorities are not the only targets of India’s arrogant new rulers. For more than a year, farmers from across India have been camped on the outskirts of New Delhi in the largest and longest mass demonstration ever seen, to protest against the Government’s unconstitutional rigging of the market to enrich their supporters. Water and power are routinely cut off, and demonstrating farmers savagely beaten by the RSS, under the watchful eyes of the police. Effigies of human rights activists, such as singer Rihanna, have been burnt by mobs for interfering. Amnesty International has been barred from India.
Judges who dare to call out this criminal behaviour are routinely moved. University lecturers and students who protest against India’s growing intolerance are subjected to police brutality. Such brave people are India’s best hope for the future. They deserve our support. They deserve more than the usual Foreign Office response—either “India is the world’s largest democracy”, or “We take these matters extremely seriously, and are in touch with our counterparts in India”.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth for initiating this important debate. As he said, India is a truly great country; it is one for which I too have great affection and admiration.
One of the greatest Indians was Dr BR Ambedkar, the Dalit who became a lawyer—an alumnus of Gray’s Inn—a parliamentarian and a social reformer, and who crafted India’s constitution. Last month I was honoured to take part in the unveiling of a new portrait and the opening of a room at Gray’s Inn, dedicated to the only Indian ever to be awarded such an honour. Dr Ambedkar’s great-grandson, Sujat Ambedkar, was present. Santosh Dass, Ali Malek QC, the Master Treasurer of Gray’s Inn, and the Federation of Ambedkarite and Buddhist Organisations UK, all deserve our congratulations for bringing this project to fruition.
For all Indian citizens, the story of Dr Ambedkar and his constitution is an inspiring route out of enforced misery, a pathway out of servitude, and a road map to emancipation, justice and equality. It signposts the way to social, economic and political justice, to liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, to equality of status and of opportunity, and above all, to the fraternity and dignity of India’s citizens.
However, as Dr Ambedkar once said,
“If I find the constitution being misused, I shall be the first to burn it”.
He would surely be greatly disturbed that millions of Dalit and tribal people still remain excluded from their rights, as guaranteed in that constitution, and that the BJP Government have presided over the steady erosion of those hard-won gains. Take the incarceration of human rights defenders, academics and lawyers, referred to earlier, who are in jail, without bail or prospect of an early trial. Dr Anand Teltumbde, Dr Ambedkar’s grandson-in-law, is one of those incarcerated without bail. He is 71.
Those jailed in the Bhima Koregaon case have consistently and robustly denied the charges against them. Yet some have been in jail for years, without bail, under dubious sedition laws—bequeathed, regrettably, by the British—on trumped-up charges and flawed evidence. Many are elderly and have medical health conditions. Along with Dr Teltumbde, there are the 80 year-old human rights activist and poet Varavara Rao and the 60 year-old trade unionist, activist and lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj. All of them are languishing in jail; all are in extreme danger of catching the Covid virus there, and all have been denied bail.
Think of Father Stan Swamy, who has been referred to before, and about whom I was in regular touch, and correspondence, with the Minister, who tried incredibly hard to be helpful in this case. Father Swamy spent his life defending the rights of tribal people in India. He was a frail 84 year-old man with Parkinson’s yet despite applications on health grounds, the authorities denied him bail. His death was unjust and it needs to be investigated impartially.
Following Father Swamy’s death in custody, Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, said:
“There is no excuse, ever, for a human rights defender to be smeared as a terrorist, and no reason they should ever die the way Father Swamy died, accused and detained, and denied his rights.”
I echo those remarks.
The rape and punishment of Dalit and tribal women and girls also must be of the gravest concern to us. I welcome the reply that the Minister gave me on 19 July about the British high commission’s project to provide legal training for Dalit women to combat violence against them. I really hope that this will make a tangible difference that can be measured in due course.
Finally, like other countries, India has suffered grievously under Covid. We have all seen the heartbreaking reports. The long-term health and economic effects on Dalits and tribal peoples, who would frequently be the daily labourers or bonded labourers, should surely be examined and researched. The human rights that Dr Ambedkar championed all his life must be protected.
I will end with this. In his book, Annihilation of Caste, Dr Ambedkar said:
“A just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the creation of a compassionate society.”
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for securing this debate and for his sensitive though probing introduction.
India is a close ally, an important member of the Commonwealth and a rising economic and political power. Its path to development and prosperity, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, is indeed remarkable. Nevertheless, there are concerns about actions that the current Government have taken. Just as human rights are judged to be universal and the UN adopts the responsibility to protect, we cannot close our eyes—wherever in the world human rights are under threat.
The amendment to the Citizenship Act in India provides fast-track citizenship for certain religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan yet, as others have noted, the change does not extend to Muslims. The Minister, whom I believe is now listening and will respond at the end of the debate, said in February 2020 that he had raised this with the Indian high commission and that the Government would continue to monitor the situation. Can he update us on that? Can he also update us on the situation for Amnesty International, which, as others have mentioned, had its funds frozen, severely impacting its ability to work in India?
In August 2019, the Indian Government revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution, removing constitutional autonomy from Jammu and Kashmir. This was followed by considerable unrest, as my noble friend Lord Hussain mentioned. Indian troops were deployed and there were worrying reports of human rights abuses. Transparency was hampered because phone and internet services were shut down. Politicians and others were arrested.
This followed the 2018 reports from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which were updated in 2019. They recommended that human rights abuses should be investigated. What action are the Government urging? Can the Minister assure us that seeking a potential trade deal with India now that we have left the EU is not standing in the way of our flagging potential human rights abuses? Surely the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, is right to insist that we must have human rights clauses in any trade deals.
I commend the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on his long commitment to the Dalits. It is partly what led to the International Development (Gender Equality) Act. India has passed legislation to improve Dalit status, but I certainly saw that there was a very long way to go when I visited DfID projects supporting Dalits, particularly women. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that Dr Ambedkar was remarkable in achieving what he did, given all that was against him. That is surely right. We now hear that Dalits have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. Is the FCDO adhering to the gender equality Act I just referred to in its ODA funding?
We hear, too, of an increase in hate crimes against Christians as far-right Hindu groups persecute them. I too was very sorry to hear of the death in custody of 83 year-old Jesuit priest Father Stan Swamy. Indeed, his death should be investigated. As we hear, the pressure on academics, NGOs and others is clear.
We know, too, of huge concern when agricultural laws were passed. Some 400 protestors were reported to have died and a number of journalists were arrested, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, noted. Those laws were subsequently suspended following a ruling by the Indian Supreme Court. As the noble Lord, Lord Singh, said, discontent must not be stoked against the judiciary, as has happened in the UK. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that I agree that we need to hold the UK Government to account as well.
Freedom House has this year downgraded India’s status as a democracy and free society to “partly free”, noting that the Indian Government
“appears to have abandoned its potential to serve as a global democratic leader”.
Given the importance of India globally, that must give us all cause for concern. We need India’s leaders to be playing a full part globally in pursuit of human rights, countering climate change and supporting the rules-based international order. I hope that the United Kingdom is assisting in that aim, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for initiating this debate and for his welcome opening remarks. He is right to point out the rich and varied traditions of India. As noble Lords have pointed out, India is the world’s largest democracy and will soon become the world’s third-largest economy. I am sure the whole Committee recognises the value of the long-standing relationship we have with it, but our relationship must be deeper and reflect our values of democracy, human rights and the primacy of international law. We need to work with India on issues such as security and climate change but also to recognise that, as part of any trusting and respectful relationship, we have the confidence to raise issues around human rights and religious freedoms.
Any functioning democracy must include a free civil society, and that is why India’s recent clampdown on NGOs is so concerning. When Governments fail in their most important task of providing safety, security and freedom for their people, it is always civil society which leaps first to their defence. Last year, Amnesty International ended its operations due to reprisals following the freezing of its bank accounts. Amnesty had previously warned that other human rights advocates in India had been subjected to counterterror raids. My noble friend Lord Cashman was absolutely right to raise this and its context. I hope the Minister will tell us exactly what steps the Government are taking to protect civic space in India.
It is equally important that the UK uses our relationship with India to support the principle of free religion. Free religion is not about just the right to practise a religion; it is also about the right not to practise a religion. Human Rights Watch has presented repeated evidence of mob attacks on religious minority groups, and police in Delhi have been accused of ignoring attacks on Muslim neighbourhoods. The noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Verma, mentioned the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what assessment the Government have made of the application of the Act, given that it has now been in place for 18 months.
It is also right that we should call on the Indian Government to stamp out caste discrimination, to which noble Lords throughout the debate have referred. It includes violent attacks against the Dalit population and, in particular, Dalit women. The UK has a very strong priority policy on violence against women, and I hope the Minister will particularly address this issue. According to the BBC, 54% of Dalit women have been physically assaulted, 46% have been sexually harassed and 43% have faced domestic violence. In the light of the Government’s strategy, I hope the Minister can give us some more detail about what we are doing to ensure that violence against Dalit women, in particular, ends.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin my apologising to your Lordships for my delays and technical faults. The joys of virtual participation meant that, for some reason, I had been linked into a rather interesting debate in the Chamber, as opposed to the Committee. Nevertheless, I am delighted to join noble Lords and I heard a major part of the debate. I start, as have others, by acknowledging and recognising the role of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for his long-standing commitment to freedom of religion and belief, inter-faith relations and human rights. In his opening remarks, he again reflected on the importance of these principles in the wider context of human rights.
I also welcome, as ever, a robust, open and challenging debate, which I am accustomed to on the broader issue of human rights. Today, we have heard various insights presented and questions rightly asked about our relationship with a standing partner and friend, the Republic of India. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and my noble friend Lady Verma, among others, on the importance of our strong relationship with India—bilaterally, as a Commonwealth partner and in the multilateral sphere. As the Minister responsible for our relations with India, as well as human rights, I assure noble Lords that our relationship is strong, which allows for a candid and measured exchange on important issues. That relationship with India goes both ways: for India in asking the United Kingdom, which my noble friend Lady Verma alluded to, and equally for us to raise important issues of human rights, as we continue to do.
As was pointed out by a number of noble Lords, Indian citizens are rightly proud of their history of inclusive government. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about the history of inclusive government. Let us not forget the secular constitution, which protects the rights of all communities, including minority communities, within India. It guarantees equality before the law, which we are proud of in our own democracy in the UK.
Our shared values and vibrant democracy sit at the heart of the transformational relationship between the United Kingdom and India and the comprehensive strategic partnership we work towards, launched at the virtual summit between Prime Minister Johnson and Prime Minister Modi in May. In June, at the G7 summit and in the 2021 Open Societies Statement, both Prime Ministers again highlighted our countries’ shared belief in the importance of human rights, freedom of expression and the rule of law. They recognised the role of human rights defenders in promoting fundamental freedoms and our rejection of discrimination. We all recognise—and, again, my noble friend Lady Verma alluded to this—that human rights is never a job done. We have to be constantly vigilant, both at home and abroad, about this important agenda. I assure noble Lords that this remains a central priority of my work within the FCDO.
Along with G7 partners, we committed to co-operation to strengthen open societies globally, including by tackling all forms of discrimination. Media freedom was a key component of the statement and communiqué issued by the G7. As the integrated review made clear, open societies and human rights remain a priority for the UK. This month, as was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, among others, we published the Human Rights & Democracy report.
It has been a challenging year. As several noble Lords mentioned, Covid-19 remains a challenge in its erosion of human rights and democracy and has amplified existing hardships and inequalities. In response, I assure noble Lords that the UK stepped up its efforts as a force for good in the world, championing those core values we hold so dear. We very much stepped up in our close collaboration with India, when it came to Covid-19, in supporting the supply of oxygen mini-factories to places such as those in Rajasthan to ensure that, in its time of need, we stood with India, as India stood with us during the early Covid-19 challenges.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, specifically asked about the human rights report. Just because a country is not mentioned within that report—and specific criteria go behind the inclusion of a particular country—it does not mean that we do not raise human rights issues with countries across the world.
I turn to human rights in India specifically. The UK Government engage on a range of human rights matters. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, mentioned Kashmir; I assure him that we continue to raise issues, including the detention of leaders in Kashmir. We were heartened by the fact that Prime Minister Modi invited some leaders from the state to join him in Delhi. We believe it is very much a first step towards progress in Kashmir. Whether it was the internet being suspended or the release of those held in political detention, we continue to monitor and work with the Government of India in ensuring early resolutions. Through our high commission and network of deputy high commissions, we work with the union Government and, importantly, state Governments and NGOs to build capacity and share expertise.
I have visited India twice since my appointment as the Minister for India, and I assure noble Lords that human rights have formed a regular part of my direct engagement with Indian counterparts in Delhi. We look towards the Indian Government to continue to uphold the freedoms and rights guaranteed by India’s constitution and the international instruments to which it is a signatory.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned human rights defenders and Father Swamy. I assure noble Lords that his passing is a point of deep regret for us all; I mentioned it in a statement I put out at that time. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we raised this matter directly with the Indian authorities.
It is thanks to our deepening relationship that we have been able to engage on such sensitive matters with Indian counterparts on a regular basis and as sovereign equals. The Government of India also raise direct concerns with us. To give noble Lords some insight, in December the Foreign Secretary discussed a number of human rights issues, including those relating to Kashmir, with Indian Minister of External Affairs Dr Jaishankar, on 5 January our acting high commissioner in New Delhi spoke with officials from India’s Ministry of External Affairs about minority communities in India and on 15 March, while I was visiting India, I discussed the situation for different religious communities, including Christians and Muslims, as well as the situation in Kashmir, with India’s Minister of State for Home Affairs, Kishan Reddy. These were both productive and constructive engagements.
In October and December last year I raised concerns with the high commission about NGOs. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly raised Amnesty International and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. I have requested that all Amnesty International accounts be unfrozen while the investigation is ongoing and have stressed the important role that organisations such as Amnesty International play in any democracy. I meet quite regularly with representatives of Amnesty International here at the FCDO.
In my capacity as Minister for South Asia and Minister for Human Rights, I regularly have frank discussions on the topic with the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi and the Indian high commission in London. Most recently, this month we also had discussions about this during my visit to New York with the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN in New York.
As noble Lords will be aware, in our human rights work key priorities for the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and me are freedom of religion or belief and promoting respect between different religious communities. The British high commission regularly meets representatives of all faiths to understand their perspectives. The excellent team on the ground undertakes a variety of projects to promote interfaith dialogue. For example, in 2020 we hosted a virtual round table with leaders from faith communities.
This year, the British high commission hosted a multifaith virtual iftar during Ramadan. I was very pleased to speak at that event, which included leaders from across India’s Muslim community and the wider religious tapestry that makes up modern India today. We continue to support interfaith leadership programmes for a cohort of emerging Indian faith leaders, creating a dialogue—I know the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, will appreciate this—to tackle shared challenges and promote not just tolerance but respect.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lords, Lord Singh and Lord Alton, raised the situation with the Dalit community. Our recent project work with the Dalits has included the provision of legal training for over 2,000 Dalit women to combat domestic violence and the creation of the first ever network of Dalit women human rights defenders trained as paralegals. We will continue our support in this respect. The British high commission also held an event on empowering Muslim youth, which saw over 100 educational institutions participating in six three-day workshops.
I turn to academic and journalists’ freedom, raised by my noble friend Lady Verma, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that academia and a free media are two further elements of a successful democratic society. Here again, India and the United Kingdom share fundamental values. We regularly engage with the Indian media, which promotes lively debate—[Inaudible]—directly during my visit by members of the Indian media fraternity.
The annual South Asia Journalism Fellowship programme, under our flagship Chevening brand, is central to our activity in this regard and has been since 2012. We also engage with India’s academic community, as expanding academic co-operation is among the principal aims of the 2030 road map, which was agreed between the two Prime Ministers. I regularly speak at universities; indeed, on one of my earlier visits to India, I spoke at a Muslim university.
To conclude this debate, I assure noble Lords that we will continue to engage with India across a series of areas, including on issues of trade. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others have said about the issue of human rights within the context of our future trade agreements. I assure them that human rights remain central to our thinking, as we negotiate trade agreements around the world.
We will also continue to work with the Government of India to ensure that the rights of all minorities, as according to their constitution, continue to be upheld in the rich tradition of religious inclusivity, which I know full well from my family’s experiences remains alive and well. Indeed, during my last visit to India, I convened a round table of religious leaders in Punjab.
I give noble Lords the further assurance that was sought: we will continue to monitor human rights directly though our high commission in New Delhi. We have a strong relationship with India and a relationship of being partners and friends with it. When we have concerns, I assure noble Lords that we will continue to raise them. On occasion, as I have said before, we do so privately because we believe that that is the right thing to do. Where there are more general issues of concern we will continue to raise them, not just in the context of our relationship with India but further afield.
When it comes to human rights, our principle is clear. It is central to our thinking and we remain steadfast in our opposition to any form of discrimination, for it is our common values, shared by India, and our common belief in international rules and norms that will continue to govern our growing and strengthening partnership with India.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned to enable the technicians to make arrangements for the next debate. I remind Members to wipe their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
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, which remains in place in Grand Committee. 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.
Belarus: Elections
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the possibility of joining forces with the governments of (1) France, (2) Germany, and (3) the United States of America to persuade the government of Russia that it is in its interest to push for new elections in Belarus.
Lord Balfe (Con)
It is a great pleasure to introduce this debate, which is overdue. By way of background, all my political life—in fact, all my life—I have been involved in some aspect or other of foreign affairs. I include in that a short time in a very junior position in the Foreign Office, 25 years in the European Parliament and, since I came into this House, my time as a member of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, so I have a reasonable amount of experience. During that time, I have visited Belarus on a couple of occasions and Moscow on more than a couple, most recently in December 2019 using the facilities made available by this House to pay for visits to members of the Council of Europe. There, I met a number of members of the Duma and the upper house.
Belarus is, of course, the only country that is not a member of the Council of Europe. This is largely because of its refusal to suspend the death penalty but that also seems to have become rather convenient, because it has placed Belarus in a position where few queries are ever raised as to its policies et cetera. The election that took place some time ago, however, gave rise to a lot of controversy.
Let me say at the beginning that I am indebted to the Chatham House unit, which has supplied me with opinion polls and other data, as well as to Dr Mikalaj Packajeu and Dr Alan Flowers, who provided me with a briefing around the subject of this debate. I am sure everyone will notice that is not condemnatory; I am looking for a way through the woods here.
The first question is: why should we listen to Russia? I like to think I am a pragmatic person, and one good reason to listen to Russia is that it is the next-door power and it, frankly, has its own version of the Monroe doctrine. In the last few days, the United States has been gleefully celebrating its misplaced policy of 60 years in Cuba. It could have achieved what it has now much more quickly, had it been more flexible. Russia similarly regards the countries on its border as those in which they want, at least, to keep powers not hostile to them. That is one of the difficulties with Belarus.
Another factor about Belarus that we must face up to is that no fewer than 79% of the population has either a positive or a very positive attitude towards Russia. Some 58% think that Russia should stay neutral in the present dispute but—according to a poll provided by Chatham House, not an internal poll of Belarus’s people—32% of the population of Belarus support a union with Russia. Some 46% would like to be united to both the EU and Russia. But one sees from this no outright rejection of the big neighbour next door, and we need to bear that in mind when tackling this problem.
The Lukashenko regime is undoubtedly unpopular, and on a very wide basis. One of the results of this will certainly be what has happened in other former Soviet countries—an increasing brain drain. Repressive countries lose the best of their middle class, and this has been demonstrated time and again. I live in Cambridge and it is full of people from other parts of Europe who are the cream of their societies and have chosen to leave to live in what they rightly see is a free society. The first danger for Belarus is that it will lose its population by people just leaving the country.
The election in Belarus was not wholly supported in Russia. The day after, 9 August 2020, Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the election circumstances “were not ideal”. For a Russian, that is a strong statement. When the main leader of the opposition, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, met Macron, she called on Vladimir Putin
“to play a constructive role in the crisis resolution.”
This is the key: if there is to be a resolution there, we need Russia on board. At the moment, for Russia, Belarus is dependable, even if not particularly savoury. It is rather like the old American phrase, “He may be a something, but he’s our something”. We have to make it possible for the people of Belarus to change their Government. Crucial to this is whether the Russians can be persuaded to treat Lukashenko in the same way they treated Yanukovych—in other words, to give him a way out of Belarus, because he is not going to leave voluntarily.
The next thing that I think is important is that if he is replaced at the helm, it has to be with a Government who will be pragmatic in their approach to Russia. This is where the gist of my resolution comes in because the big powers, so to speak, of Europe, which are France and Germany, I hope with the assistance of Britain and the United States, must put their work behind an optimal solution. This must be accompanied by a strong message to go to the Belarusians.
I know that in June the IMF board discussed a proposal for a historic $650 billion general allocation of special drawing rights. Some of that, roughly $1 billion, is due to go to Belarus, and this will be voted on early in August. I think, following a precedent in 2019 when the IMF denied Nicolás Maduro access to $400 million of special drawing rights on the grounds that the international community did not recognise him as the legitimate leader of Venezuela, the IMF should not decline, but should freeze for the time being that allocation of special drawing rights. I have signed, together with a number of other Members, a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to look at Britain taking that position within the IMF. In other words, in looking to change the regime in Belarus, we have to be firm as well as fair. We cannot be soft, but at the same time we must not indulge ourselves in some sort of hate fest, and we certainly have to realise that, unless we can bring Russia on board, we are very unlikely to succeed.
Lukashenko has become a very toxic ally for Moscow. He is not popular there, and I was told when I was in Moscow that the chemistry between him and Putin is absolutely awful, but at the same time, he is the only leader the Russians have—he is their only dog in this fight—so we, as responsible western nations, have to make it possible to construct a solution where we can get a regime change in Belarus that is acceptable to the Russians. I suggest we ask the Russians to help with an exit strategy for Lukashenko, and I hope the Foreign Office will work with its colleagues in Europe and Washington to form a common position which can lead us to a desired result.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who, as he said, is a UK delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as, indeed, I am. I thank him for tabling this important subject for debate today. As he said, in PACE we have debated the situation in Belarus on a number of occasions and we have received strong support for the kind of action he is calling for today and, indeed, for going further.
The presidential election held in Belarus on 9 August last year, which saw Lukashenko returned based on the so-called official result was described by independent observers, and indeed by our Foreign Secretary, as neither free nor fair. I particularly commend the United Kingdom Government for rightly describing Lukashenko’s subsequent inauguration as fraudulent. However, the protests against the regime in Belarus have resulted in an unprecedented series of arrests of innocent political prisoners and a vicious crackdown on journalists—and, in particular, against civil society activists and opposition politicians.
Indeed, the lengths to which the dictator will go to clamp down on opposition activities reached a new height on 23 May with the hijacking by the regime of Ryanair flight FR4978 to detain an opposition activist, Roman Protasevič, and his girlfriend Sofia Sapega. It was an unprecedented, astonishing state hijack, widely condemned by the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States and almost everyone—with the notable exception of Russia, which considered it an “internal matter” for Belarus.
What can we do, here and now, to respond to these acts of repression and barbarism? First, as individuals we can protest. But even more usefully, as parliamentarians we can give some hope to individual prisoners—as I am doing, along with others here in Westminster and around Europe, by adopting one of them.
Ten months ago, the prisoner I adopted, an arborist called Stepan Latypov, was arrested on a trumped-up charge because one of the chemicals that he uses for his work as an arborist can be combined with others to make explosives. He was brought to court limping, with bruises and a bandaged hand resulting from the way he had been treated. He was threatened that if he did not admit his guilt, his relatives would be persecuted. He then attempted suicide. Meanwhile, pressure is exerted on him by refusing visitors, controlling correspondence, round-the-clock surveillance and limiting access to showers and other facilities.
The delay in bringing Stepan to trial puts more pressure on him; however, it also looks as if they are playing for time. The fact that he and other prisoners know that we are monitoring their situation gives them some hope and, I hope, lets the regime know that we are watching. Specifically, will the Minister arrange for our ambassador in Minsk to request a visit by an official from the embassy to Stepan in prison, to report back on his condition and whether and when he is to be charged? I hope he will deal with that in his reply.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, we need to go further collectively to help all the prisoners, journalists and opposition activists. We also need to get new, fully democratic elections in Belarus, as was in fact demanded by another of our colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in his report to the parliamentary assembly.
Along with other Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and Members of Parliament I have written to the Chancellor, urging stronger financial sanctions on the Lukashenko regime. We should be using our position on the IMF board to veto the billion dollars due to be allocated to Belarus. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe said, the IMF previously denied funds to the Maduro regime in Venezuela, so there is clear precedent for taking such action.
In spite of Brexit, London remains one of the key financial centres, so our Government should look at further ways that we can bring pressure on Lukashenko to move quickly to accept the inevitable, because it is inevitable that he will have to go. I support the proposal in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that we should join with the French, the Germans and the United States to pressure Russia to accept that there must be new elections in Belarus. But we also need to take our own action, individually and collectively here in the United Kingdom, to put pressure on the Lukashenko regime. I hope that we will get a positive response from the Minister on that action too.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. We have just been debating in Grand Committee matters relating to the democratic state of India—a country of 1.4 billion people and a far cry from what brings us together now.
I intend to broaden the debate. I fear that President Putin will not be persuaded by the question before us. Free and fair elections in Belarus would be followed by an increasing call for free and fair elections in Russia, presenting existential threats to the personal survival of both leaders. While it is to be applauded, therefore, I fear that the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is mission impossible in the short-term. However, he has presented us with a helpful opportunity for a road map in the longer term. The challenge was articulated in an interesting recent piece in the Financial Times, which said:
“Nationalist autocrats need enemies abroad to justify political repression at home, and the Russian president has long found his in the west.”
If perceived wisdom is correct, Moscow is targeting de facto absorption of Belarus into Russia. The situation in Belarus has now become, therefore, a test of autocracy over democracy, tyranny over decency, and self-preservation. The Kremlin’s gameplay of taking control of Belarusian security institutions—the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the armed forces—is, in addition to the aim of ensuring that Lukashenko retains power, demobilising the protest movement through mass repression.
Messaging from Minsk or Moscow about constitutional changes and new elections will only ever be on Moscow’s terms. Any proposed constitutional changes will only ever be paving the way for greater economic integration with Russia, with the omnipresent risk of invasion—either under cover of darkness, or, more radically, in order to discourage all such countries from moving geopolitically westward.
How, therefore, can we support the people of Belarus while managing the relationship with President Putin’s Russia—recognising that the ploy of disruption is Kremlin gameplay, but still responding to it with a tough approach on ground and sea, not just with words? The recent Black Sea right of passage exercise is clearly a starter for things to come, as part of a grand strategy. We must be prepared to stand up for what we believe in, beating the drum with parallel savvy engineering and diplomacy. The principle of critical dialogue must on all accounts be maintained. We must be consistent, and address the fundamental lack of trust on both sides.
President Macron and Chancellor Merkel—with her somewhat conflicting messaging—suggest that a culture of automatically blaming Russia for everything is wide of the mark, and a consequence of the current relationship. They are making heavy weather of it. News today that the United States and Germany have reached a truce over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has sent shock waves through energy security concerns. This could conceivably put Ukraine back on a journey into the Russian fold, notwithstanding a surety from Berlin to impose sanctions on Russia if Moscow threatens Ukraine on energy security. If I were President Putin, I would see this as a potential chink in the armour, with the West undermining its position.
I do not profess an immediate solution to the desperate Belarusian issue, other than to publicly urge President Putin to support ideals built on decency and accountability, which could be turned into a quick win for Russia and lead to a more constructive relationship throughout.
Global leaders must learn from history. The time has come to understand what has happened to put us in the situation in which we now find ourselves, based on the many examples that exist—Myanmar being just one current example—and to devise whatever channels that, with strict conditionality, could be best made to work, including, if necessary, a surety of freedom from prosecution in return for free elections.
The international community should then enact a “citizens first” global charter with a courts-based system to adjudicate when leaders clearly demonstrate failure to uphold their responsibilities to their people. We must not give up on this, but the time has come for like-minded actors to up their game and to be more smart—but not Machiavellian—about it. A fundamental reset is required. Now is the time for a new world order, supported by actions, not words. Let Belarus be the test. Failure will spell trouble.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for securing this debate. He made an extremely interesting contribution, based on long experience. But here we are, out of the EU, trying to engage over a problem in our neighbourhood. So I first ask the Minister: are there any plans yet for a formalised structure so that we can co-operate and gain support from the whole of the EU on foreign affairs, or are we doomed to have to make individual approaches to one country after another, in the middle of the many other issues that we have to deal with? We know that the EU would have been happy to have such an arrangement. I am glad that we now recognise the EU ambassador as such; I commend the Minister for any efforts he made in that regard.
We have the challenge of the elections in Belarus. Such outcomes are not unknown, of course, but then we have the absolutely extraordinary situation of, in effect, the state-sponsored hijacking of a European commercial airliner. On its way from Athens to Vilnius, it was diverted by military planes and forced to land and hand over two of its passengers, who were then taken into detention and later showed signs of abuse. This was in our neighbourhood. Dealing with this is indeed immensely challenging. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said about engaging with Russia, but I also note what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said about individually supporting prisoners of conscience in Belarus so that they feel less alone.
On the election, in September 2020, 17 countries—including the UK, the US and France, as members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe—invoked the “Moscow mechanism” to investigate possible human rights abuses in Belarus at the time of the election. The Moscow mechanism rapporteur presented his report in November 2020, concluding that
“allegations that the presidential elections were not transparent, free or fair were found confirmed.”
He stated that new elections should be organised according to international standards. We know that this has not happened and that the President makes no moves to do so, despite widespread protest in his country. Opposition leaders have been arrested or have fled.
In May 2021, this was followed by the hijacking of the Ryanair plane and the arrest of Roman Protasevich, along with his girlfriend. Mr Protasevich is a former editor of Nexta, which sought to promulgate news even when the Government were imposing blackouts. Sanctions have been imposed by both the EU and the UK. Can the Minister tell us what effect these may be having and whether the Government are considering further action? In response to the arrest, a spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs described it as a “domestic affair of Belarus”. I note the polling evidence from Belarus, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, on what relationship people wish to see with both the EU and Russia.
On 8 June 2021, the EU delegation to Belarus, together with the embassies of the UK, the US, Switzerland and Japan, issued a joint statement after meeting the Belarusian Foreign Minister. They called on Belarus to halt the persecution of all those engaged in pro-democracy movements, independent media and civil society, and to start a credible and inclusive political process resulting in free and fair elections. Can the Minister tell us what the response was, if any?
The Foreign Secretary has expressed concerns about Belarus becoming even more of a client state of Russia. Can the Minister comment on the implications of those concerns? Do the Government see merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said? What further action does the Minister feel can be taken? This is an unstable and concerning situation right on EU borders. It certainly needs European countries to co-operate and strategically work out how best to put pressure on the current leadership in Belarus.
It is difficult not to see Putin’s leadership in Russia as a major block even if he is seeking to defend himself against the West, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said. Putin’s interests in destabilising the West and the pumping out of disinformation and dissent, whether about vaccines or other matters—they can so easily be spread through social media—serve as a warning, as the integrated review emphasised. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, made the point well: autocrats traditionally find enemies without in order to shore themselves up at home.
Clearly, we need to work closely with our EU partners, as well as the USA, on this matter. This crisis, like others around the world, is unresolved when we have so many issues on which we need to work together, not least in tackling climate change.
I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to his summer holiday. Who knows what foreign affairs crises may emerge during that time? That said, I wish him a peaceful and hopefully enjoyable summer. I thank him and his team for their engagement. I also wish the same to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the other noble Lords here, as we conclude the last debate in Grand Committee before the Summer Recess.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, picking up on that last point, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in wishing everyone a happy, peaceful and restful Summer Recess.
In the past year, since the fraudulent presidential elections in Belarus, we have seen the incredible defiance shown by activists and opposition leaders. Here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who has been consistent in raising the cases of individual opposition leaders and activists. As he said, we need to ensure that they know that they are not alone and that their voices are heard. The mass protests have been met with violent repression and attacks against the Belarusian opposition. Noble Lords have referred to the absolutely outrageous forced landing of a Ryanair flight from Athens to Vilnius basically to kidnap two passengers. The UK Government have been right to impose sanctions along with our allies, but much more needs to be done to support the people of Belarus.
Of course, in February and May this year, we had short debates on this question. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised the OECD report, the Moscow mechanisms and the actions. In both February and May, the Minister responded to those Questions; I hope that he can give us a more detailed update on exactly where we are with the full implementation.
Of course, one of the other things that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and my noble friend referred to was the Council of Europe. Belarus is the only European country to be excluded from it—because of its appalling human rights record—yet, unlike Russia, it has not invaded two neighbouring countries or poisoned people on British soil. I hope that, in responding, the Minister can also tell us what has happened to the implementation of the Russia report; we have yet to see that happen. Of course, while we need to co-operate with countries on important issues, we also need to ensure that they understand our determination to stand up for international law and agreements.
I know what the Minister will say if I mention sanctions and the fact that London is still the home for a lot of corrupt moneys. I know that the mantra that is normally repeated is, “We do not talk about prospective sanctions”, but I hope that he can tell us a bit more about our discussions with allies about how we can co-operate, including on the initiatives raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, in terms of debt relief and IMF policies. They are really important.
However, we need to stand up for the rights of the Belarusians better. The UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur has warned of
“a full-scale assault against civil society, curtailing a broad spectrum of rights and freedoms”.
We hope that we will absolutely focus on the conditions that Roman Protasevič has been subjected to; I hope that we will ensure that our diplomatic staff monitor that situation as effectively as possible. I also hope that the Minister will be able to report on recent steps at the UN for this particular action. Also, what assessment have the Government made of the recent attacks on civil society, including on trade union organisations?
Finally, I repeat the call from all noble Lords to use all available means to ensure and push for new democratic elections. Earlier this week, Belarus’s main opposition leader met the US Secretary of State. The US Government are encouraging support for a democratic resolution. Could the Minister tell us what recent discussions the Government have had with our allies on collective steps to support fresh elections in Belarus? Finally, I once again join the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in wishing everyone a good, long and peaceful Summer Recess.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Balfe for tabling this debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. The Government share the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate about the situation in Belarus. I hope that my comments and responses to the questions asked provide further clarity on many of the salient points that were made.
As noble Lords acknowledged, it has been almost 12 months since the presidential election in Belarus. The Belarusian authorities manipulated that process for the sole purpose of ensuring that Alexander Lukashenko retained his grip on the structures of power he has held since 1994. To be frank, there was nothing democratic, free or fair about those elections. Such was Lukashenko’s fear of a genuine, open, contested popular presidential election that other candidates and their supporters were jailed during the campaign. Others were prevented even from registering as potential candidates. As a consequence, I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and his consistent raising of such issues. I will come on to political prisoners, in a moment.
We saw tens of thousands courageous Belarusians take to the streets in peaceful protest, whose voices were suppressed simply because they called out their right to determine how they are governed. Lukashenko’s regime has flatly refused to listen to them. Instead, it launched a brutal and sustained crackdown against peaceful protesters, democratic opposition leaders and supporters, as well as independent media, journalists and civil society. It has been a devastating assault on democratic principles and the rule of law, and it continues to this day.
The consequences for the Belarusian people have been extraordinary and the scale of the brutality is truly shocking. Just reflect on what has happened since: more than 35,000 people arbitrarily detained, more than 550 people imprisoned on politically motivated charges, the forced expulsion of opposition leaders and countless credible reports of physical mistreatment and torture by security forces, which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted in her report to the Human Rights Council in February 2021.
As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, this shameful charge sheet existed before we even consider the forced landing of Ryanair flight FR4978 on 23 May and the subsequent arrest of journalist Roman Protasevič and his partner or the raids on human rights organisations. I know the noble Lord, Lord Collins, feels passionately about the role of civil society organisations, and rightly so. Sadly and tragically, those raids included the detention of members of the internationally respected NGO Viasna.
Noble Lords are aware of the role of Russia, which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Balfe in his opening remarks. Russia and Belarus have close historical, cultural and economic ties, and Russia has been one of the few countries to continue to back Lukashenko. Putin was one of the first leaders to congratulate him on his alleged electoral victory. He also continues to host visits from Lukashenko and has provided more than $1.5 billion of loans, amid talk of closer economic integration. Clearly, Russia has influence on Lukashenko, but we do not foresee Putin using his influence constructively—as alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley—to resolve any human rights issues in Belarus peacefully or to address the injustices around last year’s flawed election.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the specific issue of those who are prisoners and have been imprisoned in Belarus simply for exercising their right to peaceful expression. He mentioned the case of Stepan Latypov and the recent charges and sentences imposed against political prisoners. They are indeed tragic examples of the repressive actions of the Belarusian authorities, which are criminalising opposition voices for the sole purpose of protecting Lukashenko’s regime. I assure all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the Government continue to call on the authorities to release all those wrongfully imprisoned and bring an end to the crisis through peaceful and inclusive dialogue.
The UK equally supports new elections that are free and fair. We welcome the important work of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who has undertaken it as the rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; we appreciate its work on the need for widespread and achievable electoral reform in Belarus. To support this objective, we are implementing sanctions, which I will come on to in a moment. However, on the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on Mr Latypov and others, I assure the noble Lord that, through our embassy, we have made repeated requests for access to him and the other prisoners being held. I will ensure that I keep the noble Lord updated on any progress in this regard.
My noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised the issue of Russia. Notwithstanding our differences, it is important that we continue to engage in dialogue. We do so: we have raised the situation in Belarus in our discussions with Russia. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did so with Foreign Minister Lavrov on 17 June. The Minister for European Neighbourhood and the Americas also discussed Belarus during her visit to Moscow last November and in her recent discussions with the Russian ambassador on 5 July.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, also talked about partnership and joint working, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. The UK has responded to events in Belarus swiftly, robustly and in lockstep with our international allies and partners, particularly France, Germany and the United States. It was the UK, on behalf of 17 participating states, that invoked the independent investigation under the OSCE Moscow mechanism.
It was no surprise that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke of the need for international collaboration, not least with our closest neighbours in the European Union; she has been a long-term advocate, and I pay tribute to her in this respect. We continue to work in a co-ordinated fashion with our colleagues and friends in the EU. Indeed, earlier today, we saw how concerted action has also taken place in response to the other challenges we face. On the broad issue of human rights, we have acted in concert with both NATO and EU colleagues, as well as the United States and other like-minded partners.
The independent report produced by the OSCE Moscow mechanism has also shown and produced a series of recommendations, which provide a pathway to peaceful resolution and free and fair elections. To deliver on the report’s recommendation of a mechanism for a long-term investigation into the human rights violations, we are also working closely with Denmark and Germany to bring together a consortium of international NGOs to form the International Accountability Platform for Belarus. I can share with noble Lords that this platform now has the support of more than 20 states.
We have also worked very closely with the wider international community, co-sponsoring a new mandate to investigate human rights violations and acts of torture at the UN Human Rights Council in March, with a view to assisting accountability. That area was raised specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in terms of continued multilateral action.
The Belarusian authorities believe they can operate in an environment of impunity, but accountability is clear: perpetrators of violations will be held responsible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others have noted, we have already implemented sanctions—indeed, over 100 sanction designations in response to human rights violations and the suppression of democracy in Belarus. We have done so hand in glove with our closest international partners.
The UK, in co-ordination with Canada, was the first country to implement sanctions against the leadership in Belarus, including Lukashenko himself, during the immediate fallout from the election. Most recently, we implemented further sanctions on 21 June in co-ordination with Canada, the European Union and the US, following the diversion of flight FR4978 and the arrest of Roman Protasevich and his partner.
It is important that we continue to speak out on the international stage and shine a spotlight on what is happening in Belarus. That is why, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has noted, we initiated a G7 statement on Belarus, and, as co-chair of the Media Freedom Coalition, led 47 nations in the condemnation of attacks against journalists and the independent media in Belarus, as well as rightly honouring the Belarusian Association of Journalists for its continued courage, advocacy and work. The democratic opposition have also been courageous, fearlessly continuing their peaceful struggle for a democratic future.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of civil society. We have increased our financial support for civil society and independent media organisations to help develop and protect specific democratic ideals. We are very much looking forward to the forthcoming visit to the UK of prominent opposition activist, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. The UK supports all those in Belarus who seek democratic change.
We call on the Belarusian authorities to cease their repressive campaign and enter into negotiations that can pave the way to electoral change. We want to see a reformed Belarus that has a good relationship with Russia and other European partners. We will continue to work with our partners to further urge Russia to impress on the Belarusian authorities the need to create space for political dialogue, including mediation by the OSCE. However, I fear there is unlikely to be a change in Russia’s stance towards Belarus any time soon, but our efforts and co-ordinated actions on this will remain.
I finally acknowledge and thank all noble Lords for their continued engagement and participation on this important issue. In responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I thank them for their continued support and direct engagement, as key voices for their respective parties in your Lordships’ House. I also thank all colleagues, across all Benches of your Lordships’ House, for engaging on the important and broader agenda of the policies, programmes and initiatives within my work, as the Minister of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
I reciprocate the best wishes for a restful, peaceful summer. We have all become used to being stars of the House of Lords on screens big and small, but I am sure we all very much look forward to some degree of resuming business as usual. I look forward to seeing colleagues—may I say friends?—in your Lordships’ House, once the Summer Recess has ended. Until that time, you have my best wishes for the summer.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee. I remind Members to wipe their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. The Committee is adjourned until September. Good wishes have been extended by Members for the holidays that lie ahead. I endorse them as regards all contributors to this debate and the Grand Committee’s excellent officials, who serve it so well.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. The social distancing requirements in the Chamber have been removed, but I strongly encourage Members to continue to wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking, and to respect social distancing in relation to staff in the Chamber.
Oral Questions will now commence. I ask those asking supplementary questions to keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
National Insurance Numbers: Electoral Register
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in ensuring that details on how to join the electoral register are included with the notices informing young people of their National Insurance numbers.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con) [V]
My Lords, Cabinet Office officials have continued to work with colleagues in HMRC on the inclusion of additional information on registering to vote in letters issuing national insurance numbers. I am assured that this change will be implemented by HMRC shortly—at the very latest, in October.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted if progress is being made, but I remind the Minister that, on 8 October last year, the House voted overwhelmingly for the Government to consider further action to get more young people registered to vote. On 26 November last year, he said that this was happening, but it has taken eight months since then. Why has it taken so long for the Government to consider adding perhaps a dozen words to a form in order to encourage more young people to register to vote?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government are committed to making registration as easy as possible, and we encourage everyone eligible to register to do so. I stand by those earlier statements. Due to internal processes, there have been delays in implementing the changes to the letter. There are HMRC processes in place to implement change that involve HMRC’s IT partners, but I repeat that HMRC has assured us that this matter will be implemented by October.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
We read that the Government are so keen to encourage young adults to vaccinate that we are all to be threatened with domestic Covid ID. Can the Minister confirm that they are just as keen to encourage young people to vote? If that is the case, will the Government explore automatically registering them for the electoral register at the moment when an NI number is issued?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government do not support automatic registration, but we certainly wish to see everyone register and exercise the right to vote, for which so many people have made sacrifices for so long. Our Register to Vote website is used by many young people, with almost 10.8 million online applications having been submitted by 16 to 24 year-olds since the service was introduced. I remind noble Lords that the number of people who have voted in recent elections has continued to grow, and that is hugely welcome.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, the Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which was excellently chaired by my noble friend and much missed colleague, the late Lord Shutt of Greetland, called for the piloting of automatic registration for attainers. Further to his previous answer, would the Minister consider having such a pilot? Does he further acknowledge that removing barriers to registration would be a positive step forward in encouraging more young people to vote?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have spoken often about the great service of the late Lord Shutt. We are determined to see people exercise their right to vote, but there are numerous important practical reasons to oppose automatic registration, and that is the position of the Government. Automatic registration would likely require a single national electoral register and/or a centralised database, and the Government have no plans to move in that direction.
Lord Hayward (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the comments made by the Minister a few moments ago. I regard this as a substantial step forward in encouraging participation by attainers in elections, and it should be greeted as such. Progress can be made in encouraging people to vote and to register, and, like him, I do not believe in forced registration.
Lord True (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend for his remarks. Each step is important. I acknowledge that this has taken time; HMRC has competing priorities—noble Lords will understand the situation that we have been living through—but we have been assured that this will happen by October. As my noble friend says, this is one small step, but we should all engage in the battle to get more and more people exercising the right to vote.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, can I pick up the noble Lord on the last point he made? It has long been conventional wisdom among politicians that we want to see an increase in those registering and, indeed, an increase in those participating in elections. Yet the Minister has set his face against automatic registration, when we also have coming before us at some point, when we return from the recess, the election integrity Bill, which some of us think of as the voter suppression Bill. Will the noble Lord rethink on both these issues—on that Bill, which will make it harder for people to vote, and on this issue of automatic registration?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, we will have many hours to discuss these matters on the Elections Bill. Time is short now, but I reject the view that that Bill is anything to do with voter suppression. I think the Labour Party has adopted a position on that which is contrary to the overwhelming view of the public that voter ID is sensible. So far as automatic registration is concerned, I can only repeat that the Government have no plans to introduce it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, one person’s forced registration may be another person’s citizens’ rights. When I was the Lords’ Minister in the Cabinet Office, some years ago now, government digital experts were discussing the greater integration of local and central public data and the idea that digitisation might well extend to the electoral register. Is that still on the cards? Is this something that we may expect to be covered, either positively or negatively, in the Government’s digital strategy paper, when next it appears?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have indicated that the Government do not see attractions in producing a single national electoral register or centralised database. It is one of the aspects of our position that we should not move forward to automatic registration, and there are others. I have to disappoint the noble Lord on that score.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the news that my noble friend has given us. Would it not help to reverse the rather worrying trend in recent years that has seen the number of 16 and 17 year-olds on the registers, in readiness to vote at 18, fall by some 20%? Has any recent assessment been made of the effectiveness of the work done by electoral registration officers in schools, where Northern Ireland has had particularly marked success?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point and we will certainly look at the Northern Ireland example. As he and the House may know, we have been working to try to encourage enrolment through the universities, and an evaluation will be published today of Cabinet Office work looking at the effectiveness of the student electoral registration condition. These are all important areas where we need to continue to work.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between forced registration and increasing participation by young people in the democratic process? In the light of the comments from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, does he accept that increasing young people’s involvement with citizens’ rights and democratic processes is as good as mandating the vaccine for all care staff? I think that mandating young people to vote in the democratic process would be a really good thing.
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government do not support compulsory voting, and, in fact, it has very limited public support, but I agree with the need to encourage participation. We have the parliamentarian youth engagement toolkit, as well as the secondary schools’ resource, introduced in 2018. I hope that, following remarks from my noble friend Lord Lexden, these will be increasingly used.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the proposal to remind young people to vote, but for those who somehow do not get an automatic national insurance number, Covid-19 restrictions have made it almost impossible to get one. Those waiting in the growing backlog, through no fault of their own, should not be further disadvantaged from registering to vote. I know that, at the moment, you cannot register online without a national insurance number. Has the Minister made an assessment of how many people have been affected in this way? What steps does he have to address this?
Lord True (Con) [V]
My Lords, I do not have an assessment to hand, but my noble friend raises an important point. I will pursue that matter and report back to her.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Net Zero Test
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee that all government policies should be subject to a ‘Net Zero Test’; and what steps they intend to take in response.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, over the last three decades the UK has achieved record clean growth. Between 1990 and 2019, our economy has grown by 78%, while our emissions have reduced by 44%—the fastest reduction in the G7. The Government recently set out the UK’s sixth carbon budget, which would reduce 2035 emissions by 78% compared to 1990. We have strong governance around net zero; this includes two Cabinet Committees, one of which, the Climate Action Strategy Committee, is chaired by the Prime Minister. We will respond officially to the CCC report in due course.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I declare my interests as set out in the register. I was privileged to be present to hear the speech of Special Presidential Envoy John Kerry, in London this week. He spoke passionately of the scale of the challenges the world faces and the urgency and breadth of the action needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Do the Government accept the need highlighted in the recent report of the Climate Change Committee to put a climate lens on all government legislation and all policy choices? Will they show global leadership on this issue, in the run-up to COP 26 in Glasgow, by committing to a net zero test in their imminent, I hope, net zero strategy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, as I told the noble Baroness in my Answer, we have really strong governance around climate change. There are two Cabinet committees, one established and chaired by the Prime Minister and the second chaired by the COP 26 president designate. Of course, we look at all policies and their impact on climate change.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. No? I think we will go on to the next supplementary question. I call the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
Can the Minister confirm that, as stated in their response to the Climate Change Committee recommendations, government policy that flows from the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill that impacts on agriculture will take a holistic approach and take into account the significant benefits that agriculture does and will deliver, such as carbon sequestration in soils, crops and plants?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord on the important contribution that agriculture makes and will need to make in the fight against climate change. Defra is looking at ways to reduce agricultural emissions and is progressing its environmental and land management schemes. It is also looking at other options to reduce agricultural emissions, including some very innovative solutions on the use of, for instance, methane-inhibiting food additives.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
In Monday’s debate on transport decarbonisation the Minister said:
“The more we can set out … what our expectations are, the more we expect that development to increase.”—[Official Report, 19/7/21; col. 26.]
The Government’s wish list is unsupported by effective plans for action. A yet to be published report of the Science and Technology Committee that deals with the means of transport decarbonisation has stated that the Government’s actions do not align with their ambitions to achieve net-zero emissions. What is required is an independent office for climate responsibility, which can assess the extent to which the Government’s actions correspond with their stated objectives. Do the Government recognise this need?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making, but I would refer him to the independent Committee on Climate Change, which does many of the things he is suggesting. It was established by the Climate Change Act 2008 and provides expert advice to the Government on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As he will have seen in its written reports, it is not afraid to point out what it sees as any deficiencies.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister explain how the Government’s proposed planning Bill will help lead towards his department’s goal of net zero?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Planning of course is extremely important, particularly in terms of delivering net-zero buildings. The noble Lord will be aware of the proposals we have to modify building regulations to reduce the impact of new buildings.
Lord Grantchester (Lab) [V]
This is the decisive decade for action and achievements, yet behind the Government’s scatter-gun rhetoric there is only dither and delay to key strategic coherency: the net-zero strategy, the hydrogen strategy, the Treasury’s finance road map, and others. Can the Minister confirm reports that another key strategy document, the heat and buildings strategy, is further delayed? According to Sky,
“Whitehall negotiations are stuck over how best to incentivise the public to change to low-carbon alternatives”.
How will the different strategies combine to support the UK’s climate change goals on both net zero and adaptation, along with wider environment-related goals?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The heat and buildings strategy will be published in due course. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we are not doing anything. I refer him to action we have taken recently: the energy White Paper, the revised emissions trading system, all of the announcements and investment to do with offshore wind, the pledge to phase out new petrol and diesel vehicles, the transport decarbonisation plan, and so on. Of course, there is always more to do, but I do not accept the noble Lord’s premise.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I would like to congratulate the Government on their achievements so far, with the fastest reduction in the G7. We have two Ministers—one in the Lords and one in the Commons, my noble and honourable friends—who are determined to help reduce our emissions and achieve success for the environment. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that an independent assessment of the net-zero impact of policy is important and I commend the work of the Climate Change Committee. However, I hope the Government will continue to focus, for example, on direct action, by encouraging institutional and pension fund investors to invest in climate change mitigation, and promoting a net-zero approach to investment portfolios rather than asking officials to continue with a net-zero test in a way that the family test has been more of a tick-box exercise.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her comments and certainly agree with her. As she is well aware, the trustees of occupational pension schemes are independent of government; they are not bound by the commitments we have signed up to. However, given the significance of the financial risks posed by climate change, we expect all investment decisions made by pension scheme trustees to take climate change into account. As of 2019, trustees of pension schemes with 100 or more members have been required to set out in their statement of investment principles policies on stewardship on an ESG, including climate change.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, if this test was brought in, would it not help government departments by giving them a very clear direction of travel? It would cover the sorts of decisions we are still wrestling with—Cambo in the North Sea and the Cumbrian mine—which have somehow slipped through despite government ambitions to reach carbon neutrality. This test could save future Ministers’ blushes. Can the Minister say what discussions have been had about this proposal and whether he will advocate it to his ministerial colleagues?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We have not had any discussions about implementing this proposal yet. We will respond to the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations in due course. But we are looking at the impact of climate change across all our policies. As I said, we have a couple of senior Cabinet-level committees, one chaired by the Prime Minister, which take all of these things into account.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee sees local authorities as having a critical part to play in achieving net zero. On 16 July, the NAO revealed
“serious weaknesses in central government’s approach to working with local authorities on decarbonisation, stemming from a lack of clarity over local authorities’ overall roles, piecemeal funding, and diffuse accountabilities”.
Does the Minister agree with its assessment that there is
“great urgency to the development of a more coherent approach”
and can he explain how the MHCLG, BEIS and other departments are responding to this challenge?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord. Of course, local authorities are critical in terms of delivering this agenda and I have many meetings with them to discuss a number of the grand schemes for which I am responsible. We have spent something like £1.2 billion in dedicated funds given to local authorities through the local authority delivery scheme and the public sector decarbonisation scheme to help them in this job.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s remit to the Oil and Gas Authority is MER, maximising economic recovery—also known as “drill every last drop”. The Government’s continued support for this policy leaves them open to applications such as the Cambo oilfield, which one trusts they will turn down. May I ask the Minister how the MER policy is compatible with our net-zero targets, given that existing oilfields already in production will take us over our agreed NDC?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The independent Committee on Climate Change recognises that there is an ongoing role for oil and gas, and we are working hard to drive down demand and emissions. The updated Oil and Gas Authority strategy includes a requirement for industry to “take appropriate steps” to support the delivery of the net-zero target—and, of course, we have put forward the ambitious decarbonisation plan for the North Sea. With regard to the Cambo field, Shell and Siccar Point have put forward a development proposal seeking consent, with an intention to commence production in 2025. This is not a new project; it was licensed in 2001 and 2004 and is going through the normal regulatory approval process.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Council Tax
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to introduce higher rate bands for Council Tax.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I recognise my noble friend’s interest in this issue, but the Government do not have any plans to introduce higher bands for council tax. Many people living in high-value properties are on low incomes and may have lived in their homes for a long time. Higher bands risk penalising such people, including pensioners, who have seen their homes increase in value. They could face a substantial tax rise without having the income to pay the higher bill.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it would be odd to calculate today’s income tax on what people earned 30 years ago, but this is the basis on which we fund local government? The council tax is out of date, arbitrary and regressive. While the right policy would be revaluation, ducked for too long by successive Governments, would it not be right in the meantime to take the higher band and, without breaking any manifesto commitments, introduce two extra bands to bring in extra revenue from those with more valuable assets?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend’s suggestion has some merit. Even a limited revaluation would be costly and would yield significant extra revenue only in those parts of the country where house prices are the highest, given that council tax income is not redistributed. It would also leave council tax payers in a rather odd, and arguably less fair, situation where some were paying their tax based on 1991 values while others were doing so based on prices in the present day.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
According to the citizens advice bureau, council tax is the most common debt problem faced by families in Britain, with 86,000 people in England struggling to keep up with payments. The current system heavily favours the south-east and disproportionately disadvantages the poor. As part of the levelling up agenda, what consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to a land value tax to address these inequalities?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not have any plans to introduce such a land value tax, but they are committed to supporting those on low incomes, including by increasing the living wage and by spending £111 billion on welfare support for people of working age in 2020-21.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, the council tax was introduced as a result of the abolition of the community charge, which was introduced as a result of the discredited rates system. One reason why the rates system became so discredited was that there was no revaluation. There has been no revaluation of council tax for 30 years. Are we going to find ourselves in the same position in another five years if we do not act soon?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I note my noble friend’s call for a council tax revaluation. As I said in my previous answer, a full revaluation would be costly. The council tax bands are well understood by residents and provide a stable income for councils, so at this stage we have no plans for a full revaluation.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, how is it possible for a £54 million luxury house in London’s Mayfair to have a lower council tax than a former council house on Windebrowe Avenue in Keswick in Cumbria and almost the same council tax as an £80,000 house on Moorclose Road in Workington, both in my former constituency? Is it not the simple truth that the whole council tax system is now discredited? It is unfair, it penalises much of the north, it favours London and much of the south, and it is now in urgent need of reform.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am interested to hear the specific examples given, but we must recognise that, for local authority funding, council tax represents only a proportion of the income received. That is why we try to equalise through measures such as the grant system, which recognises the index of multiple deprivation as one of the reasons in how you provide grant—
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Yes, it does. On that basis, grant enables areas with lower council tax bases to receive 16% more in core spending power.
I recognise the point made by the noble Lord about the disparity in valuations between the north and the south, but it is a system that works well to develop the funding that councils need at the moment.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. What consideration will the Government give to the potential benefit of a proportional property tax, as recommended by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to replace council tax and business rates in its report published earlier this week?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have looked at putting on hold the reform of the local government finance system because of the pandemic, and further reforms will be potentially be brought forward as a result of the spending review. I note the idea that the noble Lord raises.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I yield to no one in my passionate belief that the state should tax the citizens less, but domestic real estate is by international standards undertaxed. It would not be that expensive to restrict a revaluation to council tax band H properties —perhaps those over a certain current market value. We should then look at empty properties. There are currently 30,000 empty properties in London alone, with a value of £15 billion. They should attract a surtax, along with overseas-owned properties.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I note that my noble friend again calls for a new, higher band of property. If that higher band were based on 1991 values, the Valuation Office Agency would need to revalue all properties in the current top band. That would certainly be cheaper than a full revaluation.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I refer noble Lords to my registered interests. The impact of the pandemic has led to the worst recession of any major economy. With the virus still not under control, local councillors will again be forced to raise council tax this year to protect vital local services, just when many families are struggling to make ends meet. Will the Government remove the necessity for planned council tax rises by giving councils the resources they need and stand by their pledge, so far not honoured, to do whatever is necessary to support councils?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I do not recognise the picture that the noble Baroness paints. Throughout the pandemic, we have provided considerable additional funding for local authorities. Local authorities received £3.8 billion in social care grant funding through the social care grant and the improved better care fund. We continue to support councils throughout this very difficult period.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Hardly a week goes by without a news story about someone’s new basement causing problems to their neighbours. Should there not be an automatic revaluation when such improvements are carried out and higher bands introduced to cope with massively inflated property values, or do we need a new system altogether, related to the ability to pay?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that all these ideas are being floated on how we should support and organise the funding of local government. As I said, the Government have put that on hold, and we are looking at bringing forward measures as part of the spending review.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, there is a clear rationale for introducing higher-rate council tax bands. The gap between the top and bottom bands is ludicrously small compared with the value of the premises. I ask the Government to consider reviewing the whole territory of property taxation and introducing a new, fairer tax covering property—commercial and residential.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank my noble friend. He joins the chorus of people calling for new bands and a reform of the council tax system, but, as I have said, we do not intend to bring in new bands. Plans around local government finance reform have been put on hold and will be carried forward as part of the spending review.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not realise that the disparities in council tax create a lot of the poverty that he referred to in his earlier statement? Is he aware that the maximum level in Westminster is £1,655? In every district in Cumbria, the average is in excess of £4,000. How can that be fair?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I point out that Westminster has a low-tax policy and sets probably the lowest council tax in the country, and it should be commended for being a low-tax authority. Certain authorities know how to squeeze every penny in every pound, and I commend Westminster on being able to do that.
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.
Zimbabwe: Human Rights
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they conducted an assessment of the political and human rights situation in Zimbabwe prior to the decision to deport Zimbabwean nationals to that country on 21 July; and if so, from whom they sought evidence when making that assessment.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, declare my interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Zimbabwe.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, assessment is made against the latest country of origin information and relevant case law. This is based on evidence from reliable sources; reputable media outlets; local, national and international organisations; human rights organisations; and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office information. Sources are included in the footnotes of the country policy and information notes published on GOV.UK.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, in a response from the Minister for Immigration Compliance to a letter from over 75 Peers and MPs, the Government sought to distract attention from the human rights situation in Zimbabwe by focusing on foreign national offenders. However, as the minutes of the meeting between the British Embassy in Harare and the Zimbabwean Government dated 30 June make clear, this is a PR tactic, and it was agreed at that meeting that Zimbabwean nationals who were not foreign national offenders could also be included on the 21 July flight.
Can the Minister clarify to the House whether it is the Home Office’s policy to deport only foreign national offenders to Zimbabwe, or does it intend that future flights will include those who are not FNOs? Can the Minister also tell the House how many deportation orders were originally issued for the removal of Zimbabwean nationals on 21 July and how many were subsequently found to be unlawful or were otherwise stayed by the courts?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can confirm to the noble Lord that it is government policy to deport foreign national offenders who have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. We are not trying to distract from human rights issues. Regarding the flight that departed last night, 50 were due to be on it; 14 were returned and 44 submitted last-minute claims.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Home Office has a poor record in relation to Covid-19 safety, having already been warned by the High Court about its approach to the asylum system in this regard. Following what happened at Napier barracks, what is the position at the Brook House immigration removal centre? Is it that there has been at least one confirmed positive Covid-19 case? Were any of those on the scheduled deportation flight to Zimbabwe, whom the Government said were all foreign national offenders, people who were awaiting a Covid-19 test result; had tested positive themselves; or should have been, or were, self-isolating for 10 days because they had come into contact with somebody with Covid-19?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that public health guidance is adhered to on all removal flights. I will have to get further information on how many were from Brook House. The welfare of those detained in our care is of the utmost importance. We are working closely with our providers and PHE to stop the spread of the virus. That absolutely includes immigration removal centres.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, to come back to the assessment of the situation and consultation before decision to deport, in April, the US State Secretary, Antony J Blinken, assessed Zimbabwe as one of the worst countries abusing citizens’ rights, with state-sanctioned violence continuing a culture of impunity. Zimbabwe’s security forces acted with tacit support for President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s Government, torturing human rights groups by brutal sexual assault and beating with clubs, cables, gun butts and heavy whips. Victims were forced to eat human excrement and drink poisonous chemicals, among other tortures. Victims included MDC Alliance members, Joana Mamombe, Netsai Marova and Cecilia Chimbiri, who suffered 36 hours of sexual abuse and physical torture. Can the Minister confirm whether the US report was included in the Government’s human rights assessment? If not, why not? And what were the conclusions of the assessment?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What I can say to the noble Lord is that, back in 2018, the Government, with officials from the embassy in Zimbabwe, agreed to redocument Zimbabwean nationals without a right to remain in the UK, including foreign national offenders. Since we commenced that redocumentation in 2018, we have returned 50 people to Zimbabwe. While it is an FCDO priority country for human rights—the noble Lord is right—we have received no reports of human rights violations against those returned since the 2018 agreement.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, while I fully understand the rationale behind deporting serious foreign national offenders, what is the level of the seriousness of the crime? At a time when Zimbabwe is in the grips of a major Covid outbreak with very little spare capacity, what assessment was made of the timing of this deportation, and what assessment has been made of the planned patriot Bill, which will make it illegal for members of the Opposition to criticise the Government?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, the types of FNOs are those who received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, subject to limited exceptions. The types of criminals on the flight yesterday included murderers, rapists, sexual offenders against children and drug suppliers. In terms of Covid, they receive PPE and other support when they return. I cannot remember the last point the noble Lord raised, but that is two of the three questions answered.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, last night, a High Court judge accepted that anyone on the deportation flight given face-to-face interviews with Zimbabwean officials before being granted an emergency travel document required to enter Zimbabwe could be at risk on return. The judge directed that the individual who brought the case be saved from boarding the flight, but by the time the news of that order was made public, others who may have been able to benefit from it had had their phones confiscated. Should the Government have put anyone on the flight who had been in such an interview, given the judge’s ruling? Does this not defy the international principle that non-refoulement? Can the Minister tell me, now or by letter, how many of the 14 individuals on the flight this applied to?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As the noble Baroness will not be surprised to know, I will not discuss individual cases. What I will say is that on that flight were murderers, rapists, people who had sexually offended against children and suppliers of drugs. To go back to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, in terms of the frequency of reviewing concerns about human rights: FCDO regularly and consistently raises any concerns and would do so if there was any evidence of violations against those returned.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the note of 30 June that my noble friend Lord Oates referred to is the framework agreement with the Government regarding these flights, which the British Embassy indicated
“would start with around 100 possible persons … We agreed the flight would focus on Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) and (if capacity allowed) some immigration offenders.”
On the media points, it stated that in proactive and reactive communications that the returnees on the flight would have criminal records and, therefore, had to return to their country of origin. But that will not necessarily be the case in future if it includes those who have administrative removal for immigration purposes. Will the Minister please investigate this and reassure the House that, if this is a framework for flights going forward, all those on return flights who do not necessarily have criminal records will not all be badged as FNOs and therefore be highly vulnerable to abuse in the country of return?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I will certainly check that out for the noble Lord. We are committed to removing from this country any FNOs or anyone else for immigration purposes.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how often Home Office officials meet the Zimbabwean diaspora here, in London in particular, who are well aware of the difference between a genuine asylum seeker and someone who has been deported for very heinous crimes? How many times have Zimbabwean officials from this embassy been involved in meetings with Home Office officials and the person who is about to be deported? Very often, that brings back to them what will happen to them when they go back to Zimbabwe, and the Home Office should not be doing this without a Home Office official there, taking notes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I shall say to the noble Baroness what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey: the FCDO regularly and consistently raises any human rights concerns with the Government of Zimbabwe, and we would do if we had any evidence of violations against those returns.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we start the main business of the day, I rise to say a few words with the agreement of my noble friend the Leader of the House, the usual channels and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. Since 21 April 2020, the House has sat virtually or in hybrid fashion. Following the decisions taken by the House last week, from September we will to all intents and purposes return to our normal physical ways of working. This means that today is likely to be the last day of hybrid proceedings.
As noble Lords acknowledged in our debate in May, creating and maintaining the hybrid House was the work of many. While the hybrid House has had its frustrations and flaws for all of us, it is right to pay tribute to the staff of the House who have worked, seen and unseen, to ensure that the House continued to function for so many months. Today, at the end of the hybrid House, I thank some of the staff who have worked to maintain the hybrid proceedings. This includes those who managed the daily invitations to Members to participate; those who assisted Members with technical difficulties; and those who worked in the hub, to link the broadcasters to the Chamber. They include Eleanor Clements, who ably led the behind-the-scenes co-ordination and administration of the virtual proceedings, as well as her colleagues Maggie Barnes, Alex Brocklehurst, Simon Nicholls and Seonaid Still. I also thank Sally Freestone, David Loader and their colleagues in the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit, and our contractors, NEP Bow Tie. I also thank all those in the Virtual Participation Administration Team and the Hub Clerk Team, which were created at the start of the pandemic to enable Members to participate virtually in the Chamber and Grand Committee. The staff on these teams volunteered to take on this work in addition to busy day jobs to keep the House running.
I am sure I speak for the whole House when I pay tribute to their unstinting professionalism, hard work and dedication—and, not least, their patience. We are very grateful, and we thank them all.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for those remarks and echo his thanks to the staff of the House, the Digital Service, the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit, the Virtual Participation Administration Team and the Hub Clerk Team. I also thank the Members of the House. This has not been an easy 18 months but technologically we have achieved much more than we ever thought possible. Our virtual and hybrid House arrangements were world leading and, importantly, we have continued to carry out our constitutional duty.
Chief Whips are not accustomed to being thanked in the Chamber, but today I do just that. The Chief Whip, together with the Leader of the House and all members of the usual channels and the Convenor, deserve our thanks. The work they do to build consensus, often in very difficult circumstances, is a great service to the House. During this period, they have worked tirelessly. Ahead of the rise of the House today, I wish all noble Lords and staff a very restful and enjoyable Summer Recess. It has never been more well deserved.
Special Public Bill Committee (Charities Bill)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Special Public Bill Committee on the Charities Bill [HL]:
Etherton, L (Chair), Barker, B, Barran, B, Bellingham, L, Cruddas, L, Fullbrook, B, Goudie, B, Parkinson of Whitley Bay, L, Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Draft Online Safety Bill Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Commons message of 21 July be considered and that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on the draft Online Safety Bill presented to both Houses on 12 May (CP405) and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 10 December;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Black of Brentwood, L, Clement-Jones, L, Gilbert of Panteg, L, Kidron, B, Knight of Weymouth, L, Stevenson of Balmacara, L.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.
Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 (References to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True [V]
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 June be approved.
Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 July.
Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 21 July.
Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 21 July.
Fisheries Act 2020 (Scheme for Financial Assistance) (England) Regulations 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 June be approved.
Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 July.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Benyon, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
International Travel Rules
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is not possible to travel to France without the need for quarantine and all the costs and upheaval that involves, as France, following a sudden decision, is now in a separate subcategory of amber-list countries. As one Conservative MP put it when this UQ was discussed in the Commons,
“public confidence in going abroad is now in a ditch”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 679.]
Another Conservative MP said,
“the further restrictions for France stretch both the credibility of the system and the patience of the travel industry. The whole industry … continues to watch as its reserves are dried up”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 685.]
The travel industry was promised a rescue deal, which has never materialised. When do the Government intend to give this important industry the support that it needs, as we have called for, and as the shadow Secretary of State demanded again in the Commons on Monday, to which there was no response from the Minister?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talks about the decision that we had to make on France, which of course was not made lightly. We have in place a good traffic-light system which enables us to categorise countries according to risk and, therefore, travel can happen accordingly. However, we have also reduced requirements for people who have had double vaccinations in order to travel to amber countries. That is of great benefit to the travel companies and I am sure that they will take advantage of that opportunity.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
Can the Minister explain why the Government, with a fanfare of publicity, moved France on to the amber list while at the same time issuing instructions that from Monday, Border Force officers no longer have to verify that new arrivals from green-list and amber-list countries have negative Covid tests or other legally required paperwork? Can the Minister explain why the decision to remove these checks was made? Was it due to a lack of staff and, if so, why have the Government not provided enough Border Force staff to perform checks at a predictably busy time of year?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, all the decisions that this Government make are on the basis of risk—risk to the country as a whole from a public health perspective and risks to travellers who choose to go abroad where they are able to. It is not the case that checks were dropped because of reduction in demand. However, we need to keep the travelling public as risk-free as possible. That is a great benefit to citizens, but also to the travel industry.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, what are the prospects and timing of agreeing a deal with the United States that would allow quarantine to cease for vaccinated individuals from both countries? This is our largest market, with a high rate of vaccination, so “risk”, in the words of my noble friend, is low. And what is the answer for Japan? I should declare an interest, as I need to travel there as chair of Crown Agents.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Japan will be taken under consideration as we review the traffic lights system going forward. Transatlantic travel is hugely important for both the US and the UK, and as announced by the Secretary of State for Transport on 8 July, we are confident that vaccines will play an important role in normalising travel, when it is appropriate. There is a UK-US expert working group specifically driving this work forward.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the queues at arrivals at our airports are now completely unacceptable. They are two hours or more, as I have experienced recently. Why do the Government not do two things? First, they could get airlines to check documentation before passengers board planes to the UK. Secondly, with universities having closed, they could employ university students, or recent graduates, train them up in a day or two and get them to check Covid documents at arrivals at the airports, with one or two Border Force agents supporting and supervising them, and then let the passengers through to the e-gates and to the immigration officers to do the passport checks. These two moves would remove the congestion and queues in one swoop.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his suggestions, and I will ensure that my colleagues at the Home Office listen to them as well. We have always been very clear that wait times at the border may be extended due to biosecurity checks being carried out. These are essential to protect the public and the success of our vaccination programme. Passengers have a key role to play in this, as to a certain extent do airlines, because they do some checking before passengers board aircraft. The noble Lord mentioned e-gates. Automation is also really important. We have been able to upgrade the e-gates to speed passengers through the airport.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. The travel industry is at present on its knees. Regular changes in government policy, as well as changes in the government policy on the admittance of British businesspeople and holidaymakers from other countries, are making the situation considerably worse. Could the Minister tell us what consultations, if any, have been held with the Treasury about some sector-specific assistance to this vital industry?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we believe that by the end of September 2021 the air transport sector, for example, will have benefited from around £7 billion worth of government support since the start of the pandemic. Decisions around the sector support will of course ultimately be a matter for the Chancellor based on the evidence that we have been able to provide. Of course, we have regular conversations with our colleagues at the Treasury, but also with industry. We are listening very carefully to the sector.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, perhaps one of the more confusing issues surrounding the traffic lights system is not knowing on what basis the grading is made. Chile, for example, has falling infection rates and is at least on a par with our high vaccination rates here, yet it remains red. Could my noble friend give us some idea as to how exactly these grades are calculated and whether she is aware of any red countries likely to move to amber in the foreseeable future?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am unable to provide any insight to my noble friend as to what might happen in the future in terms of countries moving from one group to the next, but we look at a range of factors when making these decisions. Of course, we are reliant on the joint biosecurity centre for producing a risk assessment of the countries and territories. The factors that the JBC risk assessment considers are very varied. They include the genomic surveillance capability within the nation, the Covid-19 transmission risk and the transmission risk of variants of concern. A range of measures is incorporated into reaching these decisions.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I would like to pick up on the point on France raised by my noble friend Lord Rosser. The Government’s decision on Friday to change quarantine rules on return from France has bewildered and angered not just the travel industry but the hundreds of thousands of UK citizens gong to France on holiday or for work. Can the Minister tell the House when this decision will be reviewed—and hopefully reversed—given the small number of beta variant cases in mainland France, as opposed to La Réunion, so that people can get on with their jobs when they return without self-isolating first.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am happy to provide some more information to the noble Baroness. GISAID data suggests that the beta variant accounts for around 5% of cases in France, with data earlier in the month suggesting it could be as high as 9%. This data does not include La Réunion. It includes Corsica, which is included in the quarantine policy, and Monaco. This data for the beta variant compares to similar data from Spain and Greece of less than 1%, so that it why we are concerned about France. It has nothing to do with La Réunion. That is why we took that decision. I cannot say at this time when that process will come under review. Of course, we would love to have people travelling to France again, but it was the right decision taken on the information available.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, many people travelling from Belfast to international destinations will initially fly to London or Manchester before continuing their journey on to their final destination. Given that the decisions made by the United Kingdom Government for travellers in England will therefore also apply to large numbers of travellers from Northern Ireland, what discussions is the Minister, or her officials, having with her counterparts in Belfast to ensure that changes to international travel rules agreed in London are properly conveyed to holidaymakers departing from Northern Ireland?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We have ongoing conversations with all the devolved Administrations, because this is so important. I recognise the noble Lord’s point: if you are travelling to Northern Ireland, chances are you may be coming through one of the large airports in England. It is very important, but we must recognise that health policy is devolved. However, we have every intention of working as closely as possible with the devolved nations and ensuring that our interventions are as aligned as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the noble Baronesses who could not be called.
Cyberattack: Microsoft
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I must admit that I share the view of Iain Duncan Smith about the seriousness of this matter and why there was not a Statement from the Government at the time. In the Commons, the Minister estimated that approximately 3,000 UK-based organisations may have been vulnerable to this attack, but there was no confirmation on whether any public bodies are included in this figure. Can the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, state whether any public bodies were compromised and what urgent steps are being taken to secure public bodies from future attacks? Also, when the Government acted with targeted sanctions against individuals involved in the Russian state-backed cyberattack on the German Parliament, why were there no sanctions in response to Chinese state-backed cyberattacks, on—among others—the Finnish Parliament?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree that we need to ensure protection for all organisations. The noble Lord is correct in saying that 3,000 organisations were impacted. Obviously, we made a full evaluation when we were informed of these attacks to ensure that all the information was readily available. He asked specifically about government organisations. We do not believe that government organisations were victims. Because this was an untargeted action, it is not possible to give a credible assessment of the overall economic damage. He asked about further mitigation. As he knows, the National Cyber Security Centre is very much world beating and, together with Microsoft, we have worked to give specific and timely advice. By the end of March, 92% of all those organisations impacted had taken appropriate mitigations.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Answer in the House of Commons suggested that there had been a response in the form of a statement by 39 countries. That is welcome, but what action are the Government taking, beyond making statements, to ensure that the United Kingdom and her allies are no longer vulnerable to China? Statements are one thing; sanctions or other actions would surely be far more effective.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that when we call out such action, as we have on this occasion, that is done in co-ordination with our key partners. The fact that 39 countries, including those of the European Union and NATO, including Norway, as well as Japan, are among those demonstrates the strong condemnation of these actions. Alongside international partners, we continue not just to call this out but to ensure that we are vigilant to these threats, wherever they come from, and ready to defend against them. As for specific sanctions, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed to Russia, and the noble Baroness will be aware that we have an autonomous sanctions regime and, where necessary, we have acted in the past, although I cannot speculate on any future action that we may take in this respect.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, last year Twitter suspended more than 32,000 accounts linked to Chinese, Russian and Turkish propaganda operations and more than 170,000 state-linked bot accounts tied to China. Analysis by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute found that China’s influence operation targeted users outside the mainland, where Twitter and Facebook are blocked, aiming to manipulate opinion on issues including the Hong Kong protests, coronavirus and Taiwan. What assessment has the Government made of such state-linked propaganda campaigns targeting UK citizens and the attempts to destabilise British society?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point and I assure her and your Lordships’ House that we work in co-ordination with international partners, as well as through the National Cyber Security Centre, to ensure that those who may be targeted and, indeed, those who have been targeted are properly supported. Equally, we share information which allows further mitigation of risk. We must close down this space. Cyberspace is a force for good for many, in the opportunities that it offers, but any use of cyber must be legal, responsible and proportionate. The actions taken on this occasion, supported by the Chinese state, fall foul of that. It is right that we work with international partners in condemning such action.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, do the Government systematically seek to identify all businesses and individuals who may have been targets for cyberattacks, whether from China or elsewhere? If so, do the Government, as a matter of policy, advise all such businesses and individuals of their potential vulnerability? Do they offer help in how to avoid or minimise the deleterious consequences of such exposure?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point and I shall answer it on two bases. We have worked consistently with other countries, particularly those that do not have the technical capacity to take appropriate mitigation against cyberattacks. We have invested a great deal, including through the Commonwealth, on issues of cybersecurity. Working through the NCSC, we also recommend that, where possible, organisations update to the latest version of software and patch frequently to protect against cyberthreats. On this occasion, both the NCSC and Microsoft have published actionable advice for network defenders. As we improve our capacity to defend, we continue to work with key partners to further mitigate risks to any individual or organisation within the UK.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the widespread nature of this attack shows that cybersecurity is a global issue which needs global co-operation. What steps are the Government taking to play a greater role in the United Nations innovation agencies to help to make future technologies more cyberspace-secure?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness points to multilateral action. Cybersecurity and cyber more generally remain a point of discussion within the context of the United Nations, as well as other multilateral organisations. It is worth reflecting that, when I mentioned 39 countries earlier, that demonstrates that this is an international challenge that, as the noble Baroness rightly recognises, requires international action, as on this occasion. Working with international partners and organisations, we have illustrated the need for uniform action and calling out those who seek to use cyberspace to attack other countries, organisations or individuals.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, cyberattacks are part of the low-intensity warfare being waged by President Xi with the aim of securing global domination. Other weapons are terror in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong and the illegal occupation of neighbouring countries’ territories. Is it not now the time for the Government to impose trade sanctions and a ban on Chinese products and investment?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government have been at the forefront in the broader challenges. Indeed, as the UK Human Rights Minister, I am at the forefront of the work that we have done at the Human Rights Council, for example, in calling out the systematic detention and abuse of the Uighur community in particular. Most recently, we backed the Canadian statement and worked with our Canadian partners to ensure that more than 40 members at the Human Rights Council called out the situation of the Uighurs and to ensure the access of the human rights commissioner to Xinjiang. We have taken action. The noble Lord talks about sanctions, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned them too. Back in 2018, the UK, along with 14 partners, called out, on the basis of APT 10, the action that China had taken. We work systematically and will continue to focus our activities on calling out human rights abuses wherever they occur.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, notwithstanding the focus on any Chinese or Russian interference in our security and civil liberties, in light of the Guardian investigation and reports, and given the Statement made to this House by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, that our Government are fully aware and made representations about potentially illegal surveillance of British citizens and institutions, will the noble Lord say if he is aware to whom representations have been made? What assurance can he provide that such security breaches have been stopped as a result of our Government’s work and that the Government are not failing to protect our citizens and institutions against any further attacks from seemingly friendly countries and partners?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, that it is essential—I say this very clearly—that all cyber actors use their capabilities, as I said earlier, in a legal, proportionate and responsible way. On the issue that she highlighted, which has been the cause of media reporting, I assure her that we make representations to all appropriate Governments. We work closely with our allies on this important issue and, ultimately, to tackle cyberthreats and improve resilience. That is what we have done in the case of China. We will continue to act responsibly to ensure that citizens and organisations in the UK and, indeed, across the world are protected in the best way possible. We will continue to work to mitigate such actions.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who was not able to ask his question.
NHS Update
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I first record from these Benches our thanks for the hard work of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who has gone on maternity leave. We wish her and her baby all the very best for the future. Also, adding to the words of the Government Chief Whip, I thank the clerks, the virtual technicians, the managers and all our staff, for keeping the show on the road and for keeping us safe throughout this year. I particularly echo his words about their patience with us. We have continued to do our job and could only have done so with the support of these dedicated teams. I also thank the Lord Speaker, his predecessor, and Members of all those Committees that have been in almost permanent session this year, for guiding us through.
This is the last repeat Statement before the summer—I think this may be number 50; the Minister will know. We have three matters to deal with today: the somewhat puzzling Statement made in the Commons yesterday afternoon, the Written Statement from the Secretary of State which announced the results of the NHS pay review and—I have given the Minister notice—I will also address some of the issues raised in the Covid update given in the Commons this morning.
The Statement made by Helen Whately yesterday was an odd moment. We of course join her and the Minister in thanking Sir Simon Stevens for all his work in the NHS—he has also taken up his place in your Lordships’ House. We also join others in welcoming progress on the autism strategy, which the honourable lady talked about in her speech; although, in due course I will seek the views of the organisations who are experts in this area. However, the honourable lady gave what can only be described as a parliamentary doorstep clap for the NHS and its staff. Welcome though that might be, it does not pay the bills or provide the respect that this Government owe to our NHS staff.
The Statement was followed within hours by a Written Ministerial Statement outlining the NHS pay award. This is not a respectful way to treat Parliament or our NHS staff. As my honourable friend Dr Rosena Allin-Khan said yesterday, once again the Government have had to roll back on a shoddy, ill-thought-through position, with their 1% pay rise—a real-terms pay cut —rejected by the independent pay body. Less than an hour before, there were competing briefings on what the deal was to be and, at that moment, it turned out to be nothing. Our NHS staff deserve better than this. My honourable friend invited the Minister in the other place to shadow her in the A&E department where she has worked shifts throughout the pandemic. I suggest that she takes her up on that offer, and that the Minister here might do the same.
My right honourable friend John Ashworth has said:
“Ministers were dragged kicking & screaming to 3% for NHS staff. But after years of cuts & rising pressures, NHS staff will feel let down & disappointed especially after today’s chaos. And where is the pay rise for junior docs? Where is a fair pay rise for care workers?”
It really was not worthy of a Government. We had chaos and confusion, with the Government once again rowing back on their position. Does the Minister agree that the pay review body has done what Ministers could not and would not do in recognising that our NHS staff absolutely could not be given a pay cut? Does he accept that, after last year, this is not enough?
Does he accept that this is not an NHS-wide pay settlement? It does not cover all the health and care workforce, who do not fall under this pay review body, and it does not cover junior doctors—I declare an interest, as two are nephews of mine, both of whom were redeployed during the pandemic. We know that our junior doctors have been put on the front line, caring for sick patients, and redeployed across an understaffed, pressured NHS, and that their training has been disrupted. Will the junior doctors get a pay rise? Will all health staff employed in public health receive the settlement? Again, when we know absolutely the value of care workers, why do the Government not guarantee a real living wage for those working in social care?
How will this pay settlement be funded? NHS trusts do not even know what their budget is beyond September, and NHS employers pointed out that this settlement will cost the best part of £2 billion, so where is that coming from? Is the Minister expecting trusts to find it from their existing budgets? These Benches keep repeating this question: the Government seem not to appreciate how central this is to stopping the spread of the virus, so when will they address support for low-paid workers who have to self-isolate?
I posed many of the immediate questions yesterday to the Minister. Sometimes I felt enlightened by his answers and sometimes I did not, but the one I wish to go back to concerns the Government’s plans for September. Are they ready to reimpose safeguards? Will our schools get filtration units over the summer so that we can feel that our children will be safer? Will our teenagers be vaccinated so that, next year, this cohort can do a full year of learning without being sent home in their millions?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo the thanks to all the staff who have made a hybrid Parliament work over the last year especially, from these Benches, to the health team, because of the high workload of health and Covid business. I also repeat the good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, as she starts her maternity leave.
Along with colleagues in the Commons, I am unconvinced that the first half of this Statement was planned to be delivered by the Minister yesterday. In the bizarre events of this week, of Covid restrictions being lifted, a rush of announcements—Monday’s, and today’s on vaccine passports—U-turns, and No. 10 contradicting Ministers, this Statement is definitely filed under “Y” for “You couldn’t make it up”.
Yesterday morning, the press were briefed and opposition politicians heard on the parliamentary grapevine that the NHS staff pay rise would be announced in the Statement. Even Sky News and the BBC news channel were saying that there would be an announcement on NHS pay in the Commons yesterday afternoon. Yet, when the Minister stood up, there was not one word about the pay award, just an end-of-term report and a much-deserved paeon of praise about how wonderful our NHS staff are—they are, and they deserve that praise. However, an extraordinary line in the Statement says:
“But I can assure those hardworking nurses: you should feel it soon”.
Well, they did. Four hours after that Statement, a Written Ministerial Statement and a press release were slipped out, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny, presumably in the hope that it would not be spotted. NHS staff, especially junior doctors and nurses, are appalled. I am not sure this is what the Minister meant by
“you should feel it soon”.
However, it gets worse. This morning’s Times says that the 3% NHS staff pay rise will be funded by robbing the expected increase in national insurance contributions reserved for the social care proposals leaked earlier this week by the Government. That is an absolute disgrace, especially given the appalling way that No. 10 has handled the social care reform proposals. After the Queen’s Speech, Ministers told us that it would be this autumn. Last week, they suddenly said that there would be an announcement this week but, this week, they have thrown the proposals back into the long grass, with a promise—again—of later this autumn, two years after the PM promised us, on the steps on No. 10, that this was his absolute priority. His actions are showing otherwise.
I know that the Minister understands that social care needs urgent reform and that it has borne the brunt of the first year of the pandemic. Can he confirm the Times story about the funding of the NHS pay rise and whether this decision was made by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can he also say when the full proposals for social care will now be published, including the funding arrangements?
Moving to the only substance of this Statement, the autism strategy, we on these Benches also pay our respects to the late Dame Cheryl Gillan MP, who was such an advocate for those with autism. Peter Wharmby, the autistic writer, speaker and tutor, says that the autism strategy sets its targets very low in saying:
“Moreover, we have been able to transform society’s awareness of autism, as … 99.5% of the public have heard of autism … which is so important in autistic people being able to feel included as part of their community.”
Peter Wharmby is right. Much of the strategy talks about continuing as usual, but if you talk to autistic people or parents of autistic children, they all say that much needs to be done in supporting those with autism, especially in education and at work. Knowing that autism exists is not the same as providing the best environment for those with autism to overcome the barriers they face in society and giving them the support that they need to succeed. The Disabled Children’s Partnership points out that the pandemic has exacerbated existing problems around support for those with autism, creating further social isolation and poor health outcomes. It is depressing that the autism strategy is so unambitious.
One particular problem that parents face when trying to get support for their autistic children is an automatic assumption that parent carers are treated as a resource—worse, their parenting capacity is often questioned. There is no mention here of support for their needs. As John Bangs, a special needs expert, points out, this deliberately ignores carers’ legal rights. It is noticeable that this autism strategy makes no real reference to ensuring that parental and familial carers are supported. When will these wider issues relating to positive support for those with autism and their familial carers be addressed?
Finally, briefly on the Covid Statement in the Commons today, page 4 says that
“two doses of a covid vaccine offers protection of around 96% against hospitalisation.”
But the key bit of information we need in the “pingdemic” at the moment is the rate of double-jabbers getting Covid. I understand that it is part of the same study that is quoted, but what is the answer and where can we find it? If the pingdemic is due to the virus spreading —we hear of police and control rooms unable to operate and empty shelves at supermarkets—perhaps it is time we actually understood how many double-jabbers are getting Covid and having to go into self-isolation, and thereby creating a problem. The Minister needs to consider whether lifting all restrictions on Monday was the right thing to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, in thanking my noble friend Lady Penn for her hard work over the last 18 months and wishing her well in her pregnancy. She looked absolutely fantastic as she left, and our hopes and good wishes are with her.
I also thank the usual channels, the House of Lords staff and the Speaker’s office for all their contributions to the virtual House and for keeping the business of the House going during this awful pandemic. There has been an enormous amount of traffic from the Department of Health—more than 50 Statements, 2 Acts and hundreds of regulations. I thank all noble Lords for their challenge, their scrutiny and their patience during this difficult time.
The pay review body has given us its recommendations, and we have accepted them. I thank it for its work and insight. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the Office of Manpower Economics will publish its analysis online shortly. We are extremely pleased that we can follow the guidance of the pay review body. Junior doctors have their own separate framework, worth 8.2% over four years. They are working from that framework today.
On the funding of the pay review, as noble Lords know, we gave the NHS a historic £33.9 billion settlement in 2018 and have provided £92 billion to support front-line health services throughout the pandemic. The pay uplift will be funded from within that budget, but we are very clear that this will not impact funding already earmarked for the NHS front line. We will continue to make sure that the NHS has everything it needs to continue to support its staff and provide excellent care, throughout the pandemic and beyond. That is why we accepted the PRB’s recommendations in full and provided NHS workers in scope with the pay rise.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on safeguards in September, I cannot make any guarantees but I definitely hope not. We very much hope that we are in the final stages of this pandemic, as the impact of the vaccine is being felt, bringing down the R number and saving those who are infected from hospitalisation, severe disease and worse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about filtration for schools, and I noted her question on this yesterday. I said that we had been looking at it. I am not aware that the results of that analysis have come through yet. To be honest, I am wary of investing too much in unproven technologies. The two things that have been proven to work are isolation and vaccination; we are backing those two measures most of all. However, I accept her point about the importance of ventilation and will continue to look at it.
Likewise, the JCVI is looking very carefully at vaccination for children. We are working with international partners to get to the bottom of it. At the moment, we have a clear read-out—we will move—but our priority is providing either third shots or variant booster shots in the autumn to the most vulnerable. That is where our priorities are at the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about social care. I note the Government’s statement on that; we will bring reform recommendations in the autumn. On her point about the autism strategy, I also pay tribute to the contribution of Cheryl Gillan, who worked so hard in this area and whose impact is still being felt.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, overlooks some of the really good work in this strategy. There is £74 million of funding for a number of high-priority projects, which have been designed in collaboration with stakeholders from the community. I guide her to the implementation plan that accompanies the strategy, which has detailed recommendations on a six-point implementation matrix that has grit and traction. I would be very grateful for her feedback on that.
I pay tribute to parent supporters; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is entirely right that they often bear the brunt of care and are often best placed to care for and support those with autism. I remind her that we have provided £31 million through the mental health and well-being recovery action plan specifically for the parents of those with autism, recognising how the pandemic was hitting that group in particular.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 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 Lansley (Con)
My Lords, following our debates on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act earlier this year on an innovative medicines fund, the announcement in this Statement of a ring-fenced £340 million budget for innovative medicines is very welcome. When will those become available, so that clinicians and patients can access this funding? Given that it now takes us beyond cancer drugs and innovations, will there be a focus on those diseases for which there has been no effective treatment?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting this important development. The cancer drugs fund was a great success, and we are building on it with a substantial investment. The new fund will support patients with any conditions, including those with rare and genetic diseases. Dementia is one area where we are extremely interested in looking at investing further, and I hope that this would be captured, but we are waiting for recommendations from NICE and the data that it will provide before we set the right prioritisations. In terms of the date, I do not have that at my fingertips, but I would be glad to write to my noble friend with the details.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, the strategy promises millions to prevent mental health crises for autistic people and to help people detained in hospital back into the community. The Written Ministerial Statement responding to my 2020 independent report about people with learning disabilities and autistic people detained in long-term segregation was laid in the other place after the Minister’s Statement had finished. My report emphasised the urgency of these strategy promises. Will the noble Lord commit to meeting me, with the Secretary of State, to discuss the full implementation of my recommendations?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for her hard work in this area. We are taking a range of actions to drive further, faster progress on reducing the number of autistic people and those with learning disabilities in in-patient mental health settings, including robust action by the CQC, work on our new cross-government “building the right support” delivery board, and reform of the Mental Health Act. I would be very glad to meet the noble Baroness and her colleagues to discuss these and other measures in more detail.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I declare my interests as set out in the register. My Lords, Ministers rightly come to these Chambers and praise NHS staff for all they have done throughout the pandemic, yet a third of NHS staff are considering leaving their job. Vacancies are endemic and, to top that, we have a looming summer crisis. For an average nurse, 3% is equivalent to £15.40 a week. Inflation removes £11.58 of that; so, for all the Minister’s kind words, in real terms that is a pay rise of £3.82 a week, or 55p a day, and less than half of that for a newly qualified nurse. Does the Minister think this is fair, and what does he think the nurses should do with their 55p a day?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am also enormously grateful for the contribution of NHS staff at all levels and from all parts of the United Kingdom. This pay settlement is based on the recommendations of the pay review body. We said that that was the mechanism we would follow, and we are following it; in that respect, we are doing what we said we would. I reassure the House that recruitment to the NHS is extremely strong. We are hitting our targets on the recruitment of 50,000 nurses and our targets for GP trainees and in other parts of the NHS.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s offer to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to discuss her devastating report. We should be ashamed to see the way some of our people with learning disabilities and our autistic young people have been treated. I would like to know whether the Government’s action plan can give some realistic dates on when there is likely to be proper service and support given within local communities and within homes that should be created for them.
Secondly, on Covid generally, I have been double-jabbed with Pfizer, so it is unlikely that I will go into hospital, but I have Covid. I would like to pick up on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—what are the figures for the number of people who have had their vaccinations but are now starting to suffer from Covid? This is not flu; it is quite different from flu. You get the jab for the flu and you stay clear of it. With this, you get the jabs but you can get it just the same—and I have been suffering. Why are the Government giving mixed messages that people are now going back to normal? This is just not the case. We are sending out mixed messages and giving the impression that we have this “freedom day”. Yes, there will be freedom, but there will be freedom to spread on a scale that we have not experienced latterly. So I hope the Government will be cautious with the mixed messages they have been issuing and they will underline that having the double jab does not necessarily mean that people are clear of catching the disease.
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
The noble Lord has my profound commiserations. It is an extremely tough and nasty disease, as he rightly points out. Even for those who have had two jabs, if they get the disease it can still be a really horrible experience, which he has at this moment.
He is not quite right, though, on the mixed messages. We have been crystal clear from the very beginning, even before the first vaccine arrived, that the vaccination was not going to be a panacea in itself. It will not prevent all people from getting all Covid diseases for all time, immediately. These things are incremental. The societal impact of the vaccine is to drive down the infection rate to the point that R is below one; that is the objective. But, in the meantime, those who have had the vaccine not only remain infectious but can be heavily symptomatic, and I am very sorry for the position he is in. Incidentally, that is also true of the flu vaccine; it is not a 100% vaccine, but it does an enormous amount to break the chain of transmission and to reduce the spread of flu on exactly the same basis.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, if more people anxious to show their support for our magnificent NHS staff would see being vaccinated and wearing masks in crowded places as a smart move on their own part, would they not also see it, crucially, as sending a signal of support to all those in the NHS?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend hits the nail on the head. Not only is getting vaccinated and wearing a mask in the right settings a sign of support for NHS staff, it is a sign of support for the whole of society. We depend on each other during this pandemic. When someone catches the disease asymptomatically and spreads it to someone else, they hurt all of us. We all have to be careful to take our tests when we are going into a position of risk, to wear our masks when we are close together and, of course, now that the vaccine is available to all over 18 year-olds, to ensure that all the people we can persuade have taken two jabs.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has on more than one occasion in the last few minutes been asked about the position of care workers. They have been totally left out of the pay settlement. They are working on extremely low wages. Does the Minister not agree that something must be done to help care workers, whether in domiciliary care or in care homes, to have a decent wage and not be treated as the country cousins in this whole thing?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
The noble Lord is right: we are concerned about the pay, conditions, career prospects and retention of care workers. I have spoken about this in detail in debates on social care, and I share the sentiments of the noble Lord. When we come to social care reform, the correct provisions for social care workers will form an intrinsic part of those reforms. I do not wish to be obtuse, but this is about the NHS. The NHS is a direct employment body, whereas social care has a different employment system and is therefore not covered by this particular settlement.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, while I am sure that we appreciate the work done by NHS staff, I remind noble Lords that it was NHS staff in the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford who put a “Do not resuscitate” notice on my good friend Caroline Jackson’s bed without her knowledge—she found out about it only much later. I have asked the Minister about this. The last Written Answer I got said that a report would be produced “in due course”. Can the Minister ensure that these notices are rigorously reviewed before they are put on people’s beds and certainly not, as in the case of Mrs Jackson, put on the bed without her or her husband or anyone close to her knowing that it had been put there? Not all NHS staff are perfect.
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
As my noble friend will know, I know Dr Jackson extremely well from the old days and heard her story with great regret. I took the story back to the department and played it into the system, as I told him I would do. A report is being drafted and I can reassure my noble friend that it is being taken seriously. The clarification of guidelines has been sent to all wards and there has been additional training for staff put in the position of needing to consider and engage with loved ones on this issue. However, may I push back against my noble friend? It is not right to try to generalise about staff on this point. I have the highest regard for NHS staff. In the very large majority of cases, they have worked extremely well in difficult circumstances in these situations and they are owed our respect for that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister made that point very well. I declare an interest as a member of the board of the GMC because I want to ask him about workforce strategy. Clause 33 of the Health and Care Bill sets out a duty on the Secretary of State to publish
“at least once every five years … a report describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service”.
The Minister will be aware that a number of NHS organisations say that this is not going far enough and that what is needed is the development of regular, public, annually updated long-term workforce projections so that the health service can meet the undoubted challenges that lie ahead. Is the Minister prepared to consider this?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have heard the noble Lord on this point two or three times and he makes the argument extremely well and persuasively. As he knows, a huge budget of the NHS goes on the workforce; essentially, the NHS is a mobilised healthcare workforce. It is intrinsic to the success of the NHS that we manage our workforce correctly. There are substantial workforce transformation programmes in place at the moment, including the People Plan, and a huge recruitment drive is going on, including the creation of a much clearer employer brand, which has landed very well among the workforce generally. However, I take the noble Lord’s point. I am not the workforce Minister but I will take it back to my colleague Helen Whateley in the department and ask her for her consideration.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend, who deserves a real holiday, will accept that it would have been far better and more honest had the pay award been made in an Oral rather than a Written Statement. We all send our warm wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for a speedy recovery. However, does not his story underline the need for clarity in Oral Statements? I put to my noble friend last week the idea of statements in all the newspapers which would be clear, cohesive and coherent. Is that idea still being followed up, as he promised it would be?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have followed it up. We have invested a huge amount in our statements. This takes up a large bandwidth for our broadcasters and of the advertising budget of the Cabinet Office and the department—we could not have spent any more money on advertising than we have done to try to get our messages across. However, some of these messages are difficult to understand and sometimes difficult to accept. We all wish that the vaccine was as clear-cut and emphatic as are the vaccines for polio or the other blockbuster vaccines. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, just described, and as poor old Sajid Javid is currently feeling, two jabs do not guarantee that you will not be infected and infectious. However, neither of them is in hospital and neither of them is suffering from severe disease. The message is nuanced: the vaccines work, will reduce transmission and will help us to get this country out of the disease, but people will still have to proceed with caution, isolate when they are in contact with those with the disease and protect themselves from transmission with masks and social distancing.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to each and every one in the House for their care and attention these past difficult months. To echo the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I, too, have been messaged on hundreds of occasions over the last few months on the issue of DNR, on which I will ask a question. In the light of the reports of 39,000 deaths in care homes and the fact that 59% of all those who perished had a disability or autism, when will the Government commence the national inquiry so that those who lost their loved ones can be reassured that no deaths occurred unnecessarily due to government policy decisions and lack of proper and adequate safeguards for all residents in care homes and their well-being and that DNR was not applied disproportionately to people with disability and autism without sufficient oversight, given the incredible pressures on the NHS during these months?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My Lords, we will be accountable for the use of DNR and it is right that the noble Baroness’s specific question should be asked: were any groups disproportionately at the wrong end of this? She is right to ask the question. I cannot give her a precise date for the inquiry, but I have given absolutely cast-iron reassurances that it will happen. I am very tired, as is everyone else, and the thought of starting an inquiry today while preparing for the winter is not one that will help our productivity or help to save lives in the difficult time that we have ahead. The right time for the inquiry is probably when the pandemic is truly behind us.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the NHS is highly regarded by most people because it is available to all for free. But, as the Statement rightly recognises, despite record investment, it faces major challenges. In particular, survival rates for many cancers trail those in comparable countries. How do we secure the necessary improvements in the NHS, especially at a time when it faces record waiting times?
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
My noble friend gives me an opportunity to raise one of my main ambitions for the health service, which is clearly outlined in the life sciences vision. She is right: we catch too much cancer at stage 3 or 4, when there is sometimes not much that we can do, and anything that we do will be very expensive and make only marginal differences. That is not the same in all countries and it is not good enough in this country. That is why we need to invest in diagnostics and preventive medicine. We need to reweight our health system away from clinical interventions on lumps and bumps at a very late stage. We need to interact with patients at a much earlier stage of their disease. Only in that way will we be able to afford the healthcare system that this country deserves and to give people longer, better lives.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, as we have reached 2 pm there is no need to adjourn the House, but I will arrange a short pause to allow the relevant people to be in their places for the next item.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. The time limit for the next debate is three hours. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top.
Covid-19 (Public Services Committee Report)
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
That this House takes note of the Report from the Public Services Committee A critical juncture for public services: lessons from COVID-19 (1st Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 167).
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the report is the Public Services Committee’s first. The committee was established in February 2020 and is the first in this House to hold the Government to account on a range of issues that cut across public services and on policy areas that are the responsibility of multiple departments and so, too often, are the priority of none. It is a Standing Committee, so will continue to work for many years, I hope. I have the enormous privilege of being the first chair and am working with an outstanding group of Members from across the House, who have all worked with energy, commitment and challenge throughout. We have also been served by similarly outstanding officials, and I want to say thank you to all involved.
The establishment of the committee coincided with Covid-19 and it soon became clear that the pandemic was the most testing experience that our public service model had faced for several generations. It would reveal its strengths and weaknesses, and would be an opportunity, some might say a critical juncture, for reform. This became the focus of our first report.
We heard from 165 organisations and individuals, and I am enormously grateful to them. Unfortunately, no government Minister found it appropriate to come and talk to the committee. However, much of what we heard has informed our follow-up work on commissioning and data sharing, as well as our current inquiry on child vulnerability. How public services are organised, how they are funded and how effectively that funding is spent, how different services work together and, most importantly, how services are experienced by the people and communities that use and need them are the priorities for the committee.
Covid-19 has been a national tragedy for the United Kingdom. We have lost more than 130,000 people to the virus and Covid-related pressures have pushed many families to crisis point. After 18 months of tireless service, our front-line workers are exhausted and their well-being is at an all-time low.
However, the inquiry also gave us cause for hope. Amid all this despair were incredible innovation and civic action, often at local level, to support communities to stay resilient under unprecedented pressure. Decisions that before the pandemic took months or even years were made in minutes. National government worked with councils to accommodate 15,000 rough sleepers. Many of those had access to addiction and mental health services for the first time.
We were inspired by the surge in voluntary action: there are now more than 4,000 mutual aid groups across the UK. Innovative local authorities played a key role in co-ordinating volunteers to support hard-to-reach groups. For example, Agatha Anywio, 76 years old from London, relied on her local Age UK group to support her during the first lockdown. A few weeks ago the committee heard from her again. She told us that she was still getting support from the local voluntary sector to connect her to her local community. Age UK even organises two virtual exercise classes a week, which she participates in and loves.
We also saw how digital technology was used more widely and more successfully than ever before. Changing Lives, a charity working with vulnerable adults, moved many of its addiction recovery services online during the pandemic. This gave service users greater flexibility and responsibility. They were not given daily scripts by the NHS, but weekly ones instead. This meant that they were more empowered. It was risky, but, actually, it resulted in increased engagement with services, a reduction in the relapse rate and, ultimately, fewer drug- related deaths.
However, while these innovations are impressive, unless government acts urgently to lock in such changes, this good work will be lost, and we heard evidence that this is already happening. Shay Flaherty is recovering from addiction and now volunteers in Birmingham with the charity Revolving Doors. At a follow-up evidence session last month, he warned us that much of the good work with rough sleepers during the early stages of the pandemic had already been undermined. He said that, once people had been moved out of temporary accommodation, their point of contact with mental health and addiction workers was often lost. Many have relapsed and returned to the streets.
Moreover, Covid-19 revealed how innovation and community resilience are too often undermined by fundamental weaknesses in the way we deliver public services in this country. Going into the crisis, the national Government too often did not take local expertise seriously. This played out with disastrous consequences. Jessica Studdert, who is the deputy chief executive of the New Local Government Network, told us that, during Covid’s early stages, too many local authorities did not get the information that they needed from the NHS about shielded groups, even though it was the local authorities’ responsibility to deliver food and essential supplies.
We found that our poorest communities went into the pandemic with incredibly low levels of resilience. Witnesses told us that the funding of preventive and early intervention services had not been a priority in the years preceding Covid-19. This had placed greater pressures on the NHS and increased costs to the state through poorer education, employment and justice outcomes for the most vulnerable.
Sir Michael Marmot reported to the committee that cuts to local authorities’ public health grants had fallen disproportionately on the most deprived areas. Since 2014, England as a whole has seen a cut in public health budgets of £13.20 per person: in the Midlands, it was £16.70 per person; in the north, it was £15.20; and the north-east has been worst affected, with cuts of £23.24 per person in the public health budget. Witnesses told us that the upshot of those cuts was that obesity and associated diseases such as diabetes were concentrated in our very poorest communities and among our most marginalised groups. That made them extra vulnerable.
Covid-19 mortality rates in the most deprived areas were almost twice as high as those in the least deprived. Diabetes was mentioned on 21% of death certificates where Covid was also mentioned. The proportion was 43% among Asian people and 45% among black people. It was higher in all BAME groups than in the white British population.
Pre-existing inequalities have only deepened during the last 18 months. Sir Kevan Collins, who resigned as a government adviser over school catch-up funding, recently told the committee that disadvantaged children had fallen even further behind their better-off peers as a result of lost school time. His resignation should be a wake-up call to the Government that such disparities cannot be left unaddressed.
The pandemic influenced innovative local areas to break down long-standing barriers between the NHS, local authorities and other services, but in much of the country we found that collaboration between agencies was wanting. Many did not share crucial data on people’s needs. During the crisis, the lack of integration and parity of esteem between health and care saw patients discharged from hospitals into care settings without testing, resulting—we believe—in thousands of unnecessary deaths. The proposals in the Future of Health and Care White Paper and the subsequent legislation to strengthen co-ordination between the two services are welcome and necessary. True integration will depend on delivering real parity of esteem between the NHS and social care. It is deeply disappointing that the legislation to put adult social care on a secure financial footing has been delayed yet again—until, we are now told, later this year. Can the Government confirm whether the forthcoming legislation will include proposals for the reform and integration of social care, alongside any new funding settlement, to increase the resilience of the sector?
To address fundamental weaknesses in public services, strengthen the resilience of our communities to future crises and ensure that the innovations from the pandemic are not lost, the committee called for a national programme of reform. In carrying out this essential task, we asked that the Government should be guided by eight key principles. These included the Government and public service providers recognising the vital role of preventive services and early intervention.
In its response to the report, the Government said that they were committed to levelling up life expectancy. They have not yet set out how they will invest in preventive services in order to meet their 2019 general election manifesto commitment to extend healthy life expectancy by 2035, and to narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest. Health prevention and early intervention in education were not a focus of the March 2021 Budget. To date, levelling-up announcements have largely focused on physical infrastructure and skills. How will the Government address this in the forthcoming spending review? The role of charities, community groups, volunteers and the private sector as key public service providers must also be recognised. They must be given appropriate support and encouragement.
Witnesses told us that the procurement guidance, introduced by the Cabinet Office in response to the pandemic, granted local public service commissioners greater flexibility to award long-term funding and contracts based on social value, rather than just the lowest cost. We were disappointed that the Transforming Public Procurement Green Paper failed to embed those flexibilities. It did not differentiate between the commercial purchasing of goods from the private sector and the commissioning of services for people, whether delivered by the voluntary sector or by other organisations to meet the needs of the local community. In recent letters to the Government, we have urged them to work with the voluntary sector and with commissioning experts to ensure that the procurement Bill promotes social value and delivers long-term funding agreements for charities delivering services. Can the Minister update us on progress in engaging the voluntary sector on this issue?
Another principle is that public services require a fundamentally different, vastly more flexible approach to data sharing. The Information Commissioner wrote to us as part of our current inquiry on children’s vulnerability. In her letter, she acknowledged that the current threshold for sharing data on children was too high and that her office would be working with the Department for Education to update its data-sharing guidance. Can the Minister tell us how this important work is progressing?
We argue that integrating services to meet the diverse needs of individuals and communities is best achieved by public service providers working together at local level. This should be supported by joined-up working across government departments at national level. I welcome the establishment of a Cabinet committee. Will the Minister set out how this committee will co-ordinate government activity to improve data sharing and integration? Local services and front-line workers must be given the resources and autonomy to improve, and innovate in, the delivery of services. How will the Government use the forthcoming levelling-up and devolution White Papers to achieve this?
People themselves are best placed to understand how services should meet their needs, strengthen their resilience and support them to thrive. I am running out of time, so I cannot go into this in detail. It is critical that the government strategy for public service reform takes this as its core in the months and years ahead. If people and places are to be resilient in the face of future crises, services must have political and financial support, as well as autonomy, to be truly preventive and integrated around the needs of their local area and people. They must have the places and the people they serve at their heart. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. First, I congratulate the committee on its report and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for her introduction. She is absolutely right in calling for us to learn the lessons of how public services have been delivered—or, indeed, not delivered—during the pandemic. She also talked about the importance of resilience and of engagement with people and communities. I subscribe to everything that she said.
As the title of the report says, this is a critical juncture for public services. The committee was right to use those words. It is urgent that we learn the lessons of the Covid pandemic. It brings into stark relief the delay in this report reaching the Floor of the House for debate. It was published in November 2020. The Government replied three months later, but it has taken a further five months for this House to hold a debate. Can the Minister explain why there has been such a delay?
I want to make one crucial point this afternoon, and it is this: you cannot run England out of London. The Government’s replies to paragraphs 117, 139, 140 and 141 of the report, on the need for decentralisation and local integration of services, are, frankly, inadequate. I submit that it is not enough to promise a White Paper “in due course” based on directly elected combined authority mayors and regional partnerships such as the Midlands Engine and the Northern Powerhouse. This leaves out counties, public health structures and local government generally. It does not address the need for a single, unified health and social care service and for greater investment in prevention, which could in turn save public money, as the report makes clear.
Crucially, and as the report also makes clear, we cannot continue with a system of overcentralised delivery of public services, poor communication from the centre and a tendency for service providers to work in silos. This, my Lords, is a hub and spoke model, so beloved of bureaucracies, which promotes silo working rather than service integration. As the committee has pointed out, local authorities often receive divergent messages from different government departments. As worrying was the need for local areas to interpret public announcements by the Government without prior consultation.
I said earlier that you cannot run England out of London. We do not try to run Scotland like that, nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland, so why, for example, do we run Yorkshire like that? The argument the Government have used has been that decisions have had to be made quickly. Of course they have, but that is no excuse for national attempts at recruiting volunteers not being aligned with locally co-ordinated responses, nor for national public health executive agencies not using local public health resources effectively, nor for the expertise of local authority contact-tracing teams being unused in the design of test and trace. These are fundamental matters. It is vital that local areas are seen as partners with far greater decision-making powers.
Very wisely, the committee, on page 14, described the German public health system, which has local and regional governance structures with 375 local health offices empowered to make decisions. We could learn much from them, and I hope we will.
I want to raise a final issue, which relates to schools and which the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, mentioned. The Prime Minister appointed an adviser, Sir Kevan Collins, as education recovery commissioner. He produced a report, supported, it seems, by the Prime Minister, calling for substantial funding over three years to assist pupils who had lost school time, but the Treasury refused to fund it. Just £1.4 billion was allocated for one year—about a 10th of the money asked for, albeit over three years. The commissioner resigned. This is not joined-up government.
Covid has exposed serious flaws in our systems of government. I hope this is understood by the Minister and his colleagues, because they have the power to drive the change we need.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I begin with a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, who chaired our committee with tact and skill. Her professional background in social work has been a real advantage, not just in putting witnesses at ease but in managing any neuroses from committee members. We were well-served by our clerk, Tristan Stubbs, our policy analyst, Mark Hudson, and our operations officer, Claire Coast-Smith, who navigated the virtual network between us and our witnesses.
We are a collegiate committee with a broad range of relevant expertise, and our discussions have been non-partisan and good humoured. Thanks to Zoom, I am now familiar with my colleagues’ tastes in literature, paintings, casual dress and light refreshment. In our report, we mentioned what went well during the pandemic—often overlooked by the commentariat: the success of DWP in coping with a huge number of claimants for universal credit, and introducing the £20 supplement; the Treasury’s furlough scheme and wider support for business; and, of course, the stunning success of vaccine procurement and distribution. But we also identified a number of structural problems, some touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley: over-centralisation, departmental silos, underinvestment in preventive measures and ill-preparedness for emergencies, themes that are recurring in our current inquiries.
I want to focus on the lessons to be learned from the three countries from which we took evidence: New Zealand, Taiwan and Germany. They are all different, but they are grappling with identical viruses with the same range of policy options and the same information about the disease.
I have three points to make about New Zealand. First, like Great Britain, it is an island—or, rather, two islands—but unlike us it challenged the early WHO advice that border restrictions were unnecessary, and in retrospect it was absolutely right.
Secondly, to deal with departmental silos, it has just set up interdepartmental boards, which they call joint ventures. We were told that
“all the interesting and difficult public policy issues are on the interface”,
by which was meant that they cross departmental boundaries. Here, NHS Health and local authority social care spring to mind. The joint ventures bid direct to the treasury for funds and a cabinet Minister is in charge, but instead of a permanent secretary, a board of the relevant permanent secretaries delivers the policy. My noble friend might like to ask the Cabinet Office to keep in touch with New Zealand on this, as it is often ahead of the game in the development of public policy
Thirdly, public confidence in the Government rose as the pandemic progressed, whereas the opposite has happened here. We did not press too hard for the reasons—again, the Government might want to pursue that further—but it was ascribed to firm leadership, a strong culture of co-operation and robust dealing with fake news.
Taiwan’s approach avoided lockdown entirely and last year it recorded record GDP growth, but its experience may not be entirely representative as it had the background of coping with SARS and a tradition of wearing masks, which was described to us as the equivalent of a vaccine.
Its equivalent of Eat Out to Help Out was more broadly based, focused on retail spending rather than just spending in restaurants, and those on low incomes were included, receiving vouchers worth about £80, whereas our scheme was much narrower and arguably regressive. Ninety-eight per cent of the population in Taiwan participated, and you got a bonus if the money was spent out of doors.
I turn finally to Germany, with its federal structure, where health and education is devolved to the Länder, which managed most of the Covid response. Perhaps the most remarkable contrast was on health spending, where there are no government-imposed cash limits, as insurance picks up the tab. I quote verbatim what we were told:
“There is no room for refusing somebody an operation that he needs or a pharmaceutical drug that she needs for financial reasons … There is no place in the German health system for refusing money because somebody is 90 years old and has a life expectancy of only seven more years. In that case … if it does not medically kill them and they can stand the operation—then go for it and the finance system has to follow that.”
That, of course, has wide ramifications for how we fund the NHS, but against the current background, I thought it worth mentioning.
I make one final point on Germany. The local authorities there all have equal powers. Our witness, John Kampfner, told us:
“It is one thing to advocate the devolution of powers within England to local authorities; it is quite another to be able to deliver that within the patchwork quilt of local government that we have at the moment, which in my view is really not fit for purpose to deal with a crisis like this, as distinct from what exists in Germany.”
Clearly, it is easier to manage devolution if the bodies you are devolving to have equal powers. At the end of the session on Germany, we asked for a key message. “Plan for the future and build in some slack”, was the reply.
I hope the Minister in response to our debate will recognise that the present system of running the country is capable of improvement—without wholly adopting the Cummings agenda of hard rain—and can tell us that the Government have an open mind on some of the radical implications of our report.
Lord Bichard (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a member of the committee I welcome this debate, partly because it gives me an opportunity to warmly thank both the noble Baroness for the way in which she has chaired the committee and the staff for the quite exceptional way in which they have supported us.
Some of us have spent many happy hours down the years talking to empty rooms about the need to reform government, not because we long for some bureaucratic nirvana but because we were convinced that without reform some of the most disadvantaged people in our society would continue to experience poor, difficult-to-access services, and we as a nation would continue to waste scarce public money. So I was pleased that for its first report the committee chose to look at what the pandemic could teach us about our public services, and I was not surprised that it concluded that there was now an overwhelming case for reform, notwithstanding the outstanding commitment of so many of our public servants. That view seems now to be shared by the Government themselves because in their own Declaration on Government Reform, published just a few weeks ago, they accepted that the pandemic
“has … exposed shortcomings in how government works.”
I hope the Government will now revisit the committee’s recommendations, particularly the eight principles of reform that the chair referred to earlier.
For today, I shall focus on four of those principles which, surprisingly, the declaration of reform barely mentions. The first, as has been said, is the need to prioritise prevention and early intervention. Our system of government is designed to respond to problems rather than prevent them, and the pandemic has demonstrated how short-sighted that can be. Covid hit hardest those with preventable disease, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, living in poorer communities. It is not just in the field of health that we need to prioritise prevention. Our prisons are full of people who have been failed by the education system, whose mental health problems have never been addressed and whose addictions have been left untreated. We are now seeing the cost of responding too slowly to the impact of climate change, measured in terms of the human misery caused by flooding and pollution. Any credible vision for the future and the reform of government has to prioritise a shift from response to prevention.
It also needs to tackle the issue of sharing data. The declaration of reform mentions data only as a way of enhancing the accountability of services. While that is important, the committee found countless—and I mean countless—examples of how the failure to share data between services has stood in the way of improving those services and providing essential services. We were told that schools are often not aware that a pupil is receiving support from social services, GPs are not told that a family is involved in a child protection process and criminal gangs are able to exploit teenagers in county lines because of the failure to share information between the police, children’s social care and health. We found some excellent examples of how, during the pandemic, services had found new ways of sharing data—usually at the local level—to benefit clients, but in a governance system that is now so fragmented we have to find better permanent ways to share information across bureaucratic boundaries if we are ever to reform government.
As the chair has said, the committee also saw many great examples of how charities, community groups, volunteers and the private sector had delivered essential services, often supported by their local councils. These non-statutory services, not for the first time, showed how they could respond quickly, how they could innovate and make services more accessible and how they were more trusted than traditional providers. To be fair, we saw many examples of how statutory services had helped them by introducing new flexibilities, not least in the way in which services were commissioned. Again, though, our concern was that these changes would not survive the return to normality. We felt strongly that the new normal should be about services for public good being provided by a coalition of providers, some statutory, some voluntary, with those in the voluntary sector being given real parity of esteem as professionals in their own right.
Lastly, the committee became persuaded that, in future, public services should be designed and delivered with a great deal more user involvement. We heard how the failure to do that in the past had resulted in services being provided in the wrong place, at the wrong time and in the wrong way. Civil servants and local officials need to find new ways to involve citizens and users, children included, not via ever more sophisticated consultations but by way of genuine co-design and co-production. That is especially important if the inequality of access experienced by minority groups is to be tackled.
The pandemic exposed serious flaws—we need to be honest about that—but the innovative response from so many points us to how we should change by creating a system where public services are more devolved, co-designed with users, focused on prevention, delivered through diverse providers and better at working in partnership and sharing data. That should be our future.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
I declare my interest as a Cumbria county councillor.
This report from our Public Services Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Armstrong, is one of the best things that I have ever read on the reform of public services. It sets out an ambitious agenda, drawing on the lessons of the Covid crisis and international experience. It shows what a cross-party consideration of these issues can achieve and how a remarkable degree of consensus on principles for reform can be established.
However, I am afraid my question is whether our politics is up to the challenge. We saw a very weak response from the Government to this report, both in their refusal to engage in the work of the committee and in their very weak response. The response popularised by the Government is the so-called levelling-up agenda, but we saw in the recent Prime Minister’s speech how empty that is. When you come out with a proposal for a £10 million plan for dealing with chewing gum on the streets, that shows that you do not really have sensible principles for reform in your head. It seems to be a splash of central government paint to cover up fundamental cracks in our society.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his condemnation of overcentralisation. Not only is that a very inefficient way of trying to tackle deprivation and complex problems of poverty at local level but it is, frankly, quasi-corrupt; it is getting near to pork-barrel politics, and that is not where we should be going.
We need fundamental reform in governance and funding. At present, the Government are levelling down, not levelling up: the proposal to withdraw the universal credit supplement will plunge many poor families further into poverty; the rejection of Sir Kevan Collins’s plan for educational catch-up was a very bad sign; and, despite all the talk, there is still no long-term funding solution for the NHS and social care.
Yet the present moment is an ideal time for a Government to make difficult tax and spending choices. Everyone is aware of the cracks exposed in public services, but at the moment we are seeing the Government allowing a manifesto commitment that they made on taxes to trump the lessons of Covid—and of course that commitment came well before the Covid crisis. The point about manifesto commitments applies equally to my own party: some in my party want to elevate the 2019 manifesto to semi-sacred status, but really we should be looking at the lessons of the Covid crisis and developing policies for public services along the lines of the committee’s report.
It is not enough to simply say, “Let’s spend more money”; we also have to have a credible agenda for reform. On reform of the NHS, we have to recognise that, despite its achievements, the NHS has failed so far to provide an equal opportunity for people to live a healthy and full life, and the emphasis has got to shift to prevention. In education, we have got to recognise that there are many problems of deprivation leading to poor educational opportunities and schools where standards need to be raised.
We know that people in public services work very hard, but they often work in silos. We have to be prepared to use the charity and the voluntary sectors and even, at times, the private sector, which we must see not as an enemy but as a potential partner. We have got to avoid hidebound, bureaucratic approaches that lead to inadequate data sharing, as we have heard.
We need an ambitious agenda of public service reform. I hope that a Labour Government would be prepared to follow the principles of this committee report, which are so sensible and so wise. I thoroughly commend the committee on its work.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests recorded in the register as a member of Kirklees council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As a member of the Select Committee, I too wish to praise the leadership of the committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong.
My abiding memory from the witnesses who gave oral evidence to the committee was of the dedication of all those involved in providing public services. Service providers rose to the multiple challenges posed by the pandemic and overwhelmingly put first the needs of the people they served. As we know, some of them literally gave their all. I pay tribute to all those in public service for their heroic actions during this continuing pandemic.
As we have already heard, this is a wide-ranging report and I wish to focus my comments on the response of services provided by local government. What struck me most in listening to the witnesses was that staff were energised by the challenge of continuing to provide services in a different way. They were almost always motivated to continue providing the best services they could and determined to find ways round the barriers rather than be intimidated by them. The result, we heard, was that innovative practices were introduced. Some were the result of government initiatives and funding. As we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, 15,000 rough sleepers were rehoused in hotel accommodation very quickly thanks to a government grant and local government action. This was a significant success and one that had other benefits for homeless people.
Innovations were also sparked by practitioners from different services and organisations, such as NHS community services and local government social care working more closely together and with local and national charities and voluntary groups. They described how they felt empowered by the challenges of the pandemic to pay less heed to existing service guidance and just find a better way of doing their job.
One of the examples in the report is of social care and the NHS in the Leicestershire area establishing what they call their “care home cell” to ensure co-ordination. That is an example of dependence on already very good working relationships across the organisations. The importance of effective personal relationships was repeated by other witnesses.
It was also vital in another strong theme that emerged: the importance of local, place-based services. Time and again we heard evidence about topdown control being less effective than local solutions. For instance, as someone in the Local Government Association described it:
“Guidance came out in dribs and drabs. One of my [local authority] colleagues said it was like trying to construct a piece of Ikea furniture with a piece missing and the instructions being posted daily in bits and pieces.”
Another example of topdown instruction not being as effective came from my own local authority. Early in the pandemic there was a significant outbreak in a meat processing factory in Kirklees. The central data provided was so poor that the council’s public health director asked the council’s digital service to provide the data in a more meaningful and accurate way. This was successfully achieved.
However, it was clear from the witnesses that local services of all kinds were in a fragile state following years of austerity. Age UK wrote that the pandemic had revealed the
“true extent of the impact that underfunding, structural issues and market instability have had on the system’s ability to respond”.
Local government was described as much less resilient as a result of very significant funding cuts.
One of the lessons was best described by users. They said that where providers have listened to them and then changed their practice as result, their needs were much more effectively met and there was a reduction in duplication. This co-production—codesign— was much the best way forward for users who gave evidence.
This is a valuable report; I have touched on just a small part of its deliberations and conclusions but to me the lessons are clear. First, we should reduce central control and have much more local, place-based definition of service provision. Secondly, we should enable coproductions to flourish. Thirdly, we should recognise the enormous contribution of people and personal relationships in innovating and overcoming adversity, and value those people. Finally, underfunding services on which our society relies cannot continue if care for the more vulnerable among us is important to society as a whole. The challenge for the Government is how these vital lessons are to be at the forefront of their thinking and funding decisions. I hope the Minister will explain how the Government intend to respond to these very significant challenges.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and remind noble Lords that the time limit for speeches is six minutes.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock and to speak this afternoon as a member of the Public Services Committee on the first report of the committee. This was a very revealing inquiry prompted by the unfortunate and unexpected arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic.
I pay tribute to the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and the committee staff who worked under extreme pressure, frequently producing documents and suchlike at very short notice. I also pay tribute to my fellow committee members whose depth of knowledge and diversity of life experience made this inquiry so interesting and worth while. This was the first inquiry that I had been party to since joining your Lordships’ House, and I found it quite thought-provoking.
I say that it was a revealing inquiry because it highlighted areas of government that hitherto had been accepted as perhaps good working practice or, at the very least, accepted as the norm, with no real incentive for change. The Covid pandemic certainly put many of these previously accepted practices to the test, and they were found wanting when the chips were down. The report identifies many of these, a recurring theme being that of data sharing and, as it says clearly and is very well evidenced, Covid-19 has highlighted the inadequate data sharing between national agencies and local services.
As can be seen, we identified a number of conclusions and recommendations. If I were to choose an area from the inquiry that really caught my attention, it would undoubtedly be the overcentralised delivery of public services. We heard compelling evidence from a large number of witnesses identifying a clear lack of involvement at local level. In many cases they had been left in the dark as to the support that they were entitled to but denied due to confusion and a deficiency of clarity caused by a very centralised approach.
This was made abundantly clear by a number of witnesses. I too want to mention Agatha Anywio from Wandsworth, who told us of her experience in the early days of lockdown. She said that
“I had a letter from the Government telling me that I should officially shield, but nothing happened … It was about four weeks into lockdown before I was actually recognised, only because I persisted … If I had kept quiet and done nothing about it, I have a feeling that I might have been completely forgotten.”
Debra Baxter from Wigan, who is 55 years old and has cerebral palsy, told the committee that she was now a full-time wheelchair user. She said:
“My personal experience was that if it was not for the support of my daughter, who is here beside me, during lockdown I would not have been able to cope … I also felt that this pandemic, shall we say, took us all by surprise, and there were no actual structures with the social care setting to deal with emergencies like this. If it were not for my daughter and the friendly neighbours who live around me, I would struggle a great deal during lockdown.”
The impression left by front-line public service providers who gave evidence was that there was no co-ordinated communication strategy across government departments. Dr Jeanelle de Gruchy, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, told us that her colleagues from central government
“often failed to draw on local resources because they were unaware of the role played by local authority public health teams”.
She said:
“There was a really poor understanding and recognition of the role of the director of public health, the local public health system and indeed local government as a key partner in managing this pandemic”.
The Government’s response has been to recognise the importance of public services working together, saying:
“We are evaluating how Government can be more joined up for local government. The recent Spending Review outlines Government’s ‘Focus on Outcomes’ … and as part of this HM Treasury has been driving a X-Whitehall approach on outcomes, and evidencing impact and public value.”
It cannot come soon enough.
In contrast, there was a very constructive aspect of the response of government to the pandemic. I refer to the way in which the homeless were taken off the streets and found accommodation.
“The Government’s March 2020 ‘Everyone in’ initiative requested that all local authorities provide accommodation for rough sleepers in their area, often in hotels or hostels … by May 2020 a total of 14,610 people in England who were sleeping rough, or who were at risk of sleeping rough, had found emergency accommodation.”
I am bound to say that that was quite some achievement.
We heard from Revolving Doors, a truly remarkable organisation which aims to help people with substance misuse, mental health problems, domestic or sexual violence, homelessness or who have had frequent contact with police and the criminal justice system. Shay Flaherty, who I have already mentioned, a volunteer with Revolving Doors who gave evidence to the committee, is nine years into recovery from alcohol addiction and helps support homeless people in Birmingham. He was keen to tell the committee that the help the homeless were getting
“in the premises they happen to be in, whether hotels or hostels, has given them a start in life and a chance to get access to addiction services and support workers.”
He said:
“I have been amazed at how the Government and councils have managed to get the entrenched homeless off the streets … This might be the first step to getting a roof over their heads permanently.”
The important point here is that, when push comes to shove, government can be innovative. As we point out in the report,
“the Government and public services must now act to ensure that the progress made is not lost.”
Shay Flaherty told us that some innovations were being abandoned:
“Slowly but surely, the guys are coming back out on to the streets … because the accommodation is being withdrawn.”
That is disappointing, to say the least. There is no doubt that the Government’s approach to rough sleeping during the pandemic has proved what can be done by working with local authorities.
I ask—I hope—that this report will galvanise the efforts of government departments to learn from the experience of Covid-19 and acknowledge the deficiencies of a centralised government approach, in order that those less fortunate members of society may benefit. This report is worthy of recognition and of being acted upon at all levels of government. I am delighted to have been involved in the inquiry.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my non-executive membership of the Cabinet Office. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, a colleague in the police service, the House of Lords and this Select Committee.
I add my own thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for this debate and her determined and human leadership throughout the Select Committee—no easy task, given that the committee was new, the membership had not worked together and it had to be arranged virtually. I would also like to thank the clerks of the committee, who were flexible and very hard-working, for keeping the committee and the witnesses well briefed and cared for: a great achievement.
I fully endorse this report and our recommendations but wish to talk about only two issues, which were themes running through the evidence. The first is whether prevention is truly prioritised by the Government. The second is the ability of our public services to share data for the benefit of our citizens. Covid and the consequent lockdowns have brought both into sharp relief.
Nearly every public service claims that prevention of harm is its principal objective. This must be true logically; it is better that someone does not contract a disease or become a victim of crime if it can possibly be avoided. They will not suffer harm and the public service can either be allocated fewer resources in the future or—more likely—use the resources for other priorities. However, Covid showed that we did not prevent the spread of the disease and that we did not have a clear plan for how to prevent the spread of the disease.
It is also true that each public service struggles to articulate a detailed plan for how they will implement a preventive strategy. To take policing, all chief constables say they have a clear preventive strategy, but, when you ask for details of how they will do it, there is no detail. They cannot clearly indicate in their budget the resources allocated for this purpose. Yet we know that the design of products, for example cars, and places really helps reduce crime. People could not steal cars until recently because they were designed not to be stolen. Reasonable alcohol-control strategies, not allowing drug markets to get out of control, special measures to help and protect young people, and giving information to potential victims about how to avoid becoming a victim, will all have an impact. Health has a similar list.
The pandemic showed that we do not have clear and measurable preventive strategies and 10 to 20-year plans for either of these particular challenges. The UK was particularly affected by this pandemic because of obesity and diabetes making people more vulnerable to serious and sometimes fatal side-effects; both obesity and diabetes being preventable problems to some extent. So I urge the Government to take prevention seriously. It is not, as it is often portrayed, a soft, woolly subject; it is as hard-nosed a discipline as engineering, and susceptible to hard-nosed, effective measurement.
In terms of data sharing, we heard some excellent examples during the pandemic that local public service partners had found imaginative, effective and radical ways to overcome hurdles to sharing data. This was excellent news, but the question must be asked: why did they need to be so creative? Why did it take a world- wide pandemic to create the perfect circumstances for such a leap forward? The various regulators cannot understand why the public services say they cannot share data. Well, I am afraid, “They would, wouldn’t they?”
The reality is that legislation is designed generally to prevent the sharing of data: we have privacy legislation to protect our confidentiality and data protection legislation to stop the inappropriate sharing of private data held digitally. This is, of course, commendable. However, I do not think Parliament, when seeking to prevent the inappropriate sharing of private data, also intended to inhibit public services from sharing personal and mass data for the purpose of giving benefits to citizens in terms of health and security—as just two example. But this seems to have been the outcome.
At the very least, public service practitioners and leaders believe there is a problem, and there is clear evidence that poor data sharing is leading to poorer outcomes. The regulators say they will produce yet more guidance to reassure the practitioner. I believe that it is time consider legislative change to change the landscape. I propose that a statutory defence should be created for public services that share data. It is a simple “reasonableness” defence. If they share data believing it is to carry out their duties and help a citizen, they should have a full defence in law to any breach of privacy or data sharing breaches.
The pandemic has allowed public servants to take risks on our behalf in the sharing of data. However, they should not have to take those risks and, by providing a clear defence in law, the Government will reassure our public services and improve their efficiency for the collective good.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I was delighted to be appointed to the new Committee on Public Services. I knew that under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Armstrong it would be a lively experience, and I join others in paying tribute to her and the clerks who supported us so well.
Of course, when we began, we had no idea that we should be producing our first report during a pandemic, nor that that report would focus on how those public services we were investigating would react to that pandemic. I must record what a privilege it was to work with a group of such experienced, wise and committed Members, and to reach a degree of consensus which was, and is, part of the pleasure of our work together.
A Critical Juncture is the title we chose for our report, which we are debating today, recognising that Covid represented an unprecedented challenge to our public services to which they responded with innovation and commitment. The outcomes are critical in terms of lessons learned, what can be retained from such excellent outcomes, and how resilience against any further challenges can be built up.
We have had some wonderful and heart-warming examples of how services responded to the pandemic: huge upscaling of provision, rapid decision-making and the breaking down of long-standing barriers by the urgent needs of the moment, but of course the virus further disadvantaged those already left behind. Black and minority-ethnic groups and those on the margins suffered disproportionately, and the years of underfunding of preventative and early intervention services came home to roost. Poor children’s education attainment got worse and the ability of local services to understand the needs of their communities was sometimes ignored in favour of some overcentralised and needlessly bureaucratic national service provision.
Lessons must be learned if we are to reap the benefits we have gained and not slip back to old ways as soon as the pandemic is over. Nowhere is this more important than in the issue of co-production, already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, where the users of services are involved in their design and planning and treated as equal partners. Our witnesses emphasised that this approach could have helped to predict and short-circuit some of the problems that came up. On the rough sleepers initiative, already mentioned by some of my colleagues, that separate sleeping accommodation was required by male and female rough sleepers would not have been a sudden surprise to providers if they had talked to rough sleepers before they set up a service which did not provide it, wasting time, money and good will. We must remember that most users when consulted—and I mean really consulted, not presented with a plan once it has been agreed—do not ask for the moon, as many providers think they do; on the contrary, their asks will usually be modest and far less than expected. If more services adopted this approach, it would be possible to maintain some if not all the innovation we saw over Covid. We must never undervalue the lived experience of users and customers—that is a very important lesson.
This lesson must be learned by public services, and they must similarly hear that the way really to engage with their consumers is most likely to be not through statutory service providers but through the voluntary and community sector. If you are single mother with addiction problems, you do not want to talk to your social worker for fear that you will lose your children, but through a local support group where you meet other mums in the same situation, share your fears and get advice and, above all, support; you will learn to deal with your difficulties, gain in confidence and become a reliable mother to your children. Time and again, we had examples of these experiences, but time and again too, we heard charities and community groups say that were treated like poor relations, did not have a seat at the table and were patronised and talked down to. Many of those barriers were broken down due to the simple urgency of the situation. The speed of acting may be much easier for a charity or community group, and many were able to mobilise services quickly without going through the various procedures and permissions which are inevitable in the statutory sector. We must commend the courage and willingness to take risks which was shown not only by staff and volunteers in charities but by their trustee boards. Often thought to be resistant to risk taking, they stepped up magnificently to support innovation and speed of delivery. The better relationships and increased respect which were gained in the pandemic must not be allowed to slip away. Not only will it provide more satisfactory services, meeting the needs of users rather than the notions of providers, but it will often save money too.
I hope the Minister will be able to confirm the value the Government place on the voluntary sector and their willingness to support it, not only in terms of funding but in ensuring that both the sector and the users on whose behalf it advocates are treated as equal partners in the provision of services, and in ensuring that the voice of users is strong and influential whenever public services are planned.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, it has been a pleasure and a privilege to serve on the Public Services Committee under the exemplary leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. I too thank our excellent committee staff.
Our first inquiry offered a unique opportunity to examine the state of public services in response to the pandemic, to acknowledge the positives, the amazing innovations to meet the Covid challenges and the incredible dedication of front-line workers, and to identify what needs to change as part of a major programme of public service transformation.
As we have already heard, the committee identified a number of fundamental weaknesses which must be addressed to make services resilient enough to withstand future crises. These included insufficient support for prevention and early intervention, overcentralised delivery of public services, poor communication from the centre, a tendency for service providers to work in silos and a lack of integration, especially in services working with vulnerable children and between health and social care. None of this is new—indeed, it will be depressingly familiar to many in your Lordships’ House—so why has it proved so difficult to move the dial: inertia, lack of political will or not?
As we have heard, the committee identified a number of key principles for public service reform which will require a fundamentally different mindset. I highlight just three: first, the vital role of preventive services in reducing the deep inequalities that have been exacerbated by Covid; secondly, central government and national service providers radically improving how they communicate and co-operate with local-level service providers; and, thirdly, the much-needed integration of services—the joining up of the silos—which is best achieved by public service providers working together, certainly at the local level but, critically, supported by joined-up working across government departments at the national level.
Other noble Lords have already highlighted the importance of preventive action. One of the report’s key recommendations was that an approach to public health that focused on preventing health inequalities would pay real dividends by increasing the resilience of communities and reducing the pressure on the NHS when a crisis occurred. The committee heard that many deaths from Covid could have been avoided if preventive public health services had been better funded. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Government have not committed to publishing a public health strategy to reduce health inequalities to fulfil their 2019 general election manifesto commitment to
“extend healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035”.
I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister when the Government intend to set out their plans for doing this. What assurances can he give that the Health and Care Bill will place clear duties on integrated care boards to reduce health inequalities, with sharp lines of accountability?
On the lack of integration between health and social care, our conclusions were stark. They were that
“the Government’s own pandemic planning … identified that social care would need significant support during the outbreak of a disease like COVID-19, yet social care was the poor relation to the NHS when it came to funding”
and allocation of PPE during the first lockdown. Discharging people from hospitals into care settings without testing and with inadequate PPE led to the tragic loss of the lives of thousands of older and disabled people. Our evidence suggested that the failures in adult care resulted from insufficient planning coupled with years of underfunding. The Nuffield Trust told us that although the Government’s 2016 pandemic planning exercise, Exercise Cygnus, had shown that care homes and domiciliary care
“would be in need of significant support in a pandemic”,
no advance arrangements were put in place to meet those needs. It concluded that integration between health and social care hinged on reform in three key areas: first, parity of resources; secondly, equal visibility and priority in policy-making, and, thirdly, commitment to better data collection and sharing. These things lie at the very heart of the report’s findings.
A further key issue revealed in our excellent international evidence, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young, was on health system resilience—specifically, the need to build in spare capacity rather than have the NHS run continually at red-hot levels of bed occupancy. It was salutary to learn that the UK has 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 of the population, compared to an EU average of 5.2—far lower than Germany with 8.2 and France with 6.2.
The committee produced 41 recommendations for government, including recognising the vital role of preventative services and early intervention and committing to interim funding to ensure that adult social care gets sufficient support to protect older and disabled people in any further waves of coronavirus and future pandemics. In short, it came up with a comprehensive agenda for change to address the systematic weaknesses revealed by the pandemic to deliver lasting and transformative reform.
Being charitable, as I like to be, I can only describe the Government’s response as lacklustre. While they largely agree with the committee’s main conclusions—it would be hard not to—their response contains very little detail on how or whether they plan to address its recommendations. It is, to say the least, disappointing that after tantalising rumours in the press that the PM is finally going to bring forward his proposals to reform adult social care before the Summer Recess, they appear to have been relegated to the long grass again.
Covid has been a serious wake-up call for this country and particularly for the way we plan and fund our public services. There really is a chance to build back better if the Government are prepared to do things differently and invest in the areas highlighted in this report.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the House of Lords Public Services Committee was established to consider the operation and future of public services, including health and education. It started work in February 2020, and the committee recognised very quickly, following the outbreak of Covid-19, that
“the pandemic would have an enormous impact on the delivery of public services in the years to come.”
Therefore, it set up an inquiry to examine what the experience of the coronavirus outbreak can tell us about the future role, priorities and shape of public services. The committee found five key weaknesses in public service provision, which it argued made the response to the pandemic more challenging. One of them was
“insufficient support for prevention and early intervention services,”
which I will come to.
The committee made various recommendations, and one of those that I want to focus on was:
“Recognising and supporting charities, community groups, volunteers, and the private sector as key public service providers.”
If one word stands out throughout the pandemic, it is “collaboration.” Last year, at the beginning of the pandemic, I was privileged to be appointed a trustee of the National Bereavement Partnership right from its outset. It has carried out inspirational work throughout the pandemic under the leadership of our inspirational CEO Michaela Willis. The National Bereavement Partnership has made a difference to the emotional well-being of callers. These are people who call in with very sad and tragic situations. The National Bereavement Partnership provides emotional support and therapeutic intervention and is a conduit between other services, enabling long-term well-being. It adds value to NHS services; it saves the Government money; and it keeps people out of the mental health system. So here we are where the public sector and charities work hand in hand to the benefit of each other.
When it comes to prevention and early intervention, the committee cited evidence highlighting the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on BAME communities, including:
“almost a third of all patients critically ill with COVID-19 in hospitals were from BAME backgrounds—despite making up just 13 per cent of the UK population—
that is, almost double the proportion of the population being critically ill—
“and … people of Bangladeshi background in England were twice as likely as white British people to die if they contracted COVID-19.”
The committee recommended that the Government take an approach to public health that focused on preventing health inequalities over the longer term.
The pandemic has highlighted the potential of the NHS to drive forward large-scale change and new approaches in a short period of time. There are so many examples of this. The vaccines are a great example; we have a world-leading vaccine programme with Kate Bingham, a private sector individual, appointed by the Government in May last year. On 8 December, we had the first vaccination. We had six vaccines on order and 400 million doses for a population of 67 million. Today, almost 90% of the adult population have had their first dose and almost 70% have been double-jabbed.
Again, this could not have happened with the public sector on its own; it is due to the public sector working with the private sector, with Oxford University, with the university sector, and with the Serum Institute of India in Pune, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world, which now has a 1 billion-dose contract with the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine. Of course, it is international collaboration: AstraZeneca is a Swedish-British company headquartered in Cambridge.
The way we worked with the ventilator challenge was amazing. We got 20 years’ worth of essential ventilators in 12 weeks. So was the way we created the Nightingale hospitals, such as the 4,000-bed centre at the ExCeL centre—the first where you had the private sector, the Armed Forces, universities and the NHS all working together.
All this underlines the importance of the health and life sciences sector. As president of the CBI, we have launched our economic strategy for the next decade, called Seize the Moment. Within that, one of the pillars is:
“A healthier nation, with health the foundation of wellbeing and economic growth”,
which is absolutely crucial.
“COVID-19 has put the health of the nation under the spotlight. Firms have stepped up, with a significantly increased emphasis on the health and wellbeing of their employees. And, for us as a country, the crisis has been a wake-up call, bringing the pervasive impacts of health inequalities into stark focus, underlining the importance of health to people’s personal and professional success, and reinforcing just how vital our life sciences capability is to the UK’s progress now and in the future.”
Poor health is expensive: 63% of years lost to poor health are in the working-age population. This costs the UK £300 billion in lost economic output annually, excluding health costs. So, life sciences and health can be a major driver of economic success for the UK, with the global market in pharmaceuticals and medtech worth £1.2 trillion in 2020; and it is expected to see a strong growth of around 5% a year through to 2030. The secret, again, is collaboration between the public sector, charities and the private sector.
People talk about building back better. Well, I chaired a CBI event with the mayor of Athens, and he said, “We do not talk about building back better; we talk about building forward better.” So, let us build forward better.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who spoke compellingly about collaboration. It has been a pleasure and an honour to be a member of the Public Services Committee, which has behaved throughout in a collegiate and constructive way, and I thank my committee colleagues. Like others, I would like to thank our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hilltop, who has demonstrated throughout hard work, dedication and great good humour. Thanks also go to our secretariat—the team of Tristan Stubbs, Claire Coast-Smith and Mark Hudson —for their utter professionalism.
Our first report, as has been stated, commenced physically in February last year, before the first lockdown, but we quickly moved to working virtually. Work was carried out remarkably smoothly on our report A Critical Juncture for Public Services: Lessons from COVID-19, which was published in November last year. I thank officials, broadcasters and all who made this possible. I will focus on three areas in particular, although, as has been demonstrated by those serving on the committee, our report was wide-ranging. I would like to look at prevention and early intervention, then at local delivery, and then at the importance of voluntary organisations.
On prevention and early intervention, a key area, the evidence that we saw was clear. People who are obese, who smoke, who are diabetic and who live in unhealthy social, economic and physical environments are at a far higher risk of dying from Covid-19. That seems now almost beyond challenge. The Prime Minister himself nailed the danger of obesity when he spoke of Covid-19. Yet the Government in their response to the report did not recognise these factors explicitly, rather surprisingly, saying that further analysis of the evidence will inform our learning. I hope that the Government accept the very clear evidence, and it will be good to hear from the Minister on this.
Our inquiry heard from Sir Michael Marmot about the underfunding of prevention services, and we heard that obesity rates were highest in deprived areas. It is laudable that the Conservative manifesto of 2019 commits to extension of healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. A litmus test of the Government’s approach will be the attitude to the recently published national food strategy, the Dimbleby report, the last part of which was published last week. That report is clear on action at producer level to reduce salt and sugar in foods, just as we have done successfully under a Conservative Government for soft drinks. That action would produce results. I hope that the murmurings of some on the libertarian extremes, who suggest that exhortation is sufficient, are ignored, given that they are the voices of a few people who have not been following the evidence of the pandemic, and who are committed to an imagined libertarian Valhalla. Not only will positive action help hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our fellow country men and women, it will also of course ease pressures on the NHS and, indeed, on the economy from the impact of ill health. The details of how the Government are to carry out future arrangements are awaited with interest.
The importance of preventive services in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office is also highlighted in our report. The Government’s response does not pick up on how there will be investment here in preventive services for those who have been impacted by addiction, homelessness and poor mental health—evidence that we received on this from Revolving Doors. By the same token, early intervention on education, particularly as disadvantaged children have fallen further behind, is crucial. Beyond the existing pupil premium, we need to pick up the proposals on catch-up that Sir Kevan Collins put forward.
On localisation, in the memorable phrase spoken earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, running England out of London is not on. I agree with that, as does the report. Local provision, whether through the public sector or voluntary organisations, is vital; it is familial, trusted, responsive and fleet-footed, and it is more likely to be flexible. We need to recognise that through public health teams and more local funding, not just because of a democratic deficit but because of lack of local provision, certainly contributing to the disease and to death. I welcome the progress that has been made on metro mayors, and I anticipate more—but much more than that is needed for the localisation that is necessary.
The third area of our report that I wanted to cover related to the importance of voluntary organisations. As I have indicated, they are trusted and familial. Their reach is extraordinary, as I found during our inquiry. For example, Ian Jones, the chief executive of Volunteer Cornwall, told us of 4,500 Cornish charities. Many local councils pick up and work with the voluntary sector. Camden Council, for example, relies on Hampstead Volunteer Corps to help with food distribution, and we welcome the development of the new outsourcing playbook by the Cabinet Office. It is welcome, but we need to see it being followed by ensuring that public service commissioners prioritise social value when contracting services. We look forward to that.
In short, there is a lot to do, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on taking things forward—in all our interests, but particularly in the interests of those most disadvantaged, which, as we have heard, includes the BAME community, as well as the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Generally, those at the bottom of the pile have been hardest hit, and the Government must do more to help them.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for this debate and the Public Services Committee for its immensely insightful report. Future generations will wonder how their Government permitted nearly twice the number of their citizens to die during the Covid pandemic than all the civilians who died during the Second World War. Yes, we need to transform public services, but that cannot be done without transforming politics, and economic and social policies. We need a visible politics of care and compassion. The fact that the Prime Minister was comfortable with 83,000 Covid fatalities in the age group 18 or over is really a sad low point in British values. Front-line workers, including hospital staff, care home workers, transport staff and retirees feature disproportionately on the Covid death list.
As Sir Michael Marmot’s recent report demonstrates, the main reason is that, due to low incomes, people have poor access to good food, housing, healthcare and personal space. The pandemic has shown us that poverty and inequalities cause death, but the Government have done little to check that; indeed, they continue with their wage freezes, without any impact assessment on the lives of people or the capacity of the country to manage pandemics. In 1976, the workers’ share of the gross domestic product was 65.1%, and just before the pandemic it dropped to 49.4%—a decline unmatched in any other industrialised country. The average wage was stagnant in the decade preceding the pandemic. This economic legacy has weakened the people’s resilience to pandemics. Many people tested positive for Covid but could not find a safe place to isolate, as they lived in cramped accommodation, all because they are poor.
To manage pandemics, countries need institutional memories and capacities; we lack both. The NHS lacked investment before the pandemic. To manage the crisis, the Government hired expensive and often ineffective private sector consultants for their test and trace programme, which has not augmented the long-term capacity of the NHS. Consultants quickly enter and exit an organisation and leave little trace of their activities. This makes it harder to build a pool of experience and draw lessons.
The Government need to look at their own obsession with privatisation, a key factor in the deaths in care homes. Since 2010, central government grants to local authorities have been cut by 38% in real terms; this accelerated the privatisation of social care. In care homes owned by private equity, nearly 11% of revenues vanish in servicing contrived debt. Private equity also expects a return of 12% to 14% on its investment, which meant that 20% to 25% of the revenues of private equity disappeared in returns, leaving very little for care home residents. Care home workers and residents suffered. Of the 1.49 million workers in care homes, only 50% are full time—nearly 24% are on zero-hour contracts. Almost 42% of the domiciliary care workforce is on zero-hour contracts, and staff turnover is nearly 30%.
In March 2020, the real-term median hourly pay of staff was just £8.50 an hour. In these circumstances, it is difficult, if not impossible, for carers to get to know patients and provide personalised care. Low-paid staff cannot afford to isolate or take time off to recover. It is hard to recall any government concerns about the negative outcomes from privatisation of social care. We cannot build capacity to tackle future pandemics by just creating poverty.
The Government’s economic policies are also creating new dangers and diseases—just look at the water industry, where almost every water company has been fined for anti-social practices. Southern Water is the latest example. The company illegally dumped tonnes of raw sewage into rivers and seas, increasing the likelihood of diseases. Its directors calculated that it was better to pay fines than to treat the sewage, so they dumped it. The puny £90 million fine is no deterrent: Southern’s chief executive has just received a bonus of £551,000 for boosting profits. I cannot recall seeing any health impact that accompanied the Government’s two-thirds cut in the Environment Agency’s budget or deregulation, which expects water companies to self-report their illegal practices.
I hope the Government will reflect on how their political, economic and social policies have inflicted death on thousands and sadness upon millions of innocent people, but I am not too optimistic.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and all the members of the Select Committee. Although I put my name down for this debate, I seem to be one of the few people speaking today who did not sit on that committee. When I put my name down, I did not think the report would be this good—I had not read it—so I would like to say that it is an absolutely amazing report and I thank the committee for achieving it. It is wonderful to see such excellent cross-party working, which is often true of Select Committees.
It is good that the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the positives about the Government because, quite honestly, looking through this it is hard to pick out the positives. The way that homelessness was dealt with was one of them, but unfortunately homeless people are now being thrown out and are back living on the streets—I see evidence of that every day. I hesitate, being one of the few speakers today who was not on the Select Committee, to comment on every issue, but there are three areas I want to speak to, because they seem so important.
The deep, ongoing inequalities in our society are well documented and clearly had an impact on our ability to deal with the disease, for individuals and for organisations. From a green point of view, we always argue for less inequality, because if people cannot feed their children, clothe themselves, pay their bills and their rent, it is very hard for them to care about other issues, such as the climate emergency. We are better as a nation if we are more equal. That has always been true, and it is something the Government have not grasped and acted upon. The report says:
“People … who live in unhealthy social, economic and physical environments are at higher risk of dying from COVID-19.”
The greater the inequality, the more people will die from a disease such as Covid-19. The Government have to be aware of that and change their actions on this issue. Their job, as a Government, is to care for us all, to reduce inequality, to lift people out of poverty and to prevent worse poverty in the future. What part of government is actually working on a plan to reduce inequality, now and for the future? Of course, many children are likely to be disadvantaged in the long-term by the first lockdown, possibly—probably—leading to much worse life outcomes for them. As a nation, we lose their potential, their skills. So, what do the Government plan to do to make sure that those children catch up as quickly as possible?
I do not get the feeling that the Government understand just how important the National Health Service is and how they need to resource it better. Better resourcing does not mean selling bits of it off. I do not know whether this is still true, but earlier I read that there was going to be a 3% pay rise for NHS staff, and it was going to come out of national insurance. Obviously, that was a few hours ago and the government policy could have changed in that short time, as it sometimes does; however, I want to know why that 3% rise might come out of national insurance when it should come out of tax, so that everybody who is on a higher income would pay more and people on a lower income would pay less. That seems much fairer to me than what the Government are planning to do.
It is a common view that the Government completely messed up on the pandemic. We have heard about a few areas where they did not, but they were incredibly lucky that the NHS did the heavy lifting, made them look better and saved many lives. Of course, the NHS is still saving lives. There are still people with Covid-19, the numbers are rising once again, and the Government have instituted a “Freedom Day”, which is essentially the freedom to get a nasty disease and possibly die.
The third area is why the Government did not send anybody to the Select Committee to give oral evidence. That seems to me to be a derogation of duty and it shows a lack of respect for the House of Lords, which clearly does immensely good work, time and again. It also fits with the Government’s refusal to launch an inquiry. They keep saying, “Now is not the time, because it would distract people”, but of course it will not be the same people dealing with the pandemic at the moment who would be looking into what actually happened. The committee has said that it is not trying to look at all the failings but to set out a road map for the future, which is fair enough. As people dealing with the inquiry would be different from those coping with the pandemic, why are the Government still resisting? Are they hoping people’s memories will have faded? Why cannot an inquiry start immediately? Why not tomorrow?
We cannot afford to deny that this has been a disaster. This report is an excellent way forward. I think the Government should learn from it and accept that the road map being offered is an excellent one. I urge the Government to follow it.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, your Lordships’ committee wrote this paper some nine months ago—sufficient time for events to prove the committee right or wrong. Events have proved it overwhelmingly right and the Government’s response totally inadequate.
For example, the paper speaks of overcentralised delivery of public services. Thanks to a report earlier this week by the National Audit Office, we are able to compare the centralised procurement in England, using companies without experience of PPE—but, incidentally, with connections to the Conservative Party—and companies new to test and trace, with the Welsh procurement, where local authorities carrying out this work used trusted and experienced suppliers. Not surprisingly, the result was that the cost per head of the test and trace and PPE in Wales was half the cost in England, with no decline in quality and service. As a result, Welsh businesses were supported more generously. In Wales there were winners all round. Surely one of the first lessons learned must be the need for careful analysis of whether services are best delivered from the centre or locally.
The committee calls for a more flexible approach to sharing data. Surely, there is no better example of this than the speed at which an effective vaccine was produced and distributed. Years of research, financed and carried out in the public sector, produced the revolutionary RNA system of vaccines, which enabled the private sector to produce and distribute a Covid vaccine within months, instead of the years previously needed. It was this that enabled the Government quickly to vaccinate a large part of the population. Surely, the lesson learned here is to encourage this co-operation as a matter of course, not as an exception when there is a crisis.
The report also calls for radical improvement in the way government communicates and co-operates with local service providers. This means that the Government must provide clarity to local authorities and businesses. We are currently suffering exactly from this, because the 10-day stay-at-home alerts are advisory rather than legal obligations. Also, there is now inconsistency over wearing masks and social distancing, caused by abrogating responsibility to local authorities, businesses and each one of us individually. Only yesterday, the British Chambers of Commerce said that companies were struggling to make sense of which staff were defined as critical workers and so were eligible to continue working when pinged by the NHS app or by test and trace.
By asking us to make sensible decisions without clear guidance and without providing the tools to make these decisions, the Government are guilty not only of creating uncertainty by mixed messaging but of further endangering public health. Indeed, this lack of clarity has become a defining feature of this Government. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am a member, almost weekly takes the Government to task over lack of clarity in one or more of their instruments. These examples show that the committee is absolutely right to call on the Government to make public services more resilient and more able to withstand any future crises. As my noble friend Baroness Armstrong explained in her excellent opening speech, this lack of resilience has taken a huge toll on human life and caused enormous physical and psychological damage—as well as damage to the economy. The committee is right: we must learn the lessons, so that we are better prepared if it happens again.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
I thank my noble friend Baroness Armstrong and her colleagues for this excellent report. It is a true road map for the Government to follow, coming out of Covid and taking us forward—not building back but building forward. We must look forward and ensure that we go forward and put the correct finance behind this.
I was very disturbed on reading the two pieces in the report about education and inequality. We know that for a child, from the time it is born, equality, food and care are important, as is education. We have seen throughout this pandemic that money for young children and mothers has been cut. There have been no Sure Start start-ups, and no real efforts to provide free nursery education. There is the whole question of food banks and benefits for food. We know that children cannot concentrate without food, and their lungs and the rest of their body are affected too. We are talking about the future generations of this country. Promises have been made but not kept by the Education Minister, and it is a disgrace. We were so lucky that teachers stayed and continued to try to work.
I must ask this Government to think seriously about education. It is not an issue I am known to speak about often, but I find it impossible not to address the way the Government have dealt with it. This report really makes the case, and the road map is here. We must look not only at education from the point at which a child is born, but at the way mothers are treated in hospital and the care they need. We have seen, through this report, how vulnerable mothers from certain sectors are. They need more care, and their babies need care. We also know that a child’s brain, if it is not helped, is not going to grow well; and again, I mention the lungs.
I ask the Minister to undertake that she will ask the Government and the Department for Education to look yet again at children’s education from the very start. We need to have Sure Starts. We cannot rely, as we do, on the voluntary organisations and others that help to make this happen. Sure Starts in all primary schools also have to be brought back. They help not only the children but mothers who are working from home; they need this social contact with each other. Further, we have to give a better undertaking in respect of food banks and how the associated cards operate—when you pay for food, the money is not on them. Why are we using agencies and consultants that cannot deliver? As many noble Lords have said, we pay lots of money to consultants, but nothing is given back. Also, we must look again at the benefits system as we come through Covid. If people cannot look for work, they need benefits to keep themselves and their families going. That is absolutely vital; otherwise, this is going to cost the health service much more, as the report says.
I support all my colleagues in what they have said today. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, since coming here 10 months ago, I have read a lot of legislation and reports and to be honest, it has all been a bit of a chore. However, this report sparkled. I know it has had lots of plaudits, but I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and all the members of the Public Services Committee for an accessible, informative and thought-provoking document. There is lots in it I disagree with, but it was just so useful—and unusual for these toxic times, in that it was free from rancour and “gotchas”. As it says itself, it is not about apportioning blame for past failures, but making constructive suggestions for future reforms—a great relief.
One caveat: in general, I am wary of any sphere allowing the normal of the pandemic to automatically become a new normal by default. The call in the report is to lock in innovations, but that makes me nervous. Yes, it is very useful to kickstart debate, but not to institutionalise as a rigid fait accompli. For example, we all know that digital technology may have facilitated everything from working from home to digital health consultations. But as the report itself points out, Zoom teams and the like could never, and should never, replace face-to-face services. I note with concern that too many GPs and, for example, university lecturers and senior managers, seem reluctant to resume real-life interaction, at the expense of service users.
One striking feature of the report that I would like to make explicit is the cost of treating the NHS as almost a sacred cow public service. It is understandable to celebrate and almost sacralise the health service in a health pandemic, but this can be at the expense of other services. Testimony in the report noted that support for the NHS, especially during the initial part of the pandemic, might have been necessary but should not have come at the expense of preventive and public health services. I agree.
The Nuffield Trust is quoted as noting how the Covid crisis highlights the startling inequality between health and social care services. Many of us felt uncomfortable that that initial “clap for the NHS” neglected care workers. Even today, all the focus is on the pay rise for the heroic NHS staff, whereas social care is plagued with poor wages and awful employment conditions; and now we have even singled out social care workers as the only workforce facing mandated vaccines or the sack.
So, it is important that the report highlights that, long before Covid, successive Governments prioritised funding the NHS—especially acute services—and neglected funding social care. The Nuffield Trust notes that the NHS received generous emergency funding from the Treasury in the early stages of the pandemic, which then enabled a dramatic expansion of capacity. Care providers, in contrast, said that extra funding did not reach them. Also, and related, the deputy director of the New Local Government Network contrasted the experience of local government with the NHS. The NHS had its costs met in full and deficits written off unquestioningly, but that was a privilege not afforded to councils or other public services. I do wonder about this hierarchy of priorities.
The consequences go beyond material funding. As ADASS points out, the historical tendency to prioritise the NHS has influenced policy decisions, sometimes with tragic consequences. In the name of saving the NHS, rather than the NHS saving lives or the public, we now face the collateral damage of non-Covid deaths from cancer and heart disease and huge waiting lists for many in dire need of medical interventions, with the terrible news of an increase of 50% of under-20s hospitalised with eating disorders. In a different debate earlier today, we also heard about the use of “do not resuscitate” in hospitals. We cannot ignore these things.
But perhaps the greatest horror associated with the focus on the mantra of protecting the NHS was the scandal of patients being discharged from hospital into care homes without testing—what the Nuffield Trust called, as quoted in the report, a
“rapid clearing of hospital beds in the early stages”,
regardless of the
“lack of preparedness of the care settings”.
The most vulnerable died as a consequence and, at the very least, it is important that we be able to query NHS policies without being shut down as somehow disloyal to NHS staff who, I agree, have been and are heroic and hard workers—but so are other workers. I do not think that you should be called a traitor to the institution if you query it.
Another striking aspect I read from the report is the wasted potential of civil society in helping deal with the pandemic. On a positive note, of course, the report gives lots of examples of innovation happening because bureaucracy was swept away. In fact, sometimes to tear up the red tape is caricatured as a laissez-faire, careless approach, but the removal of overly bureaucratic hurdles allowed public services to work alongside charities and community groups and volunteers, and the private sector stepped up. Altogether, this played a huge role in delivering services.
The surge of civic action, such as the 4,000 Covid-19 mutual aid groups and the local WhatsApp and Facebook groups I am sure we were all in as volunteers, showed a real appetite for providing practical solidarity in the emergency from so many people. We saw the generosity of 750,000 people signing up in four days when NHS England’s Royal Voluntary Service was launched in April 2020, but sadly that was wasted. The Institute for Volunteering’s research rightly notes in the report that overcentralised co-ordination was not aligned to locally organised activities, significant time was taken to respond, enthusiasm dwindled and people became demoralised. I think it was just so sad when volunteers could have helped, for example, relieve the pressure on social care workers, or indeed NHS workers.
In general, the official approach to Covid was to demobilise the public—to squash initiative and volunteerism. The report notes how the German public health service, in contrast, mobilised and seconded public servants from across departments: forestry, museums—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am sorry. I hope that we can mobilise the public in the future. I thank the committee for the report, and I apologise to the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Armstrong on her skilled chairing of the Select Committee and the clerk and his staff for their excellent work.
As the report says, the pandemic represented an unprecedented challenge to the United Kingdom’s public services. I take the positives from it: many of them rose to that challenge. Many public service providers developed remarkable innovations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just referred to. Decisions which before the pandemic took months were made in minutes. Good personal and organisational relationships broke down long-standing barriers between the statutory and voluntary sectors. New ways to deliver services flourished. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that we do not want to lock in certain behaviours, and we need to tackle the issue of the difficulty of face-to-face interventions. Yes, the NHS does have its challenges. I agree about the issues around “do not resuscitate” and the transfer of patients with Covid into care homes. But I would say to the noble Baroness that, when you look at the comparative statistics, the NHS has fewer beds, doctors and nurses than any comparable healthcare system, and we have to consider that in terms of funding decisions for the future.
Of course, it is not all good. We heard as a committee that the overall public health response was at times hampered by overcentralised, poorly co-ordinated and poorly communicated policies that were designed and delivered by central government, even though local-level providers were often better equipped. One of the key questions the committee poses is: how do we hold on to the positive behaviours we saw during the pandemic? I want to concentrate on just one issue: the over- centralisation of public services.
My noble friend Lord Liddle asked if our politics is up to the challenge of tackling this centralisation. The Government’s response was pretty wet, although the Prime Minister’s recent speech on levelling up did at least cover some of the ground. He spoke about the country being the most centralised of all the developed countries. He acknowledged that the big metro mayors were championing their hometowns, and that in the rest of the country, including the counties, local leaders needed to be given the tools to make things happen. Does this suggest a possible big move to decentralisation or even devolution? Well, up to a point, because I wonder whether the Government have themselves taken note. Last week in the Commons, the Health and Care Bill had its Second Reading. It did not show much commitment to devolving or decentralising power. Indeed, it faces the other way, with a power grab by Ministers and an imposition of powers of direction for the Secretary of State on the NHS. This suggests that there is a little way to go before government and Whitehall understand that devolution requires a huge shift in thinking.
In a really interesting paper about this, the Institute for Government has pointed out that, in recent decades, UK parties of all political persuasions have made commitments to decentralise power but in reality, coming into government, have found it very hard to do so. The institute’s analysis suggests that decentralisation requires at least three main groups to either support or acquiesce to reforms: national politicians, local politicians and, of course, the public. These groups often have different interests, are not internally cohesive and have different priorities and values—all factors which make securing sufficient support difficult. As important, all these groups have considerable, and not to be underestimated, power to block or undermine reforms they dislike.
Each of the obstacles the institute identifies is linked to one of these groups: national government lacks trust in regional or local government competence; those leading decentralising reforms are often unsuccessful at persuading other departments or Ministers to give away powers; taking powers from existing local politicians to give to a new sub-national government layer creates opposition; and the public generally lack interest in regional and local government reform and are sceptical of the value of more politicians. This goes perhaps some way to explaining why the bold talk of decentralisation is not always matched by deeds—and yet you come back to the conclusions of our report and to the argument that decentralisation could boost economic growth, better reflect differences in local identities and preferences and allow more variation and innovation in public services.
This, in the end, is the challenge for the noble Lord, Lord True, and the Government. Are they really serious about levelling up? If they believe that decentralisation and devolvement of powers is the way forward, if they want to build on the fantastic local innovation in evidence over the last 16 months, their forthcoming White Paper must be ambitious. I hope it will be.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Coronavirus and the All-Party Group on Adult Social Care. I start by thanking on behalf of these Benches the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and her committee, as well as those who gave evidence, for their time and for this excellent report. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that it is outstanding and should act as a blueprint for any future Government to use for public service reform—which, frankly, should happen straightaway, but, having read the Government’s response, I am not convinced it will happen soon.
Like many others, I find it quite extraordinary that no Minister found it appropriate to give evidence. Even today, in an earlier Statement, the Health Minister said that the best time for reflecting was after the pandemic. We have learned since the publication of this report last November that lessons could have been learned; mistakes were repeated because they were not.
My noble friend Lady Tyler talked of the dedication of all public sector workers. These Benches agree. There is often high performance and a strong sense of duty and they go beyond what is called for. Most of the problems outlined here are cultural and structural, and no reflection on the individuals who work in beleaguered public services, often trying to cope with cuts with no reduction in their responsibilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, rightly said that action is needed urgently and that the Government should not delay. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made the vital point that, since the report’s publication, lessons should have been learned and that the Government were therefore doomed to repeat mistakes.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, rightly focused on the need for substantial reform, setting out eight areas. His noted expertise in local government means that, along with other members of the committee, he understands the real practical stumbling blocks of public services in our society and the ways of managing them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right that challenge is vital in every single way we do things. From my experience of local government over the years, giving professionals and the people they are working for the chance to find value-for-money solutions can frequently result in better public services in their area.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, helped us with lessons from other countries. I will briefly mention Taiwan, which, in addition to the points the noble Lord raised, from day one, early in January, closed its borders to make sure that the virus was not brought in. It was also completely frank with the public, explained why it was doing things and put in place strong support for those who had to self-isolate, bringing them food and helplines. That, plus daily television programmes on which scientists were quizzed about what was happening, remains one of the absolute strengths in its community.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, also made the point about local authorities in Germany having equal powers, which is very helpful. Our mixed democratic structures and different local authority economies are just not fit for purpose in the 21st century. However, the answer is not more metro mayors. Things need to be clear, simplified and accountable to the people in ways they can understand.
As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, our public emphasis must move to prevention, but it must be funded. It has not been over the last few years. Levelling up was not evident in March’s Budget, but it is critical in dealing with early intervention and prevention, as other noble Lords have said. I echo the request of my noble friend Lady Tyler and others that Ministers say clearly when their public health strategy—and the funding for it—will be published. Public health cuts over the years are one of the reasons why levelling up will not happen any time soon under this Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, spoke of the importance of the need for positive action on food reform; the Dimbleby review, key parts of which were immediately dismissed by the Prime Minister on its publication, has many lessons for us. Yet the sugar tax on soft drinks, and other pressures, mean that our large supermarkets have started to move to reformulate. While the results are encouraging, the 2024 target must be met and pressure must be maintained. Educating children and their parents about good food choices is vital, too, but the cost of healthy food, especially fruit and vegetables, often means that the most nutritious foods are out of reach for the poorest families, thus building in poor health and other problems in yet another generation.
Sir Michael Marmot’s evidence, as well as an enormous amount of data, has shown that inequality and disadvantage put people not just at much higher risk but, in the pandemic, at risk of death. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, reminded us of the high percentage of severe death and disease in our ethnic-minority communities. Frankly, as a country, we should hang our heads in shame. Where health inequalities are baked into our public services, it is too easy to turn a blind eye, but this appalling death rate is a wake-up call to us all. He is also right to say that poor health costs the economy. That is why we need the innovative thinking about how investment in public health and education will act as a driver for the economy and for productivity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, rightly reminded us that early years support, through schemes such as Sure Start, are vital in deprived communities. America learned this through the Tennessee STAR project over three decades ago. We have still not learned that lesson fully.
The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, of the user voice and coproduction in pandemic provision for the homeless was important, breaking down barriers with those people who are hardest to reach and getting to the root of the problem and solving it. We must not lose that experience.
One problem very evident in the pandemic was the way that officials—whether health, education or local authorities—failed to listen to parents of disabled children when they explained that they were struggling without their essential regular respite care. The result was that they were often criticised by social services; some were even threatened with having their children taken away from them. That must not happen again. Contrast that with my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s example of the Leicestershire cell for social care. It is vital that we mark and learn where things have worked and find mechanisms to make sure that this good practice is not just debated in your Lordships’ House but is in every community in our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, outlined one of the key crises in our adult social care sector over the last 30 years, which is increasingly moving from public sector provision to commercial companies. That is not bad in itself, but it now includes hedge funds and others who should not be in the business of care and certainly not using a business model that exploits the cheapest labour and expects low retention of staff when caring for other human beings. Now a combination of Brexit and the pandemic has shown that the social care workforce deserves to have a proper plan, to be paid in parity with their health opposite numbers and to have proper career pathways like those in the NHS. There are currently over 120,000 vacancies in social care. Government proposals must tackle the root and branch, not just the funding of beds, and ensure that we have a reliable and functioning social care sector as the baby boomers move into their old age.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, is right that the Government have focused in their procurement White Paper on commercial contracts, when this report demonstrates that, by empowering local services and communities and using the voluntary sector, many key services can be joined up.
My noble friend Lord Shipley’s point that you cannot run England from Westminster is vital, too. I hope that the Minister and the Government really understand that. The hub and spoke models of central bureaucracy never trust local areas. Often in the pandemic, that is where things went wrong. There were national attempts at recruiting volunteers when local councils had already done so; local councils got people to help people who had been asked to shield and then suddenly an NHS scheme was announced and nobody knew who was running the volunteer scheme. That is so easily avoidable, but the NHS, in its towers, just felt that it would start a new scheme at short notice without referring back to local government.
My noble friend Lady Pinnock commented that local staff, whether in local authorities or working in the community, wanted to rise to the challenging circumstances and to work differently, embracing innovation and feeling empowered. Again, we must capture that for the future. It is not just a pandemic issue but about our life in our communities. She also referred to codesign and coproduction as a powerful way of real innovation, value for money and value to individuals involved in receiving this public service.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said that the committee found countless ways in which data sharing worsened the lives of people. Those points were extraordinarily well made and we must resolve that. However, this is not just about giving everyone the data. It must be safe and secure, and for public service.
Finally, it is vital that fundamental reform comes soon. It means, as with social care 10 years ago, cross-party working and the Government working with other parties to make it happen. I hope that the one message that the Minister will take away from this debate is that they need to be spurred into action now to deliver the recommendations in the report and take our communities and the agencies that work with them into a 21st century that will be safe and secure for them.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I begin by echoing the thanks that she gave to my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top for her introduction to this debate and the work she did in leading the committee. Her commitment to improving public services is second to none and, speaking personally, I have long been inspired by the tenacity that she has shown in that endeavour over many years. The work that she and her fellow committee members undertook in the preparation of the report is admirable and I get the impression, having listened to the debate, that all Members thought it to be a thought-provoking and paradigm-challenging experience—as well as, if I am reading between the lines correctly, about as much fun as is allowed in the course of parliamentary duties on Zoom.
It is regrettable, though, that the Government chose not to give evidence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, observed, to delay this debate for as long as it has been delayed. I hope that that does not reveal a wider reluctance to engage in scrutiny of the delivery of services during the pandemic. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that in his response. Ministers must guard against giving the impression that they are either insufficiently curious to learn lessons or perhaps fearful of what will be revealed. It is essential that any such misgivings are not allowed to interfere with learning from what has happened. I am sure that the Government will want to make sure that they can learn from this compelling report when finally they begin their own investigation.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Armstrong does not mind me saying this, and does not take it the wrong way, but, when I saw that she was leading this debate, I kind of knew what she was going to say, because she is such a respected voice on these issues. I have heard her talk passionately many times about the need for early intervention and the urgency of addressing the lack of co-ordination between health and social care in particular—but she has never been more right to say these things than she is now.
The report identifies fundamental weaknesses, insufficient prevention and early intervention, overcentralised delivery and silo working, lack of integration, problems with data sharing, and lack of user voice. As others have said, none of those observations is especially new, but Covid has exposed them starkly and that is why I encourage the Government to build on this report and proceed quickly with their own inquiry. For grieving families, the sense of loss never fades, even though the anger, shock and pain can ease with time. However, the ease with which precious lessons can be learned will fade with time. That is why this report at this time is so valuable.
There is clearly much to be proud of in the way in which our public services responded. The resilience shown, especially in the early months, was awe-inspiring. The way in which the public, private and voluntary sectors joined forces has been hugely beneficial to us all. The deployment of new technology has been rapid and impressive. Although the app is driving people mad at the moment, the ability to access health information and share it securely with providers could be game-changing. Remote consultations, used appropriately, could make accessing services permanently easier for patients. We should ask ourselves how we take this innovation, as my noble friend Lady Armstrong said, where it is good and lock it in. My noble friend Lord Haskel highlighted the success of the Welsh Government in sourcing PPE, which seems a good example of a lesson that could be learned and shared, to the benefit of all, as a consequence of a future government inquiry.
If the global financial crisis in 2008 did not persuade small-government advocates of the need for an active, flexible and engaged state at a national and local level, coronavirus surely must.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, provided a detailed and revealing description of how other countries have coped. We need to contrast the outcomes of countries where political leaders stepped up and took decisive action, such as New Zealand, with those who wilfully neglected their citizens’ well-being, such as Brazil.
My noble friend Lord Hunt explained how comparatively poorly resourced our health services are. The UK’s death toll stands at almost 130,000. I do not want to stand here and point the finger at the Government—that is not what today has been about—but it is undeniable that weaknesses identified in the report should have been tackled sooner. Health inequalities are well known and we are going backwards. This must change. The committee points out that, while it is important to learn lessons from the data and the workforce, it is equally important to hear the voices of service users. Co-production is recommended and I look forward to learning more about that process.
Inevitably, our debate focused on health services and it has been good to hear noble Lords attending to the impact that the pandemic has had on the justice system, rough sleepers and our youngest citizens. The scarring on the education and mental health of all children, especially the disadvantaged and those who have lost as much as six months of education, will shame us forever unless we take urgent steps to correct it. The potential harm to them as individuals is not yet known, but neither is the harm to our society and future prosperity. The message to the Government could not be clearer: “Fix this. Fix it quickly, before it’s too late and the scarring is too deep to heal”.
The catch-up tsar may have resigned in despair, as many noble Lords have pointed out. That is always embarrassing, but this is not just about tsars and special projects. As my noble friend Lady Goudie said so compellingly, we need to see every lever pulled in every school, family and community for years to come to make sure that no child’s life chances are permanently damaged.
My noble friend Lady Armstrong hammered home the need to invest in thinking further ahead, intervening and preventing problems. So perhaps the most important lesson of all from this pandemic will be that short-term, reactive, politically driven decision-making costs lives. This report shows us that there is another, better way.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con) [V]
My Lords, this has been an outstanding debate on, frankly, what I thought was a really outstanding report. I thank those who worked on it and all those who have spoken to it, and I commend the spirit in which most have spoken. It has been a wide-ranging debate on a wide-ranging subject and I will respond as much as I can and as best I can in the time available.
However, I should stress, as all noble Lords have, the importance of awareness of cross-cutting services, and the interrelation and collaboration between services at all levels and across all sectors. These matters are vital and I had the privilege of chairing a committee of your Lordships’ House looking at intergenerational matters. I know that many will feel that those kinds of issues run across services and are not always adequately considered inside Parliament—or, indeed, outside it. This report makes a great contribution and I hope that it will not sail off into the mists.
I think we are all agreed that the past year has been unlike anything in living memory, and we have had to come together in an extraordinary national effort to overcome a virus which has threatened our very way of life. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed areas in our economy and, yes, inequalities in our society that mean the most vulnerable people have been hit the hardest. As we recover, we have an opportunity, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, and as the report of your Lordships’ committee asserts, to build back and build forward better and stronger than before.
I apologise that we were not able to engage with the committee sooner. The Government take their duties to Parliament seriously and thank the committee for its work. I offered to speak to the committee in March, not on this report but on ongoing work, but that was declined. It does not serve much to throw stones at each other. We should all seek to do better in engaging in the ongoing dialogue between Parliament and government, and I shall always seek to do that.
At the forefront of all our efforts are our public services. I have spent a lifetime in public services, and from hospitals to classrooms, and job centres to courtrooms, the work of the United Kingdom’s public servants has been nothing short of heroic, as so many of your Lordships have said today. I would certainly like to add my thanks to all those, from every walk of life, who have been involved in responding to the pandemic and keeping our country going. I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong—who clearly did a magnificent piece of work in bringing this committee report together—said about the swift adaptations made by so many in public service. It is important that this is acknowledged.
The United Kingdom Government have worked strategically and at scale to save jobs and support communities throughout the United Kingdom, working alongside the devolved Administrations to keep every citizen safe and supported, no matter where they live. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said so eloquently, collaboration between charities, the third sector, the private sector and all levels of the public sector is vital.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked whether the Government simply had the desire to get involved in public service reform. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster chairs the National Economy and Recovery Taskforce (Public Services) Committee precisely in order to drive public sector recovery and reform. Key cross-cutting government priorities are also overseen by Cabinet sub-committees: for example, the Crime and Justice Taskforce. In addition, the Government have strengthened cross-government accountability through appointing Ministers whose portfolios sit across at least two departments. For example, my noble friend Lord Agnew sits across the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. At the Civil Service level, we have put in place multi-departmental boards. Efforts are certainly being made to improve cross-departmental working and avoid the kind of silos to which some noble Lords referred.
The Government have an ambitious policy agenda; government needs to operate as effectively as possible to deliver the recovery we need. In June, the first joint Cabinet meeting of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries agreed the Declaration on Government Reform, committing to immediate action on three fronts: people, performance and partnership. The declaration set out 30 actions that will be taken in the first year to begin the process of modernisation and reform. I am pleased to say that the response to the declaration was positive overall. The Institute for Government called it
“a statement very much to be welcomed”,
Prospect said it was a “welcome first step”, and the FDA union was pleased with the “tone of collaboration”. We are already making progress. We have already committed to early funding on a variety of projects, including over £600 million to fix legacy IT. These changes are also about increasing the skills and capability we have in government. We will do this through developing the skills and experience of existing civil servants as well as bringing in skills from outside.
We welcome the Commission for Smart Government’s contribution to the intellectual effort—the debate about government reform. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was present at the launch of the report and made it clear that the case the commission made overall is powerful. The report aligns with the Declaration on Government Reform in its focus on digital and data transformation—something which your Lordships have underlined today—and capability and accountability as priority areas for reform, and progress will be made here. I undertake that the Government will of course continue to look closely at the commission’s recommendations but also at those of other contributors to the debate on government reform, including the distinguished report of your Lordships’ committee, and we will report back on progress with reform. Yes, we should be collaborative, and government reform should not be seen a zero-sum game.
Many noble Lords spoke in the debate about the challenges we face and the task of rebuilding. In particular, we know—as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and a succession of other noble Lords pointed out—that the impact of the pandemic has been felt most heavily by disadvantaged children and young people, so it is vital that we target support towards those children. In June we announced an additional £1.4 billion to support high-quality tutoring and great teaching. This package was the next step towards recovering from the impacts of Covid. It built on the £1.7 billion already announced, providing more than £3 billion in all to support education recovery in schools, 16-to-19 providers and early years settings, whose importance was rightly stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. This will have a material impact in closing gaps that have emerged.
The Government are committed to an ambitious, long-term education recovery plan. The next stage will include a review of time spent in school and 16-to-19 education and the impact that that could have in helping children and young people catch up. The findings of the review will be set out later in the year to inform the spending review. We will also continue to monitor how effectively pupils are catching up. For most pupils, being back in the classroom itself will have a positive impact on learning, and evidence published in June suggests that primary pupils recovered some of the learning they lost once in-person teaching for all resumed.
Ensuring that vulnerable children remain supported and visible during the outbreak has been a critical focus of the Government’s work. That is why, from the outset of the pandemic, including the period of national lockdown announced on 4 January, the Government kept primary and secondary schools, alternative provision, special schools and further education open to vulnerable children and young people. Where vulnerable children and young people cannot attend, we have asked local authorities, children’s social care and educational settings to ensure that they have systems in place to continue support and keep in touch with them and their families.
Throughout all restrictions to date, children’s social care services and early help services have continued to support vulnerable children and young people and their families. We established a vulnerable children and young people survey for local authorities to make sure that we had an accurate picture of contact between children and their social workers, and we will continue to monitor this.
We have invested millions of pounds in charities and other services which work with vulnerable children and their families to support them and spot the signs of abuse and neglect more quickly. Doing that more quickly was underlined by so many of your Lordships who spoke; prevention is vital. This includes the See, Hear, Respond programme, backed by £11 million of government funding, which reached more than 100,000 children and their families.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked who is in charge of cross-party activity. My honourable friend the Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing leads in this area, and the Changing Futures programme is a £64-million, three-year-long, joint-funded initiative between the Government and the lottery fund, funding local organisations and working in partnership to better support those with multiple disadvantages.
Many noble Lords referred to adult social care, which of course has never been under as much pressure as in the last year; the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, spoke eloquently about that issue. Throughout the pandemic we have been working with the social care sector to ensure that all recipients of care receive the support they need. There are lessons to be learned from that experience and we are aware of the long-term challenges facing the social care system. Our objective remains to join up health and care around people and meet the needs of individuals, giving them personalised care to help them to live life to the full. We are working closely with local and national partners to ensure that our approach to reform is informed by diverse perspectives, including those with lived experience of the care sector. I agree with all those who made the point that user knowledge and experience are vital. We are providing councils with access to an additional £1 billion and more to fund social care in 2021-22. The Government are committed to reforming the adult social care system and will bring forward proposals in 2021.
Many, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke of health inequalities. This issue is at the heart of the NHS plan. All major national programmes in every local area across England are required to set out measurable goals and mechanisms by which they will contribute to narrowing health inequalities. NHS England has committed to inclusive recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. The NHS has set eight actions to reduce inequalities in its restoration of services, including reporting on providing services to the 20% of poorest neighbourhoods and black and Asian parents. We will improve joined-up local working on population health and reducing health inequalities through integrated care systems. We will reinforce the role of local authorities as champions of health in local communities and enhance the NHS’s public health responsibilities to act on prevention. Reducing health inequalities will be a core aim of the new office for health promotion. Under the professional leadership of the Chief Medical Officer, the OHP will systematically tackle the top preventable risk factors, improving the public’s health and narrowing health inequalities.
A question was asked about life expectancy. We are determined to level up health and life expectancy across our country. We are committed to ensuring that people can enjoy at least five extra years of healthy independent life by 2035 and to reducing the gaps between rich and poor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and others asked about timing. The prevention Green Paper, Advancing Our Health: Prevention in the 2020s, outlined commitments with varying timelines regarding the services that we received, the choices that we make and the conditions in which we live. I acknowledge that the Government’s response to the consultation has been delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but we will update on the response to the prevention Green Paper in due course.
To respond to my noble friend Lord Bourne, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and others on prevention, I assure the House that as we begin the recovery from Covid, now is the time to redouble our efforts to transform the nation’s health. That is why in March the Government published their policy paper about transforming and reforming the public health system, setting out our plans for a refreshed public health system. These reforms will embed a stronger focus on prevention right across the system and ensure that we have the structures and capabilities in place to level up health. Our response to the consultation on advancing our health has again been delayed by the need to focus on the pandemic response. Again, I assure noble Lords that we will bring forward a response to the consultation in due course.
However, we have not waited for the response to take action; we are already taking action on the main drivers of ill health—for example, obesity, which has been referred to, including £100 million in extra funding for healthy weight programmes, and bringing forward legislation to restrict advertising of junk food and on labelling requirements for food. In January we published our mental health White Paper, which aims to reduce mental health inequalities, a subject of profound importance and concern.
Having spent all my life in local government, I agree with all that was said about the importance of public services working together to provide an integrated approach. That informs our programmes overall, including in relation to helping vulnerable families. Supporting Families was launched for this financial year in March and is backed by £165 million of new money. The next phase of the programme will include a focus on building the resilience of vulnerable families.
In March the Government launched a new £8 million local data accelerator fund and invited local areas and their partners to bid for funding to support data projects and improve services for children and families. I agree that ideas must flow up and across, not just from the top down. We hope to announce successful applicants shortly.
Later this year we will publish the levelling-up White Paper, setting out new interventions to improve livelihoods across the country. We remain committed to devolving power to people and places across the UK. That must be genuine devolution. Our plans for strengthening local accountable leadership will be included in the levelling-up White Paper, which will include county deals. The White Paper will be led by the Prime Minister personally. A new No. 10/ Cabinet Office unit will be set up to drive through work on the White Paper, and the Prime Minister has appointed Mr Neil O’Brien, MP for Harborough, as his levelling-up adviser. The White Paper will replace the English devolution White Paper. Full details on county deals will be included in the White Paper. These again will be bottom- up, enabling local partners to come together with powers exercised at the right level to make a difference for local communities.
Central government cannot do it all on its own. Our towns, cities and regions have a greater chance of levelling up when local people have more of a say over their own destinies, and that is our objective. Devolution must go with the grain of local identity and we want to give places the tools that will bring economic, social and environmental benefits alongside improving local services. We know that a mayoral combined authority will not work everywhere, which is why we are keen to work with areas on developing other options. I am sure, from reading the report and hearing what many noble Lords have said, that that will be welcome.
Data sharing has been emphasised as vital by many, including the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Brinton. The data-sharing playbook was established as part of an objective to support a step change in the way that the Government use and share data. It works as a cross-government virtual team. The Data Standards Authority was established in April as a multidisciplinary team, working with experts across the wider public sector and helping to improve services in this area.
We are working with government departments to build services that reflect the lives that citizens live rather than the silos of government departments. For example, to start a business in the UK, a citizen now has to interact with 10 departments. That must end.
I agree with the points about social value. We are committed to that. I will write to noble Lords specifically on these issues since my time is running out, but we intend to extend the use of the Social Value Act, and that will inform ongoing work on public procurement.
I am sorry that I have not been able to cover every aspect that has been brought forward in this fascinating and, I think, hugely important debate, but I profoundly appreciate the work done by the committee and the opportunity to listen to your Lordships’ House today.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contribution to today’s debate. I said at the beginning how privileged I was to chair this committee, and I know that the speeches that its members have made will have reinforced for noble Lords their quality, expertise and enthusiasm. I thank them again for the contribution that they have made in the past and today. I thank everyone else who contributed too; everyone brought something specific to the debate that meant it reflected the work of the committee and the work that went into its first report.
Running through the speeches today, I was very pleased to hear, was a thread that reinforced that the report offers practical ways forward—through decentralisation of power, longer-term investment in early intervention and preventive work, more effective activity across services; and by the involvement of the voluntary sector, the community sector, civil society and the private sector in helping to make places work for people, wherever they live.
Of course, we also heard from lots of Members today about the importance of hearing the voices of people with lived experience. This is a really important issue for the House, as well as the Government. We had enormous support from the teams in the House to engage people with lived experience and the organisations that they often work with to bring them to the committee to give evidence. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned Debra from Wigan, who has cerebral palsy and is very much a community activist in Wigan but has really struggled. Her words give us a real call to action. She said that, from her experience of the NHS and social services in the past 16 months, services were delivered at her rather than with her, and, when she attempted to discuss her needs, she felt belittled, patronised and ignored. That should be a wake-up call to all of us.
I thank the Minister for his response. I think he knows that the committee worked in a very cross-party way, and we look forward to engaging with him and other Ministers on how we can properly prioritise what is needed in public services so that they work for Debra and others. I look forward to making sure that we establish good relationships with him and his colleagues so that we can all take this work forward. There is a lot to do, and we all have a responsibility to play our part in making sure it happens. I commend the report to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time limit for the following Motion to Take Note debate is one and a half hours.
Future UK-EU Relationship on Professional and Business Services (EU Committee Report)
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee The future UK–EU relationship on professional and business services (13th Report, Session 2019-21, HL Paper 143).
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, our report was published in October last year and I thank the House authorities for timetabling this debate nine months later—I am aware that some reports have not been so fortunate. In that nine-month period, we have had the trade and co-operation agreement and nearly seven months’ experience of it, together with the Covid pandemic, which has affected all aspects of trade and mobility.
Since the publication of the report, the sub-committee covered in more detail the impact on financial services, the creative industries and research and development. This work was published in March this year as Beyond Brexit: Trade in Services. I thank the members of the sub-committee and its staff, particularly Dee Goddard, for all their hard work producing the report. We did not share the same views about Brexit, but the views expressed in the report are unanimous. I am also grateful to all the witnesses who contributed to our inquiry, and to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, for his frankness about possible outcomes—it was much appreciated by the committee.
We had no expectation that professional and business services would form a major part of any agreement between the EU and the UK, and the trade and co-operation agreement of 24 December last year confirmed that expectation, covering mainly goods and a promise of future co-operation—but we nevertheless welcomed the TCA, because the consequences of no deal would have been serious for professional and business services. It is a broad sector and includes legal services, market research, accountancy, audit, architecture, engineering, public relations and management consulting.
I emphasise the interconnectedness of those industries with each other and with the creative industries and financial services. It is also important to remember that they are mainly medium and small enterprises, spread throughout the UK. It is not just a London issue—although it is a London issue. The sub-committee was concerned to ensure that London remained a world centre of excellence in those industries.
One witness said about financial services: “The ecosystem for financial services is not just banks and investment houses. It’s also lawyers, accountants and related professionals.” Another said: “We are soft power exporters as well as actual exporters, but primarily we are a sector made up of very small businesses—more than 600,000 in the UK—and the average number of employees is fewer than four.”
They are vital to the UK economy, and the BEIS figures for 2019 indicate that the sector was worth an estimated £224.8 billion to the UK economy in terms of gross value added. They also provide 4.6 million jobs. This is a UK success story, and all those industries contribute to the wealth and richness of experience that we enjoy, whether it is in creative industries, a legal system that is respected throughout the world or recruitment and management consultancy.
The sub-committee was concerned that any deal needed to prevent the creation of barriers to trade that would have a detrimental effect, specifically on the issues of national reservations, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, business mobility, including comprehensive protection for travel, intellectual property rights and data adequacy. On national reservations, companies face a patchwork of complicated rules that vary by sector and member state. The committee subsequently called for guidance for business on navigating those reservations, but, as of today, this guidance has not been published. On business mobility, this will be a major change for service providers. Although the impact of the Covid pandemic has delayed the outcome, I think it will be felt once international business resumes. As of this month, the Government have published country- specific guidance on business mobility for 21 of the 26 member states.
On mutual recognition of qualifications, all our witnesses gave high priority to its importance once we had left the EU. The UK Government had an ambitious proposal, which the sub-committee welcomed, but we ended up with something much less. The TCA leaves open the possibility of a new agreement on mutual recognition of professional qualifications in future. My guess is that we will probably never know what happened in the negotiations on mutual recognition or on mobility of labour, but, post the TCA, the sub-committee urged the Government to seek such an agreement in the medium term. This is a personal view, but the professional qualifications legislation currently going through Parliament is a long way short of any medium-term deal.
On intellectual property, subsequent to this report the TCA embedded a mutual commitment to high standards of intellectual property protection, which is welcome. The sub-committee expressed the hope of regulatory dialogue with the EU to manage divergence. On data adequacy, the good news is that the EU confirmed its data adequacy decision on 28 June. One hopes that this will stick if the UK decides to make substantial changes to the GDPR.
As I said in a subsequent report, the service sector is at the heart of the UK economy, so it is essential that the Government and the EU make improvements to smooth UK-EU services trade. The sub-committee accepted that there might be divergence but urged the Government to be constructive and to set up joint consultative arrangements to maximise co-operation and avoid misunderstandings. I have to say that there is little evidence of this happening. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, said only yesterday that he regretted that the relationship was punctuated with challenges characterised by disagreement and mistrust. Passporting arrangements in financial services have stalled and there is little evidence of help for the creative industries in temporary movement of goods and people.
Parliamentary scrutiny is more important than ever on the impact of the TCA and the regulatory changes taking place, particularly in the financial sector, where financial regulations will be given the role that primary legislation has performed in the past. So it is with great relief that we finally have the European Affairs Committee to keep these issues under review and hold the Government to account. I wish the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his committee all the best in this endeavour.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, four speakers have withdrawn from this debate: the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and to congratulate her on securing this debate at last. I also pay tribute to her and her sub-committee for the work they did putting together such an excellent report on this crucial issue. The debate has been much delayed, but that delay has not taken anything away from its importance. The message that the report was designed to convey about the contribution that the professional and business sectors make to our economy, and the importance of unimpeded access to the EU, has lost none of its force. It is just as relevant today, and so is the importance for the Government to understand the needs of these sectors and to do what they can to support them. It was already clear when the report was published in October 2020 that there were fundamental differences between the UK and the EU on the issue of mutual recognition. Apparently, negotiations were still continuing when the Government published their response on 7 December, but their failure to reach agreement was plain for all to see when the TCA was published on 24 December.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, explained where we are now when he was winding up for the Government at Second Reading of the Professional Qualifications Bill on 25 May. He said that the UK had proposed ambitious arrangements on professional qualifications recognition, but that the EU did not choose to engage with them. He said:
“We took the horse to water but it refused to drink”.—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 975.]
He recognised that UK regulators will now have to form their own professional specific agreements, which will take time and effort, and that this why the Government stand ready to help. I hope that this is still the case.
Regrettable though the situation is, we must move on. We cannot turn the clock back. At least we have the TCA and the possibility of some form of agreement in the future. The Professional Qualifications Bill is another step forward. It will create the framework that is needed on our side for mutual recognition. The question for the Minister is: what more can the Government do now, both here and in the member states, to provide advice and help to the regulators as they seek to pursue and develop recognition agreements with their European counterparts? The situation we are in was their creation. Those who work in these sectors, many of them small businesses, as the noble Baroness pointed out, are entitled to look to the Government for that support.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests listed in the report and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for the fine job that she did chairing our committee. I also thank the staff—clerk Dee Goddard and Hadia Garwell—for their excellent work. Overall, I support the Government on Brexit, but with only three minutes, I must concentrate on areas of difficulty.
This is a big sector, with professional and business services providing £225 billion gross value added in 2019 and employing 13% of the workforce, yet in the negotiations it was more or less ignored. However, all is not gloom. Our legal and accountancy firms have been ahead of the game, setting up complex arrangements where necessary, to keep serving customers in the EU. Extra qualifications have been secured by talented individuals, young and old, with the Republic of Ireland being a major beneficiary. The very process may have generated innovation, fired up by the need to move online with Covid.
I have two areas of questioning. The first relates to small and medium-sized businesses, which are less able to jump through expensive hoops, such as smaller legal firms, architects, and engineers. Does my noble friend have any data on how they are faring? Are they offering services in the EU? Are they diversifying into markets elsewhere?
My second area of questioning is a matter that we found most unsatisfactory. It is the Government’s handling of the future relationship with the creative industries—a sector facing the challenge of both Covid-19 and arrangements in the agreement, which make touring very difficult. In response, the Government said that they
“could not expect to end free movement into the UK while at the same time expecting that nothing would change with respect to movement into the EU … It was inevitable therefore that there would be significant changes in the arrangement under which creative workers operate in the EU, all the more so because many of the relevant rules are set at Member State level.”
To put it mildly, the sector feels let down and that better arrangements could have been won.
We suggested that the Government should pursue negotiations to address these issues, with both the EU and member states. Sadly, the Government do not seem to be in negotiation with the EU, and instead say:
“Through our engagements, we have established that some touring activities are possible without visas or work permits in at least 17 out of 27 member states.”
This is progress, but it is not sufficient. Can my noble friend update us and offer any hope?
The Government’s response to two related issues was disappointing. The first was the extra costs of creative professionals moving their equipment across borders and the need for costly ATA carnets. The second was the impact on the specialist touring haulier industry of cabotage restrictions. The creative sector, especially musicians of the classical and pop variety, and the tours they make, are hugely important to the UK. We need a better response. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can update us or write, and that the European Affairs Committee, with its new energy, will be interested in taking this issue forward.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a practising member of a profession. I thank the committee for its excellent report. I suppose you could say that today’s debate is better late than never, even if that effectively lets the Government off the hook. I want to use my three minutes to urge the Government to expedite the process, laid out in the trade and co-operation agreement, of facilitating the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
The provision of professional services to Europe is one of our most important exports. Solicitors, accountants, architects, engineers, and even actuaries, bring us significant sums. All the treaty does is provide a mechanism on which regulators can work together to establish mutual recognition of professional qualifications to enable professional services to be sold in Europe. I do not believe for one moment that this is a simple process. In its guidance note, issue in May, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy admits:
“Negotiations for establishing recognition arrangements may be a lengthy and resource-intensive process.”
That is even more reason for the Government to play their part in getting the process underway.
We all understand that what we have at present, under the treaty, is simply a framework, with the practice to be agreed through the joint Partnership Council. But the widest possible mutual recognition was a key negotiating demand in the original UK mandate. It had its own chapter—chapter 12—in the document. Given its importance to the UK’s professional and business services sector, it might be expected to be a priority area for the Government in seeking to enhance the agreement. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the council did not mention this issue in its initial work—no reference was made to it in the statements made following the council’s first meeting. This is not good enough, because it means years of uncertainty, leaving UK professionals at a competitive disadvantage.
Can the Minister and his colleagues offer any concrete hope of expediting action in this area? Is the Minister satisfied that mutual recognition is being given the priority it demands?
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my financial services interests as stated in the register. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, on securing this debate. I am glad that we just squeezed it in before the Summer Recess.
It was a great pleasure to serve on the EU Services Sub-Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness. She skilfully led the committee—whose members represent different strands of opinion on Brexit and its effect on our services industry—to agree this report, and indeed our subsequent short report, without dissent.
Three minutes is not enough time to begin to comment on the myriad important issues identified in the reports, so I shall mention just three. First, we thought that the Financial Services Act was a missed opportunity to make major changes to our financial regulations. Since the return of powers to our regulators allows for a more flexible and innovative regime, it is still unclear precisely how Parliament will scrutinise regulations and hold the regulators to account. The report of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, led by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, shows how the UK can seize the opportunities available from Brexit by reshaping its regulatory approach. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we need to be swifter and bolder in reforming our cumbersome rulebook?
Secondly, a combination of Covid and new rules restricting travel to the UK for artists and creative support teams from the EU has increased costs and reduced opportunities for many festivals and events organisers. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government will continue to work with the EU and with member states to make it easier and cheaper for touring performers and crews to travel both to and from the UK?
Thirdly, our report called for a mutual commitment to high standards of intellectual property protection. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys argues that divergence from EPO standards, such as the introduction of the grace period or the need for the ability to extend patent terms, should be resisted unless agreed as global standards in multilateral fora such as WIPO and Group B+. Does my noble friend the Minister think that this will present a problem in negotiating accession to the CPTPP, or does he think that our acceptance of CPTPP rules on patents would encourage the EPO to be more flexible in working towards international harmonisation of patent rules and a common rulebook for itself, the Japan Patent Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
It is a pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and to agree with the praise with which he and other speakers have referred to the very able and skilful chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, in the report that we are now debating and in all the work that the committee did. I also add my tribute to the work of the staff and particularly to Dee Goddard.
Others have spoken at length about the importance of services to the UK, particularly financial services, accountancy, law, and the creative industries. It is now important to look forward. It is perhaps disappointing that the EU has so far refused to go much along the lines of what was hoped for, but I do not find that unsurprising, given that some see this as a competitive advantage to be snatched from the departure of the UK. However, we must look to the future, and it is the future on which we must concentrate.
First, it is vital that we get certainty on mutual recognition of professional qualifications and that the Bill is brought forward in a proper form in due course. Secondly, we must continue dialogue. My own experience—outlined in the declaration of interests in the register and in this report—shows that there is a great deal that we can do. Our accountancy profession, our legal profession and our financial regulators are highly respected across Europe, and I very much hope that we continue to push forward our dialogue. I have no doubt that that will be well received. Thirdly, it is important that we use that dialogue as part of what we must show for the future, which is leadership. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, showed wonderful leadership on this committee, and the Government need to show leadership in showing what we can do to bolster our service industries by dialogue with Europe but also leadership across the world.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, spoke eloquently about the need for proper regulation, and it is important to stress that we have huge advantages here. We have an innovative spirit with which to approach regulation. We know how to avoid the kind of mistakes that led to Enron, and we have, above all, the advantage of a flexible legal system, particularly the common law, which is able to develop and buttress regulatory systems that operate to support innovation, to support the new economy that is emerging from the digital revolution and to take us forward. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to be encouraging about how he sees regulation and the service industries associated with it moving forward.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and her committee on the quality of this report. It is about a crucial sector of the British economy that has been sorely neglected in the EU negotiations. I find it extraordinary, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will try to explain why it is so, that so much attention was paid to the British fishing industry, where the gain in catch as a result of Brexit is something like £25 million a year, when the needs of the business services sector, worth £224 billion to our economy, were so neglected in negotiations. Did the Government simply get their priorities wrong?
When we are looking to the future, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is right to suggest we have to, on some issues we may be able to make progress. We might be able to make progress on short-term mobility, which is particularly important for the creative sector, our musicians and all the rest; but we will have to recognise that such progress will require reciprocal action on our part. If we take an ideological approach, as I believe the Government do, to ending freedom of movement, they will find an agreement on this difficult to negotiate. If we set aside the ideology, we might get somewhere on mobility.
On mutual recognition of qualifications, it is going to be a very hard grind. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, says, we have to demonstrate that we have something to offer. We have a trade surplus with the EU on services. It has always been difficult within the EU to get progress on services liberalisation and, to the extent that there has been progress, it is because we were in a single market where the Commission drove member states to open up with the backing of the ECJ. We have lost that by not being in the single market, and it is a very big loss for us indeed. In future years, if the gains of Brexit are as minimal as they appear at the moment, we will have to reconsider this question of single-market membership.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We seem not to be getting the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, so perhaps we should move on and come back if we can.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I add my admiration for the noble Baroness and her excellent report. I am beginning to feel left out, having not been a member of the committee, since it is evident that it was an excellent process with some really important results. I am delighted that there has been such a tremendous rush to join this debate, even if not all noble Lords have shown up, because it is a demonstration of the really important part that businesses and professional services play in the United Kingdom.
When I was young, many years ago, I was told—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will know more about it than me—that the trade unions for miners and steelworkers would go into No. 10 for beer and sandwiches. My aim and aspiration, when I was responsible for leisure and hospitality, was that there should be a CBI debate on leisure and hospitality—the industry and jobs of the future. But it is business and professional services that are now involved in so many jobs and businesses, and so many small businesses; two-thirds are not in London and the south-east but really across the economy.
I pay tribute to the many trade bodies that have worked so hard for business and professional services, but particularly to the Business Services Association and Mark Fox, who for 13 years has worked so hard with his small team to ensure that these aspects are fully considered. In business services, they include ICT, business process outsourcing, facilities management, construction and infrastructure services and managed public services. They point out that in today’s economy, many contracts span more than one category; they are together in the real economy, even if they are not always linked by statisticians. Of the services and projects provided by businesses large and small, 70% is business to business, with the remainder being provided in the public sector—that is before we get to the professional services that support them, which are equally vital to our economy and often dominate the debate.
The UK business services industry is globally acknowledged as being at the cutting edge of service transformation and technological creativity. For some parts of business services, such as business process outsourcing, exports are integral. To quote the committee’s report:
“The EU is the UK’s largest market for exports in professional and business services, accounting for 37% of professional and business services exports.”
The UK
“ran a trade surplus of £12.4 billion with the”
EU’s professional business services. It is a highly lucrative and important market, and one we have, rightly, to nurture.
I pay tribute to the Ministers, my noble friends Lord Grimstone and Lord Callanan, and the many officials in the Department for International Trade and BEIS who have worked so hard to work with industry and acted as a go-between. Although much progress has taken place, we appreciate that there are still some outstanding and tricky issues. We have talked about the creative industries and the recognition of qualifications.
What does the Minister see as the critical and exciting role of business and professional services in the green economy as we move towards COP 26? I believe that this will provide further jobs, opportunities and wealth creation.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I fully agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said in her speech. She has laid out all the parts of the committee’s report, which was unanimous. We must acknowledge that this sector is vital to the UK economy, contributing £224 billion and employing some 4.6 million people. The Government are yet to give their final response to the committee’s report. Can the Minister inform the House when they will do so?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the committee on this very full, comprehensive and welcome report. I recognise the contribution that all professional services and businesses make to the UK. As a doctor’s daughter, sister and niece, I would like to place on record my view that professionals in this country are the jewel in the crown of the United Kingdom. I will make particular reference in my remarks to the legal profession in both England and Scotland, particularly the contribution made by the Law Society of Scotland and its members, and the Faculty of Advocates and its members—of which I am a non-practising one.
I refer to the references to the Internal Market Act 2020 and all the work the Government did there, and the recognition that the legal profession is different, which was acknowledged in the Professional Qualifications Bill. There are some 160 professions regulated by the legislation in the UK and worldwide, and numerous others with voluntary regulatory arrangements. Many of these professions, such as nursing and teaching, provide a wide range of employment opportunities. Much of the policy around this legislation centres on maintaining an adequate supply of professionals in areas where a potential shortage is a concern. As such, the Government’s focus was to facilitate cross-border recognition and regulation to ensure as integrated a system of transfer of professionals as the Immigration Rules would permit. That is something I support.
As was acknowledged in the Internal Market Act 2020, the legal profession is somewhat different. We have different legal systems and separate jurisdictions. That is something we have to be cognisant of as we monitor and support the Professional Qualifications Bill’s passage through this House.
On my noble friend’s work in this regard, particularly in his role in the Department for Exiting the European Union, I was grateful for a reply that I received from him on 16 March to a Question that I asked about non-reciprocal rights being offered to those from the EEA countries and Switzerland coming to this country. He said:
“The Government is firmly committed to the agreement in December and we are working with the Commission to agree how they should be translated into legal form in the Withdrawal Agreement. We are committed to turning the Joint Report into legal text as soon as possible and it remains our shared aim to reach agreement on the entire Withdrawal Agreement by October.”
I hope that my noble friend shares my disappointment that we were not able to reach agreement by that deadline.
It is important that we establish such an agreement in the context of the trade and co-operation agreement. I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to say how important that is. I share my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s concern about how badly affected businesses have been, as set out in the report, particularly small and medium-sized companies. Having suffered the loss of EU drivers, we now face a severe shortage of lorry drivers. As honorary president of the UK Warehousing Association, I know that there is an equally severe shortage of space in warehousing, which could become acute in the run-up to Christmas. I am sure that my noble friend is aware of that, so I hope that he will put my mind at rest in that regard.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the recommendations and conclusions of the report before us today.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, like all the members of our committee, I was in awe of the ability of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, to keep our unruly group in order and enable us to deliver a unanimous report. The way she conciliated and arbitrated between us you would almost believe she had spent a lifetime doing that kind of thing. As has been said, we were most ably aided by Dee Goddard and the staff.
I disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said about us letting the Government off the hook. The hard truth that runs through the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, indicated, is that professional and business services were the forgotten army of the Brexit negotiations. Time and again, on topics ranging from intellectual property to data adequacy, from recognition of professional qualifications to business mobility, and the business and professional services mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, we were met with responses to our concerns from Ministers that could roughly be described as “It’ll be all right on the night”.
As yesterday’s Statement on the Northern Ireland protocol clearly demonstrated, Boris Johnson’s much-vaunted “oven-ready” deal was in reality half-baked. We are now going to learn the hard way the consequences of signing in haste and regretting at leisure. I hope that Parliament will learn the lessons of this debacle. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his Committee on International Agreements will need to be particularly robust in examining the details and consequences of some of the trade deals that the International Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, is rushing to complete. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is already being hawked round by the Brexiteers as the alternative safe harbour to the EU, yet concerns are already being expressed about the safety of patents and intellectual property under any CPTPP agreement. Of course, we have the promises of a US-UK trade agreement. We all know how we can rely on the special relationship with our American cousins when they come to talking about trade. The Northern Ireland experience shows that negotiating under political pressure to demonstrate that Brexit is done can lead to catastrophic mistakes. “Caveat emptor” should be the watchword for the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith.
In recent weeks, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has made increasingly clear that the harsh new Brexit world in which whole sectors of the British economy will have to compete is the one that the Brexiteers intended. There will be no soft Brexit. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, a settlement that would have allowed the important music and concert touring industry to have easy access to the EU markets could not be countenanced because it involved diluting the purity of quitting the single market in labour mobility. This is not an immigration or free movement issue. What is needed is to have negotiated simple, frictionless, cost-free arrangements for temporary paid workers in EU countries so that this important creative sector can continue to flourish. I pay tribute to the efforts of Sir Elton John to make the Government see sense—I did not think that I would ever say that in the House of Lords.
We also put on record our concerns about data adequacy. The recent announcement of a data adequacy decision by the EU Commission is, of course, welcome, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said. But, to quote the Commission’s own press release, the decision included
“strong safeguards in case of future divergence such as a ‘sunset clause’, which limits the duration of adequacy to four years”.
This short rein imposed by the EU is in sharp contrast to the sense of urgency in bringing our domestic legislation into line with the GDPR in 2019. Is it because the Government are already planning to bring us into conflict with EU data adequacy? Do Ministers anticipate any conflict between remaining true to our EU data adequacy commitments and our ambitions to join the CPTPP?
What about our ambitions for a free trade agreement with the USA? I ask because in the last couple of days I have received two invitations to round tables looking at greater co-operation between the USA and the UK on data transfer. It would be helpful if the Minister was to give us some idea from the Dispatch Box of how the Government intend to use the four years of data adequacy now granted. Will they be working with the EU, as it refines its own data framework, and have influence in shaping the outcomes, as we did with the GDPR? Or will we be like the Bisto kids, sniffing the gravy but on the outside looking in? The report’s declaration that the
“free flow of data between the UK and EU is vital to professional and business service providers”
remains valid today. The Government owe it to the sector to spell out their intentions in this area and their priorities during the four years that we have been granted.
In the pages of this report are unanswered questions after unanswered questions about the prospects for financial services, the problems facing lawyers, the uncertainties about patents and intellectual property, the fate of our creative industries and other things that have been raised by noble Lords during this debate. The report shows that the Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, have delivered a Brexit with much unfinished business and with a mindset ill-suited to resolving the many problems that they themselves have created by their tunnel vision and ideological inflexibility.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, both wisely advised us not to try to turn back the clock but to look to the future. I realise that there is no chance of our returning to the EU in the near future or on the favourable terms negotiated by successive British Governments in our 40 years of membership. But there is an alternative to consistently seeing Europe as the enemy. At some time, there will come a British Government willing and able to work constructively with our nearest neighbours and most important trading partners. This report provides a useful checklist for how the most successful sector in our economy can have its interests protected and enhanced in that process.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the sad story of this excellent report, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, is that the Government failed to heed the clarion call to place our professional and business services centre stage in negotiations with the EU. That is hard to explain, given what a great foreign earner those services represent, the sheer numbers employed and the role that they play in servicing other business so that they too can trade and prosper. All those were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, my noble friends Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Liddle and others.
The TCA focused on fishing and goods and, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, rather ignored services, leaving them facing barriers to their continuation and growth. In particular, while the TCA provides a framework, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton said, for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, this new system will, in the judgment of TheCityUK, take a long time to yield any meaningful results. I hope that the Government will hear the need for urgency in making progress on that vital aspect, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
While there are undoubtedly some positives in regard to legal services—a sector mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others—particularly on where UK lawyers can practise UK and international law under home title anywhere in the EU without requalification, such access is subject to national restrictions. Importantly, along with all professional and business services, including cultural services, the trade agreement provides little on the movement of people. That is one of the biggest losses for UK professional service providers in doing business in the EU.
Perhaps most worrying since the conclusion of the TCA is the absence of agreement on Lugano, about which I have tabled Written Questions, though I await responses from the Government. Perhaps the Minister can update the House as to why he thinks that the European Commission has concluded that it is
“not in a position to give its consent to invite the United Kingdom to accede to the Lugano Convention”
and tell us what steps the Government are taking to rectify that and mitigate the resulting difficulties.
There remains work to be done to improve our trading relationship with the EU over the ongoing provision of the UK’s professional and business services. TheCityUK has outlined its priorities, some covering financial services, which are beyond the scope of this report, but a number are germane to our debate, particularly over data adequacy—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—Lugano and the movement of people. However, TheCityUK’s major message to us is the most important: outstanding practical and implementation issues are unlikely to be solved
“until the political situation between the parties is heavily de-escalated”.
That is our plea to the Government. Can we tone down the language? Can we stop the playground name-calling and accusations of bad faith? Please can we not even think of triggering dispute mechanisms or other such macho devices? How can we possibly at this moment be setting ourselves on a collision course with the EU by threatening to suspend parts of the Brexit deal, which the Government have only just negotiated and signed, if the EU does not accede to our demands?
As the FT says today, the Command Paper
“represents a root-and-branch rewriting of the Brexit deal UK prime minister Boris Johnson agreed with the EU in October 2019”,
amounting to an attempt to tear up an international treaty—an attempt, in the view of the FT, that the EU was bound refuse. Indeed, I understand from the BBC website that Mrs von der Leyen has already this afternoon rejected the Prime Minister’s bid to renegotiate the protocol. That is not just important for the protocol, but how does it help our wider relationship with our vital partner, particularly the continuation of the business and professional services on which, as we have heard from all speakers, we are so dependent? Can we please heed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and look to the future and so keep our eye on the major prize? That is increased and growing trade in professional and business services with our nearest neighbour and our biggest single market—an objective that does not have to be at the expense of trade further afield.
We need better atmospherics to achieve the improvement in our relationships with the EU on the services that we are discussing today. They are vital for our economy, both in the direct benefit of these services and for all the other businesses that they support—goods, fishing, agriculture, academia. Everything that we do with the EU tends to depend on advice, legal advice, professional services and recruitment—all the ones that we are covering today, including, of course, accountancy. I hope that the noble Lord will offer some real assurances that the Government share our ambition in this regard to ensure that this sector of our economy continues to thrive, grow with the EU and help all the other bits of our economy and, similarly, trade with this biggest and nearest partner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for securing this important debate, which I thought was characterised by some excellent contributions, from her and many other Members. I am also grateful to my ministerial colleague and noble friend Lord Grimstone, who has offered evidence to the EU Services Sub-Committee on several occasions over this past year, including on this report, and who continues to engage with the sector’s leaders as co-chair of the PBS and investment councils.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, professional business services are one of our largest and most successful sectors. My noble friend Lord Grimstone’s open letter to the sector in May this year highlighted that, from 2000 to 2019, growth in PBS outperformed that of the UK economy as a whole. The sector generated 12% of the UK’s total gross value added in 2020 and represents one in seven jobs across the country, with two-thirds of those jobs outside London and the south-east. Internationally, the sector has also excelled. Since 2000, exports of PBS have grown from £28 billion to roughly £111 billion in 2019. The UK is now second only to the US as the greatest exporter of professional business services in the world. This is something that the UK excels at and that we should be proud of. Our task now, of course, is not only to maintain but to develop the sector’s reputation for excellence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, pointed out, and the Government recognise, the challenges that the UK’s new relationship with the EU and the Covid-19 pandemic present for the sector. Naturally, many noble Lords focused their contributions today on these challenges. I will address many of those comments and questions later, but I think that it is also worth reminding ourselves briefly of what the UK-EU free trade agreement and the Covid relief programme offer our businesses.
The agreement grants UK firms access to EU markets in a way that matches, and in some areas improves on, the EU’s best agreements to date with countries such as Japan and Canada. In practice, this means that most PBS businesses can continue to access EU markets and that they will not be subject to discriminatory barriers to trade while doing so, except where either side has expressly reserved the right to do so. The agreement means that business travellers can move easily between the EU and the UK for short-term visits —for example, by eliminating nationality requirements for some roles and guaranteeing how long temporary business visitors from the UK can stay in the EU. It is also future proof, which means that our businesses get the most liberal market access that either party grants to any future trading partner as well.
Notably, the agreement includes a number of important wins for the UK and PBS businesses. On legal services, we negotiated unprecedented provisions that will help ensure that UK law remains popular and competitive as the governing law of choice for commercial contracts worldwide. We also secured one of the most liberalising and modern digital trade chapters anywhere in the world. Among other things, it makes the cross-border flow of data easier by prohibiting requirements to store or process data in a specific location and thereby avoids costly requirements for British businesses.
Our exit from the EU represents an unparalleled opportunity for the UK to do things differently and better. Our priority is to help the sector adapt to these changes. To that end, we have been operating export helplines, running webinars with experts and offering businesses support via our network of 300 international trade advisers. We have also published extensive guidance on GOV.UK, including sector-specific landing pages to help individual sectors navigate the guidance available online, enhanced guidance on visa and work permit routes in EU member states and an interactive tool that can be used to find which reservations are most relevant to UK businesses selling services to customers in the EU. These are bespoke resources whose detailed guidance is unmatched by other trading partners worldwide.
The sector has overcome adversity in the past, but none has proved as great as the Covid-19 pandemic. At its worst point, economic activity in the sector as a whole fell by 20% in 2020. While the sector has suffered, 2021 has so far proven a positive year for PBS. As of May 2021, PBS output was just 3% below what it was pre Covid, in January 2020, tracking the strong recovery of the UK economy overall. With the help of the Government’s furlough scheme and plan for jobs, many businesses have adapted to new and innovative ways of delivering their services to support their clients through this adversity.
One of the ways we are ensuring the continued recovery and growth of the sector is through the PBS council and its working groups. The council has already made great progress this year by jointly publishing the Skills for Future Success report with the Financial Services Skills Commission. This report explores how to deliver recovery and growth right across the UK and complements the work of the socioeconomic diversity task force, which will provide much-needed evidence on what we can do to progress and retain talent across all backgrounds.
The council’s trade working group is exploring the possibilities that lie further afield—feeding the sector’s views into new potential FTAs as well as the global opportunities through COP 26 and an increased focus on environmental services. I completely agreed with my noble friend Lady Bottomley, as I so often do, that the PBS sector will be key to supporting a sustainable economic recovery and making the UK a world leader for green technology and finance, including in areas such as reporting of climate-related financial information and facilitating the use of the Government’s sovereign green gilt and green savings bonds. My department is working with DIT’s trade promotion unit and the four major new trade hubs across the UK to showcase the international expertise and excellence of our PBS sector, helping make businesses more sustainable and achieving our net-zero objectives in the process.
I will now turn to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords in the debate. My noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lady Neville-Rolfe raised the knotty issue of touring musicians, which I know has exercised a number of others in this House. Officials have now spoken to every member state about the importance of touring. DCMS Ministers have also raised touring with their counterparts in a number of member states, including Portugal and Austria. Through this engagement, we have established that the picture is better than previously thought, and that some touring activities may be possible in at least 18 member states without visas or work permits. This includes many of the most economically important countries, such as France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy. DCMS, via our embassies, is engaging with those member states that do not have any visa or permit-free touring, such as Spain, calling on them to more closely align their arrangements with the UK’s generous domestic regime. DCMS Ministers are personally involved in the engagement with these priority countries. I hope that reassures my noble friends.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, raised a number of points, including the important subject of financial services. Our new chapter for financial services is already under way. Building on his Statement to the House of Commons in November 2020, at the Mansion House in July the Chancellor introduced four key themes of the Government’s vision for financial services. These are to be: an open and global financial hub; the sector at the forefront of technology and innovation; a world leader in green finance; and a competitive marketplace promoting effective use of capital. The Chancellor was clear that the UK had an abiding interest in a prosperous and productive Europe. Leaving the EU means that we have a unique opportunity to take an approach that better suits our markets while maintaining our high regulatory standards. We are using our new freedoms to build on our historic strength as a global financial centre and to develop our relationships with jurisdictions all around the world, attracting investment and increased opportunities for cross-border trade.
A number of noble Lords raised the recognition of professional qualifications on which the PBS sector often relies to practise overseas. Mutual recognition agreements generally smooth this process. In the TCA negotiations, the Government worked hard to agree a framework for MRAs across all EU member states. This framework improves on the one which Canada negotiated with the EU by streamlining certain aspects of the application process. I hope that I can reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that we have been working hard to provide a suite of support for regulators and for professional bodies wanting to agree these arrangements. We have established a new recognition arrangements team, published technical guidance and launched a pilot grant funding programme for the PBS sector, specifically to help regulators navigate this important area.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised the important issue of mobility. As a result of the TCA, business travellers do not require a work permit to carry out certain short-term business travel activities, such as attending meetings and conferences or providing after-sales services or translation and market research services. Some EU member states allow additional activities without the need for a visa or work permit. For those undertaking longer-term stays or stays involving work, or providing a service under contract, a visa and/or work permit may be required. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that we have published guidance on visa and work permit routes in 27 out of 30 EU member states. We continue to engage regularly with our embassies in order to better understand the requirements in each country and to support UK nationals when they travel abroad. We have also secured a review clause on the list of permitted activities for short-term business visitors which will allow both parties to update their commitments further down the line.
At the moment, it is too early to say to what extent reservations will affect UK firms’ decisions on whether to operate from a particular place or how to structure their businesses. Reservations that apply to niche sectors are likely to have less of an impact—in particular, I was struck by the one on reindeer herdsmen in Lapland, should the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, wish an alternative career. Those which apply across the EU as a whole or which cover highly regulated professions, for example, lawyers, accountants and architects—which may be of a little more interest to the noble Baroness—are likely to mean that businesses must adapt. Many businesses which use the reservations tool that I mentioned earlier will likely only need to engage with a handful of member states—for example, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Ireland and Spain. These made up approximately 62% of our services trade with the EU in 2019.
I am pleased to reassure the noble Baroness that investment into the UK remains robust. Figures from the Department for International Trade show that during the 2020-21 financial year, new inward investment from the EU created over 21,000 new jobs in the UK.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, rightly observed—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—data flows and the digital economy are crucial to supporting cross-border trade in services, not only with the EU but with all our trading partners. We have welcomed the EU’s recent adoption of adequacy decisions for the UK. Some estimates suggest that this has saved UK businesses as much as £1.6 billion on data transfer compliance costs—such as setting up standard contractual clauses—and it allows for the ongoing free flow of personal data from the EEA to the UK in the safe and secure way it has always been in the past.
Our most recent deals with Japan, Australia, the EEA/EFTA countries and the EU contain some of the most advanced digital trade provisions seen in any modern trade agreement and we are now looking to strike additional arrangements—both for data and digital —with other like-minded partners.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard raised the issue of the IPO. The UK’s IP regime achieves an effective balance between rewarding creators and innovation and reflecting wider public interests, such as ensuring access to and use of IP on reasonable terms. We will ensure that the terms of our accession to the CPTPP are consistent with the UK’s IP interests, including not doing anything that increases reactive costs for our IP service providers.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked for information about support to small businesses. Innovate UK, the United Kingdom’s innovation agency, offers several support mechanisms that are available to SMEs and other businesses, such as: the innovation loans pilot programme; smart grants; the Small Business Research Initiative; and catapults, which are all there to provide support to small businesses in navigating this important area.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords, talked about the Professional Qualifications Bill, which we will seek to progress as much as possible. It revokes the UK’s interim system for the recognition of professional qualifications which currently often gives preferential treatment to holders of EEA and Swiss qualifications, and it will help aspiring professionals to understand how to access the UK’s professions. The Government have reflected carefully on the points that were made during the Bill’s passage to date and will be continuing conversations and engagement with noble Lords and stakeholders over the summer to try to address their key concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about the Lugano Convention. We continue to maintain that we meet the criteria for accession to the Lugano Convention, both because it is open to countries outside the EU and because all non-EU members already support the UK’s membership. Supporting UK accession is the sensible and pragmatic solution for all citizens. The Government are aware of the European Commission’s notification that it is not in a position to give its consent to UK accession to the Lugano Convention. However, we understand that member states have not yet been given an opportunity to vote formally on that position.
I am running out of time so I will move my remarks to closure. I assure noble Lords that helping PBS businesses both to adjust to our new relationship with the EU and to recover from the pandemic remain some of the Government’s highest priorities. We will continue to feed the sector’s views into future trade negotiations with other countries and develop the sector’s reputation for excellence both at home and abroad. Through trade promotion, we will support the sector to take advantage of opportunities in existing and emerging markets, maintaining and growing its global competitiveness.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I think all Members who have contributed, particularly the four members of the committee. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was trying to act as a recruitment officer for reindeer herders; the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, had better watch out—he is moving into the headhunter profession. However, I will politely decline. I do not think I would be very good at it, although, watching the numbers of speakers dropping like flies this afternoon, I am not sure whether a 30% attrition rate would be acceptable in that new career.
We have to look to the future. We are not looking just for mitigation, which the Minister spent some time doing. I know the Government are working hard on these issues but it is mainly to mitigate; it is not about improving people’s positions but about trying to make sure that they keep as good as they had.
We have such a lot of talent in the UK and such a lot to offer, and these businesses deserve constructive dialogue and renewed efforts by the Government to enable a thriving future. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, summed it up in saying that we need better atmospherics; that is what the professional and business services are looking for.
I shall not go on any longer, but I thank everyone for their contribution. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about the innovative spirit that the UK has in regulation and our flexible legal system. It is not that I lack confidence in what we have to offer; I just lack a bit of confidence in the ability of the Government to overcome the barriers that to some extent they themselves have created.
Calorie Labelling (Out of Home Sector) (England) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations be approved.
Two thirds of adults in England are overweight or living with obesity, and one in three children leave primary school overweight or obese. Obesity has huge costs to individuals, families and the economy and is one of the few modifiable risk factors for severe Covid-related illness and death. This measure is a vital part of the Government’s healthy weight strategy and will contribute meaningfully towards achieving our ambition of halving childhood obesity by 2030. The instrument that we are discussing today concerns the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling in the out-of-home sector, such as restaurants, cafés and takeaways.
Before I outline what the instrument does, I encourage noble Lords to read the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s fourth report, which draws these regulations to the attention of the House. I extend my thanks to the committee for its scrutiny and work.
The instrument requires businesses in England with 250 or more employees to display the calorie content of non-prepacked food and drink items, except alcohol, that are sold ready for immediate consumption. Calorie information must be displayed at the customer’s point of choice, such as on menus, menu boards, online menus, and display labels. To better help customers to understand and use calorie information, businesses are also required to display a short statement referencing recommended daily calorie intake. The wording of this statement is specified in the regulations and must be displayed where it can be seen by customers when making their food choices. As well as helping people make more informed choices, transparency about the calorie content of meals will also support efforts to encourage businesses to reformulate products and reduce portion sizes.
The requirement applies to food sold in England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been engaged throughout the consultation process, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments are considering whether to introduce similar requirements in their nations. Subject to Parliament’s approval, the regulations will come into force from 6 April 2022.
We know that people are eating out or ordering takeaways more frequently and that when people eat out, the meals they consume are less healthy. Research suggests that eating out accounts for around one-quarter of adult energy intake and that when someone dines out or eats a takeaway meal, they consume on average 200 more calories per day than if they eat food prepared at home. I know that this is the case in my life.
Research shows that portions of food or drink that people eat out or order in as takeaway meals contain on average twice as many calories as equivalent retailer or manufacturer-branded products. In a supermarket, an average pepperoni pizza is 704 calories compared to 978 calories in the out-of-home sector. I would guess that homemade pizza is less than both.
People’s access to food served in the out-of-home sector is increasing through the accelerated growth of online aggregators such as Deliveroo and Uber Eats. Kantar Worldpanel data suggests that in 2020 these types of businesses grew in value by 172% and serviced 14.5 million shoppers.
Out-of-home calorie labelling supports people to make more informed choices when eating out and encourages businesses to reformulate their food to provide lower calorie options. Research shows that popular UK chain restaurants with calorie labelling serve items with less fat and less salt than those that do not display calorie information. Calorie labelling may therefore encourage businesses to offer healthier products altogether.
Evidence from the US, where calorie labelling in out-of-home settings already has come into effect, reinforces that calorie labelling delivers a small but significant reduction in calories purchased by consumers, who noticed and used the information. Increasingly, consumers want to know how many calories are in the food and drink they buy when eating out or ordering a takeaway. Surveys indicate that nearly 80% of people think that menus should include calories for food and drink items and that 60% of people would be more likely to eat at an establishment that offers calorie labelling on its menus.
Some businesses understand this and are taking the lead by voluntarily displaying calorie information. However, we can do more to ensure that this practice becomes more widespread and consistent across the sector. Previous attempts to encourage businesses to voluntarily display calorie information through the Department of Health and Social Care’s responsibility deal have proved insufficient at driving action on the scale required to make a substantive change to our food environment. That is why we are introducing a mandatory requirement for large out-of-home food businesses.
The importance of the out-of-home food sector to local communities and to the economy is something we are acutely aware of, as is how hard our hospitality sector has been impacted by Covid-19. By requiring only large businesses to calorie label, we are ensuring that smaller businesses which will likely find the requirement more challenging to implement are not impacted. Large businesses account for 49% of all turnover in the out-of-home sector and potentially there are more significant benefits. Our impact assessment estimates that the policy will have a net benefit to the economy of £5.6 billion over the next 25 years.
In conclusion, given the scale of the obesity challenge, we must take action to make the food environment healthier and promote transparency between businesses and consumers. I encourage noble Lords to review the helpful and informative briefing provided by Diabetes UK, which I would be happy to share. Its briefing highlights the importance of this legislation to help people with, and at risk of, diabetes. By taking action to improve our nation’s health, we will be happier, fitter and more resistant to diseases such as diabetes, cancer and Covid-19. I beg to move.
Baroness Bull
At end insert “but that this House regrets that they may not have their intended effect of addressing concerning levels of obesity in the United Kingdom; further regrets that their introduction will have negative and damaging consequences to those living with, or at risk of developing, eating disorders; further regrets that they do not reflect the views of experts and those with lived experience of eating disorders and do not take an integrated public health approach to obesity and eating disorders; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to commit to timely reviews of the impact of these regulations not only on obesity, but on eating disorders, as such disorders have the highest mortality rate of all mental health illnesses in the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I share government’s commitment to addressing obesity. My concern with these regulations is not their underlying intent; it is that they will have limited impact on reducing obesity while causing real harm to people with eating disorders.
If body weight was entirely under volitional control, this measure might be the answer to the obesity challenge, but obesity is more complex than that. Metabolism, poverty, environment and psychology all play a part, while hundreds of different genes influence our propensity to gain weight. The assumption that voluntarily eating less and/or exercising more can entirely prevent or reverse obesity is at odds with a definitive body of evidence developed over decades. They are not my words, but those of 100 obesity experts in a statement co-ordinated by the World Obesity Federation. Yet government’s obesity strategy turns a blind eye to this evidence and to the complex interface between obesity and mental health. I am astonished that the Minister did not mention this.
Eating disorders affect 1.25 million UK citizens and have the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses. While some manifest in low body weight, others, such as binge-eating, lead to obesity. Obesity is not a mental illness, but the two often co-exist, with 30% of the extremely obese having a diagnosable eating disorder. Obesity measures will work only if they take these interactions into account. These regulations do not. While the impact assessment admits the poor quality of the studies supporting calorie labelling, the evidence for harm is strong. It drives people with anorexia or bulimia to eat less and those with binge-eating disorders to eat more. It leads to unhealthy weight control behaviours such as laxative use or vomiting, and it increases disorders in the wider population.
Calorie counting is an all-consuming obsession and a common trait in eating disorders. One person described her disorder as thriving off counting calories, while another said it ruined their life. Recovery is possible but fragile, with learning to eat in public a key part of the pathway. The affordable chains that these regulations affect are exactly the places where this happens. One sufferer described overcoming a terror of restaurants but said, “With calorie counts on the menu, I don’t think I’d have coped”. Given the complex and secretive nature of eating disorders, it is unduly cruel to insist that restaurants provide label-free menus only on request. Will the Government reconsider this, and can the Minister confirm that daily calorie requirements in the guidance now match what the NHS recommends?
Public health always involves trade-offs, with small harms to a few the price of gains for the many. The risk of my mammogram is worth it because I am screened for a disease to which I am vulnerable, but can it be justified for a public health measure to hurt people with no risk of the disease? If labelling was really going significantly to impact obesity, this prioritisation of physical over mental health might be justified, but evidence suggests it will not. We need instead an integrated approach to weight-related issues across the spectrum, recognising the co-occurrence and shared risk factors for obesity and eating disorders, and involving both fields from the outset. These regulations are not that. Given the high levels of concern, I ask government to commit to reviewing their impact not just on obesity but on any rise in the rate of eating disorders.
My regret today is genuine. I regret the limited effect that the regulations will have on obesity and the distress they will cause to those with eating disorders, and I deeply regret that we have failed in our efforts to protect them. I regret that, despite so many people bravely speaking out and despite the efforts of charities and clinicians, it has not been possible to work together on a public health approach to obesity, an approach that would more effectively support one part of the community without causing lasting collateral damage to another.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I remind noble Lords that the time limit for speeches is four minutes. I call the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for in effect taking up much of my speech, so I will not repeat it, because I would be speaking broadly in favour of what the Government are endeavouring to do, but arguing, as I have done in my amendment, that they have not gone far enough. The Government’s Achilles heel is that they do not yet move on labelling on calories in sugar and in alcohol, and the Minister quickly skirted around that topic.
Before coming to my arguments, I want to express that I greatly sympathise with many of the arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has advanced. I have a lot of experience in this field; I have a friend whose daughter recently committed suicide and I have another friend who presently has a granddaughter seriously ill in hospital. It is a growing problem and is not easily resolved.
On the other hand, we have this massive problem with obesity, and we cannot deny it. Covid has driven it home more forcefully than ever before. Close to 130,000 people have died from Covid, many of them with underlying conditions linked directly to obesity and, in particular, to type 2 diabetes. NHS data indicates that 26% of those who have died had type 2 diabetes.
I speak as someone with a little experience; I am on the cusp of type 2 diabetes. The NHS has put me on a nine-month course to try and get me to change my eating habits, particularly in relation to the amount of sugar I consume. Part of that has been about me checking what I am eating and drinking, what its calorific content is, and what the sugar element is. So I welcome a step that moves towards greater openness and gives me the information I need to try to avoid becoming a type 2 diabetes patient. That is possibly on the cards if I do not take the appropriate steps.
There is no simple solution to obesity; I freely concede that. A whole range of measures have to be addressed in different ways. Small steps will make up a big leap forward. Regrettably, sometimes when we are trying to find solutions and we are all working with similar problems, we end up with contradictions and conflicts. Today we have a degree of conflict arising. It is not easy to find harmony and the only way we will do it is by continuing to talk to each other and trying to move forward in a friendly and comradely way.
I believe the Minister has fallen short with the regulations that he has produced. They do not go far enough. The Government know perfectly well that, of the calories obese people consume, 10% come from alcohol, yet they consistently resist displaying sugar and calorific content on labels for drinks. When this comes into play in February next year, you will be able to go into a restaurant and see what the calorific effect will be. You will be able to see what the calories are in food and in any non-alcoholic drink you may have—a fizzy or non-fizzy drink—and how much sugar is in it, but, if you pick up a pint of lager, you will have no idea what effect it will have on your health and well-being, or whether it is contributing to obesity. That must change. The Government must break their link with the powerful drinks industry—and before long they will have to. They know in their heart that they must do it, and the sooner they address the issue, the better for the country as a whole.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, who has done so much in his own way to bring together those of us who speak with the eating disorder community and those who represent those with obesity. I wish the Government would take on his approach of encouraging yet more joint dialogue.
I support the Government’s ambition to make the nation healthier, but these regulations are to be regretted and I therefore wholeheartedly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. At best, there is weak evidence for their efficacy and there is insufficient attention paid to the impacts on extremely vulnerable people, and the growing number of people suffering from eating disorders.
First, the weak evidence. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the approach is based on the 2018 Cochrane review, which concluded:
“Findings from a small body of low-quality evidence suggest that … energy information on menus may reduce energy purchased in restaurants.”
It went on to recommend the need for:
“Additional high-quality research in real-world settings”.
So I ask the Minister: did the Government consider trialling this approach first?
Secondly, these regulations will create another place of fear for a vulnerable community of eating disorder sufferers, having the potential to impact on their often-fragile recoveries and shattering the chance of moments of connection with families and friends.
I want to explain what I mean by a “place of fear”. When our daughter, Rose, was in the depths of her eating disorder and was hospitalised, part of her specialist treatment over many months involved taking the eating-disorder patients into cafés and other eating venues to learn how to manage these frightening situations. For those suffering from an eating disorder, the stress of a restaurant is huge: fear of other people watching you eat, fear of people eating less than you and fear of not having safe foods on the menu. It means obsessing about it the day before and restricting food intake beforehand. Going is a known risk, but one that is taken to try to have a moment of joy and celebration, given that food is a way to strengthen all those positive social bonds of connection with family and friends.
Those in recovery—and to be clear, recovery is not a linear process for sufferers; many get dragged back down time and again—will be at greater risk once this measure is introduced. Seeing calories on a menu will be one more way, once they are seated at the table, of stacking the cards against them as they battle the demons in their head telling them exactly what they are allowed to eat. In short, it turns what might have been a manageable situation—a moment of all too brief happiness for a family eating out—into one that descends into a paralysing stand-off.
There is no logic in eating disorders, only triggers to letting the illness claim control of your loved one. Victoria, another eating disorder sufferer, described it to me like this:
“During my recovery, I found calorie labelling highly triggering as it held me back from rebuilding my relationship with food and my understanding of how to feed myself in a healthy way without being controlled by numbers ... Eating disorder recovery is very fragile and I am daunted by the prospect that calorie counts will be harder now to avoid”.
This is the reality of these regulations for eating disorder sufferers.
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the concession that menus without calories will be permitted—but, when I asked about the guidance that businesses were being offered, the department confirmed that there will be no obligation to produce such menus. So there is no guarantee of one being available and no sanction if the restaurant just turns around and says no. Why does the guidance for businesses not at least strongly recommend that such menus are available on request?
So the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is right. We must review the impacts of this legislation within 12 months of its introduction, including assessing fully the impacts on eating disorder sufferers. We all want to encourage more healthy eating, but interventions should be evidenced-based and consider the implications for other vulnerable communities.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I speak today in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and, while I have the utmost sympathy for those with eating disorders, to oppose that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
When I came to this House over 10 years ago, my office-mate, my noble friend Lord McColl, was a lone voice asking questions about obesity and its consequences. We talked about it endlessly at our desks. In my case I was motivated as, after 55 years of being overweight, I had finally lost 28 pounds—and I have more or less kept it off. For years I struggled with my weight, so I know how hard it is, but I also know how important it is not only for my own long-term health but for the future—indeed, potentially the survival—of the NHS. Anything that we and the Government can do to help and support others in a similar position, with information that makes it easier to make informed choices, must be tried.
The rise in obesity and its related problems, including diabetes, heart disease and cancers, is a growing problem internationally as well as in this country. The relationship between our environment and health is becoming increasingly clear, and I very much welcome the part 2 of the national food strategy, which joins up the dots so clearly.
In 2017 I chaired a report on childhood obesity for the Centre for Social Justice. If previously I had not been aware of the severity of the crisis, I certainly was by the time that we had done the work and launched the report. Dr Chris van Tulleken’s current work on ultraprocessed foods—seemingly more chemicals than food—which now make up over 60% of the average Briton’s diet, is particularly alarming. He experimented on himself by eating a diet of 80% of these highly addictive foods for a month. What it did to his body was shocking: not only did he put on more than 14 pounds in weight, he suffered many other side-effects such as heartburn, sleep problems, loss of libido and piles. The food even altered his brain. The effect on our children’s health and their growing brains is horrible.
As the Minister said, nearly one-quarter of children in England are overweight or obese when they start primary school aged five, and this rises to one-third by the time they leave aged 11. Childhood obesity rates in the UK are among the highest in western Europe. Obese children are more likely to become obese adults; currently, around two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, with one in four living with obesity. We know that regular overconsumption of a relatively small number of calories leads to individuals becoming overweight or obese.
The problem is clear: it is likely that eating out frequently, including eating takeaway meals, contributes to this gradual overconsumption of calories. Research suggests that eating out accounts for 20% to 25% of adult energy, and that when someone eats out or eats a takeaway meal they consume, on average, 200 more calories per day than if they eat food prepared at home. This all adds up. Data also tells us that portions of food or drink that people eat out or eat as takeaway meals contain, on average, twice as many calories as equivalent retailer own-brand or manufacturer-branded products. Some 96% of people eat out, and 43% do so at least once or twice a week—a huge increase on even a decade or so ago.
There is strong public demand for calorie labelling in the out-of-home sector. People want information so as to make better choices. Nearly 80% of respondents to a survey by Public Health England said they think that menus should include the number of calories in food and drinks. This thirst for information also applies to alcohol. An experiment conducted by the RSPH in 2017 showed that, on an evening out in the pub, those drinking with calorie labelling on the menu drank 400 calories fewer than those who were not aware of what they were drinking. The problem is huge, and every tool in the toolkit has to be used to tackle it. There is no time to waste.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm. We cannot ignore the obesity epidemic, and we must grasp the nettle of the crisis of eating disorders of all types. However, alcoholic drinks are a major contributor to national ill health and obesity.
In 2020, our commission took evidence on alcohol harms, and I want to focus on the evidence we heard about the obesogenic effect of alcoholic drinks. As the Institute of Public Health in Ireland told us, alcohol
“can make a significant contribution to levels of overweight and obesity in the adult population”.
Adults who drink get nearly 10% of their daily calorie intake on average from alcohol, but people are ignorant of the calories. Over 80% of people do not know, or underestimate, the number of calories in a glass of wine and, similarly, over 80% of people do not know, or underestimate, the calorific content of a pint of lager.
A 175ml glass of 12% alcohol-by-volume wine has about 158 calories. That is equivalent to more than three Jaffa cakes, and it is more than a 330ml can of Coca-Cola, which contains 139 calories. This means that, per ml, wine contains more than double the calories of Coca-Cola. The Government have recognised the obesogenic effect of fizzy drinks through their high calorie content but turned a blind eye to one of the most damaging substances to our economy. Yet 308,000 children currently live with at least one adult who drinks at a high-risk level in England. We worry about obesity and do nothing about the most harmful of obesogenic substances.
Alcohol is exempt from the labelling requirements for food and non-alcoholic drinks. Alcoholic drinks are only required to display the volume and strength, and some wines are required to include allergens. I suggest that the alcohol industry is happy to describe alcohol by volume content, because it knows perfectly well that the public do not understand what this means, either in daily consumption terms or in calories. Information on nutritional values, including calories, ingredients, health warnings and so on are largely absent from labels. In commenting on this, the professor of public health nutrition Annie Anderson, told us she is
“shocked how far alcohol is always kept out of nutrition policy”.
Today’s debate is an example of that.
I would like to quote Adrian Chiles, who explored labelling for “Panorama”. He said:
“It is absurd in a pub that you buy a pint, it doesn’t have to tell you how many calories are in it, but you buy a bag of crisps to go with the pint, by law, it has to give you the number of calories … on an alcoholic product you don’t have to provide nutritional information including calories … if you’ve got a Becks blue, which is the alcohol free one, it’s got all the nutritional information and how many calories on it, ordinary Becks, they don’t have to put it on there”.
If we are labelling food with calories, it is blatantly absurd and deeply irresponsible to ignore alcoholic drinks, both in the bottle and when served by the glass in all out-of-home venues. There is evidence, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, that when calories are displayed on drinks, people drink less, thereby also decreasing their liver damage, their risk of injury, of a road accident or of fuelling their addiction, quite apart from reducing their calorie intake and the obesogenic effect. I could go on. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, and I certainly support my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe’s amendment. Going back to the Question we had on Tuesday about the possible addition of salt and sugar tax, I thought that was a rather good idea, because there have to be as many different solutions to the obesity problem as possible. As many noble Lords have said, this is extremely serious, and I suspect the Government should be looking at a wide range of different solutions, which might include a salt and sugar tax—it is not much different to adding fluoride to water, I should say—but should also go ahead with this regulation.
It is a pity, as many noble Lords have said, that most alcohol seems to have been omitted from it. Looking at the Explanatory Memorandum and the comments about the government consultation, it is obvious that not everybody in the food and drink industry thinks this is a good idea. I think they have been fighting it hard, and we shall probably continue to have to fight if we are to get anywhere.
I have a few questions for the Minister on the document. The first relates to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I think, mentioned: going to the pub and having a pint. I may go to the pub tomorrow night and have a pint and a fish and chips. As we know, beer is excluded. How do you put a label with the number of calories on it on a plate of fish and chips? You can put it on the menu, but the calories depend on the size of the fish, let alone how many chips they give you. The complexity of this regulation demonstrates just how difficult the Government have found it to put together.
I worry about the institutions that are included and excluded and what the limit of 250 employees means, because people have tried to work out franchises, where something such as McDonald’s adds up to well over 250 employees. I see plenty of arguments coming there. I wonder what the cost to each food authority will be to maintain the necessary register and monitor it, because we have heard so much about the Government not giving local authorities enough money to do that and whether they will actually do it when they get it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, mentioned, there are some serious issues with the regulation, but on the other hand, as I said on Tuesday, this country of ours is the second most obese in the world after the US. If this calorie-count idea and these regulations follow the US, it is probably because so many of our food producers are owned by US companies. It is a start, but I do not think it is sufficient. We can see from the Explanatory Memorandum that there was no support for an independent voluntary arrangement. That says a lot about where the food industry—and the brewing industry—is coming from. I hope that the Government will come back with something a bit stronger in future.
My final question may seem a bit silly but paragraph 7.17 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that international aircraft, trains and ferries are excluded but presumably, if one wants to buy a sandwich on a train, all the relevant documentation will be needed. I am sure that the Government will come up with some more ideas—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but his time is up.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are living in an unhealthy food environment in which an obesity epidemic sits alongside eating disorders, hunger and malnutrition, and consumption of damaging amounts of ultra-processed foods. We need an integrated public health approach to food. My attitude to these regulations is cautious but optimistic that they might do some good if implemented as part of a wider strategy, and with compassion for those who are concerned about their effects. I share the Minister’s hope that they may result in reformulation by restaurants and takeaways, as the sugar tax has done already. We all know why action is needed.
We heard the figures on childhood obesity from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. UK childhood obesity is almost the worst in Europe. He also reminded us that two-thirds of adults are overweight and 28% are obese. That matters because obesity ruins and shortens lives. It leads to type-2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, liver disease and skeletal problems. We have also seen to our horror how obesity affects a person’s probability of dying from Covid-19. The issue is complex, the numbers are enormous and the cost is eye-watering.
On the other hand, we hear that 1.25 million people suffer from eating disorders. Those are acknowledged to be mental health issues requiring expert therapies that are not sufficiently widely available. I hope that all noble Lords will acknowledge that mental health is also an issue for people living with obesity. It can be either a cause or an effect, and similarly require emotional support. It is no use just giving an obese person a diet sheet and telling them to get on with it.
Therefore, both problems endanger life and we must find a balance. In what way could these regulations help or hinder? I should emphasise that they must be only a tiny piece of the jigsaw. Let us look at the facts. We know that 96% of people eat out regularly, many of them families, and that number is rising. We know that the calorie content of restaurant and takeaway meals can be twice that of the same meal bought from a shop or home-cooked. How could knowing the number of calories help an obese person? It fills a gap in their knowledge. Most overweight people have no idea how many calories are in meals from a takeaway or restaurant. Knowing can help them to choose something lighter if they are trying to reduce their weight. Information is power.
On the other hand, people with eating disorders usually already know exactly how many calories are in every food because they have been limiting them for years. Therefore, putting figures on a menu tells those people nothing that they do not already know. But it is a difficult situation for them. I understand the concern that just seeing the amount of those calories might trigger a relapse for those who are valiantly fighting an eating disorder. I therefore hope that all restaurants will make a non-calorie-labelled menu available. However, the primary need for such people is expert support in order for them to make those difficult food choices. That is the crux of the matter—the need for expert therapies for eating disorders, and information and support for obesity.
I realise that, unfortunately, it is impossible to have a pilot for this measure. However, the three years quoted in the regulations is too long before reviewing them to see whether they meet their objectives or, conversely, do harm. I therefore share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. The regulations must be reviewed after a year and the concerns of those with eating disorders taken seriously. I also share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and sincerely hope that the Government will add alcohol calorie labelling when carrying out an early review of this measure.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, this September sees the launch of the Government’s new office for health promotion to drive the improvement of the health of the nation. Its function is to lead national efforts to level up the health of the nation by tackling obesity, improving mental health and promoting physical activity. It will be an important part of the consideration given to the forthcoming health and care legislation and should be key to co-ordinating policy across Whitehall, working, inter alia, with local authorities, which will play a key role in monitoring these regulations. Should the regulations pass into law, they will require very close co-ordination between government and local authorities, and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the office for health promotion will be fully engaged in delivering this policy change.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the labelling of alcohol.
I now move to the critical issues affecting these regulations. I fully appreciate that there are many important, nuanced and competing arguments to consider, including those so clearly and persuasively made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, regarding eating disorders, which I have consistently argued deserve a far higher priority in the NHS. However, the number of people with eating disorders who would be directly and negatively affected by the requirement for restaurants, takeaways and cafes with 250 or more employees may be considerably fewer than the number who are obese—people whom I believe, on balance, would benefit from this information.
The NHS Health Survey for England 2019 found that 16% of adults screened positive for a possible eating disorder. It is reasonable to deduce from that statistic that many in that category would not be negatively impacted. Even if all were so impacted, the same survey found that 64% of adults in England were overweight and/or obese, with conditions associated with an increased risk of a number of common causes of disease and death, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. What is more worrying is that in recent years there has been a marked increase in the proportion of adults who are overweight or obese.
That contrast is a powerful factor in weighing up the pros and cons of these regulations. The consultation exercise demonstrated the demand for the provision of information on calorie content, and that information should not rest exclusively on calorie counts, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, is by no means a perfect standalone guide to a healthy diet. Take Itsu: one reason I regularly buy lunch there and take it back to my office is that it takes a holistic approach to the quality of the food it serves. It is high in protein and low in fat. It indicates the percentage of daily vegetable allowance providing potassium, iron and fibre to maintain healthy immune and digestive systems. It lists omega-3 content and products which contain zinc, iodine, potassium and vitamins, as well as the calorific value.
The labelling of nutrition will never be perfectly accurate. There will be complexities in implementing these regulations, including the resources required for local authorities. The Minister drew our attention to the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and its conclusion is persuasive:
“It appears that this is a situation where there is no ideal solution, but DHSC’s policy is one it believes will benefit most people. Although the evidence of success is equivocal (for example, Beat cites evidence that some of the dietary changes made by individuals in America in response to a similar campaign were small and short-lived), the obesity problem is so widespread that DHSC sees these Regulations as part of a campaign to raise awareness of calorie intake not only for individuals but also the hospitality industry.”
I believe that, on balance, these regulations will be for the greater good of the population and should be approved by the House today.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am in favour of both regret amendments and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for tabling them. I recognise that at first glance, backing both these amendments might appear contradictory. One regrets the regulations while the other seeks to expand them, but what we are talking about here are two different sets of products. Eating is something we all have to do and need to do collectively in a far healthier manner than we do now. I hardly need to rehearse our place as world-leading in obesity and subsequent morbidities and mortality. It is one league table we certainly do not want to be high-ranking in.
Eating out, eating in the community with friends and family, can and should be healthy, happy occasions but we know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has powerfully outlined, that for those with eating disorders—between 1.25 million and 3.4 million people in the UK—they can easily be fraught, difficult and immensely stressful. There is strong evidence that calorie labelling will only add to that. There is little evidence of the effectiveness of calorie labelling in tackling our obesity crisis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, outlined.
The science tells us that counting calories in food consumption is a far from exact or useful approach. We need a nutrient-rich, calorie-appropriate national diet based on vegetables, fruit, and wholegrains, giving us a range of important nutrients, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just outlined. A calorie label tells us nothing about that. All calories are not equal and the values of two servings of food with identical calorie counts could be at opposite ends of the health scale. An artificially sweetened, flavoured and coloured dessert may be very low calorie but it also has virtually no nutritional value, and increasingly we understand that artificial sweeteners, as well as raising serious questions about their safety, contribute to increased risk of metabolic conditions such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease, even if the mechanism for that is as yet poorly understood.
We also increasingly understand that the thermic effect of food depends on a whole range of consumption factors, such as the size of the meal, the pace of eating and the time of day. Relying on counting calories is a simplistic—potentially dangerously simplistic— approach to achieving a healthy diet. There is also the issue of our microbiome—damaged and reduced by our national diet of ultra-processed pap that is 68% of the calories that we consume—that we are increasingly understanding has a significant impact on appetite and consumption. We need a joined-up public health approach to tackling our obesity issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said.
I was very tempted to use this debate to deplore the Government’s immediate, negative, knee-jerk, populist reaction to Henry Dimbleby’s excellent and important proposed national food strategy which proposes such an approach while also taking account of the disastrous environmental impacts of our broken food system. However, I decided that there was not really the proper space to do that, but I must note a question that I asked during the passage of the Agriculture Bill debates: what constitutional place does Mr Dimbleby occupy? We kept being told throughout that debate when issues of food and public health came up to “wait for Dimbleby”. How can Ministers say that about something they are signalling that they plan to ignore, essentially?
On the simple proposition that if we have calorie labels on food, they should also be on alcohol, even if we did not, alcohol is of limited nutritional value; however, most drinkers do not understand how it might contribute to obesity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, outlined. I declare an interest, as I do drink alcohol. I try to drink in moderation and take account of the energy intake from it. What the Government are regulating here is inconsistent between alcohol and food. We know that the alcohol sector has a large amount of lobbying muscle, as seen in its resistance to advertising restrictions. Unfortunately, we are seeing this effect further here.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and her sensible comments on nutrition.
I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Bull. She is absolutely right: these regulations are misguided and will be counterproductive. If calorie labelling were an effective way of curbing obesity, sales of crisps would not have grown by 4.6% in volume last year. Neither would biscuit manufacturers have been able to enjoy a bumper year, with sales up 7.2% to almost £3 billion. Among the top 10 biscuit brands, only two failed to register growth—they were the ones in the healthier category. The best seller, McVitie’s chocolate digestive, has 86 calories. That may not sound a lot, but those prone to obesity find it hard to stop at a single biscuit.
These regulations are intended to hit in particular those who frequent fast-food outlets, but no one in Britain can be unaware that a Big Mac and fries will not win favour at Weight Watchers. In fact, together they add up to 845 calories. Throw in a caramelised frappe and you have 1,164 calories. Spelling it out on the menu will not reshape the eating habits of those intent on a quick and relatively cheap hunger fix, and it is the cheapness that is important. Obesity is strongly linked to poverty. A study of children in 2018-19 found that the incidence of childhood obesity was more than twice as high in the most deprived areas of the country as in the least.
Insisting that calorie numbers are on the menu will not deal with the obesity problem, but it will feed the problems of those suffering from eating disorders, the numbers of which are rapidly increasing. Only today it has been reported that hospitalisations of young people with eating disorders rose by 50% last year, and many more are queueing up to try to access treatment. Someone with anorexia nervosa will be as fixated on these calorie lists as a heroin addict on getting the next fix.
The regulations will make the struggle of trying to persuade an anorexic to eat something—anything—even harder than it is now. I know this because I spent many hours trying to persuade my desperately sick daughter to eat. It was sometimes easier to try to do this in a restaurant rather than at home, where she could take flight to her bedroom. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, these trips were often very stressful for the anorexic and for all concerned.
My daughter nearly died. Had it not been for the brilliant Professor Janet Treasure and a year in hospital, she almost certainly would have done. Instead, she is a happy mother who has just produced her second child. Before making this speech, I asked if she would mind me talking about her, and she was keen that I should, because she wants to add her voice to those who counsel against insisting on this calorie labelling measure. She agrees that it would have added to the agonies of those sessions when she tried to find the least worst, in her demented view, item on the menu. Anorexics see calories as the enemy. I have been so fortunate that my daughter managed to overcome this pernicious illness, but these regulations will make it harder for others to do so while achieving very little positive.
While I realise that the Minister will not be swayed from his decision to go ahead with these regulations, may I add Lucy’s plea to that of my noble friend Lady Bull that he agrees to a timely review of their effects on everybody?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Fall. This debate is running out of time—four minutes, please.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lords, all crises give way to opportunity, the chance to reassess and adapt, and Covid is no different. Eighteen months on, we are confronted with some really difficult issues. Among these are the growing reality that some have fared better than others in terms of their health, livelihood, prospects and mental health. It is right that the Government should focus on the reasons for these disparities and seek to find some answers.
One such issue is obesity. We have been shocked to see the growing evidence of how Covid has adversely affected those deemed overweight or obese, and Covid is not the only vulnerability for this group. They are susceptible to type 2 diabetes, heart disease and many types of cancer. Recent surveys have talked about 64% of our population being overweight or obese, and childhood obesity is among the highest in western Europe. This is a substantial group, and alarm bells should be ringing. It is certainly the time for a national conversation about how we address this problem. We have heard much in recent days about initiatives to improve the nation’s diet, a sugar and salt tax, or getting the nation to eat more fruit and veg. While Ministers consider whether any of these proposals should make it to the statute book, we have an immediate task of assessing this one, the calorie labelling legislation, today.
I am very sympathetic to the intent here. I see the urgent need to raise awareness of the effect that obesity has on health, but we need to do this in a way that takes account of some of the complexities of the issue and does not miss the mark. With this in mind, I draw attention to three concerns. First, I fully support the objective of increasing transparency around what we eat, especially aimed at larger establishments and chains, which greatly impact the eating habits of our nation. People will not choose healthy unless they know what they are eating, and in many cases they simply do not know. But calorie counting is a blunt instrument to crack a complex issue. Calories also impact different people in different ways and take no account of the energy they use. So why not flag a healthy or unhealthy option or operate a traffic light system instead?
My second concern is that we need to deliver a strategy that does not look like an attack on those with limited budgets. Tone is important here, and a real understanding of choice and the financial reality of stretched household budgets. Real choice means that affordable healthy options are available. We should be putting pressure on companies to lower sugar and salt content in their products rather than taxing consumers, which hits low-income families.
My third concern is the focus of this short debate; that is, the effect of this initiative on eating disorders, which are sky high, especially among the young, and which destroy lives and blight many others, as many have said, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. I therefore have sympathy with some of the reservations raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, today. Young people have been shut up at home, missed exams, missed each other and have had their prospects blighted, so it is no wonder that eating disorders have rocketed, and we already had a grave problem before. We have no evidence or data to suggest what impact calorie labelling will have on eating disorders but it does not take a huge jump of imagination to work it out. We should not have a tin ear to these concerns. Good policy should be creative and targeted and should not disregard the plight of a minority who are adversely affected just because a greater number are set to gain.
I support the Government in their endeavour to tackle the difficult but important issue of obesity. I do not speak in regret, but I ask the Minister to take note of some of the concerns raised today.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak in favour of the calorie labelling regulations being set by the Government and, with some difficulty, against the amendments to the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I do so as someone who had severe anorexia as a teenager, before it was even fully recognised; later, one of my teenage daughters had a similar disorder. These two episodes profoundly affected the whole of my life, and certainly represent the most difficult time of my life, as they do for my daughter. The noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Walmsley, described very movingly the sort of effect this kind of illness can have on the whole family and on many others.
It is important that we as a society talk about these issues openly and honestly, as they do in many schools now. For people with eating disorders, it is important that they have access to full information, especially if they can see that the calories for healthy food are in fact quite low. If young people are fully informed, they will eventually know the difference between a healthy, balanced diet and one that puts you on track to make you abnormally thin. Its only through providing all the information in a balanced way that people of all ages can eventually make rational and healthy choices. We should not be withholding information or creating a situation where people are not given all the facts. Much of the information we receive about food products at present is in fact advertising or marketing, so what is needed for everyone, of all ages, is full and accurate information at all times.
Although I do not support the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I agree with the second part of it, which calls for timely reviews of the impact of these regulations for both obesity and eating disorders, as both have such serious consequences. A significant proportion of the adult population is living with obesity or is overweight, according to research from Public Health England in 2019. By the age of 55, 70% of adults in the UK have at least one obesity-related health issue, as the All-Party Group for Longevity recorded in 2020. In the UK, obesity-related conditions currently cost the NHS £6.1 billion a year, as Public Health England recorded a few years ago. We desperately need a strategy to tackle eating disorders and obesity.
I conclude by asking the Minister for an update on the Government’s strategy of supporting people to live five extra healthy years by 2035. Are these regulations part of this strategy, and what other actions will the Government be taking in terms of food labelling to support it? These experiences profoundly changed my life, and I want other people’s lives to be profoundly changed too, by knowledge, understanding and full information at all times.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jenkin has already mentioned that for many years in this House we have been calling for action to deal with the obesity epidemic, mainly with the slogan, “The obesity epidemic is killing millions, costing billions and the cure is to put fewer calories into their mouths”. This will save a great deal of money and reduce the strain on the NHS, as has already been mentioned.
It will probably come as no surprise to noble Lords that I support these draft calorie labelling regulations. There are a few problems, which I think can be ironed out quite easily. First, fat, preferably unsaturated fat, acts as an important brake on how much we eat, as does whole milk. This was demonstrated by scientists in Canada and, recently, Danish scientists showed that whole milk actually reduced the level of cholesterol in the blood. We need to remind ourselves that fat produces twice as many calories as protein and carbohydrate, so this needs to be taken into account in calorie labelling and working out what to buy and eat.
These regulations, as has been mentioned, can present problems for those with eating disorders. I hope that it will help them to have menus available that have no mention of calories at all, and I hope that it will be essential for restaurants to have those menus available.
On average, 2,000 calories per day is mentioned, but of course the total number of calories one should eat will vary substantially from person to person, according to occupation, age and weight. It is worth reminding ourselves that the all-powerful food lobby was the culprit in causing this obesity epidemic in the first place. It wanted to get people to eat more food but realised that it was the fat they were eating that slowed the stomach emptying and made them feel full and satisfied early on in the meal. So the lobby demonised fat and insisted on a low-fat diet, which is so tasteless that it then had to add a great deal of sugar to make its manipulated food palatable. It pilloried those who opposed it, including Professor John Yudkin, who was sacked from his university chair of nutrition in London for warning against the high-sugar, low-fat diet. So much for the so-called independence of universities. We need to counter the anti-people’s lobby, which wants to stop people from having whole milk and healthy fat because these villains know that fat reduces appetite and reduces their ill-gotten gains.
It was gratifying to see reference at the end of the document warning against the potentially fatal combination of Covid and obesity. People should take note of that, especially in both Houses of Parliament—that obesity is one of the problems causing high mortality from Covid. I wish more people would join the Prime Minister’s campaign to tackle the obesity epidemic with his slogan, “Don’t be a fatty in your fifties”.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the draft Calorie Labelling (Out of Home Sector) (England) Regulations 2021, noting the requirement for labels to be displayed by April 2022. This is another step forward in addressing obesity, which, as we know, is one of our biggest public health challenges, as our food environment continues ever to change. It is targeted not only at the eating-out sector, but also at the consumption of on-the-go snacks. More than a quarter of adults and one-fifth of children eat food from out-of-home outlets at least once a week. The regulations include bakeries, caterers, supermarkets and entertainment venues, so this is an important tool in guiding customers and making informed choices much easier for everyone.
I welcome the response to the consultation about concerns expressed by individuals living with eating disorders. It is important to note that appropriate provision is being made in the regulations to allow businesses to provide an alternative menu without calorie information, if the customer so wishes. That also endorses the Government’s commitment to playing their part in engaging with eating disorder charities in offering continued support and guidance, with a commitment to timely reviews of the impact of these regulations, not only on obesity but also on eating disorders.
Calorie labelling in the out-of-home sector applies to English businesses with more than 250 employees operating outlet foods that are prepared for immediate consumption. Smaller businesses are exempt, but I hope that many more outlets will come forward to offer their support and contribute meaningfully in the coming months so that they, too, can inform their customers and show that they want to be part of this drive to encourage even more people to make healthier food choices.
Feedback has shown overwhelming public support for calorie labelling on menus. Unfortunately, childhood obesity continues to be one of the major health problems faced by this country. Nearly one-quarter of children in England are overweight or obese when they commence primary school. Statistics also show that three out of five children are overweight when they leave primary school. Obese children are more likely to become obese adults, adding to their vulnerability. This further impacts on their life outcomes, in developing the increased likelihood of heart disease and cancer. Significantly, we are seeing more people at the relatively young age of 40 suffering from type 2 diabetes, with numbers almost reaching a staggering 5 million. All this can have a negative impact on mental health as well.
In conclusion, putting calorie labelling on menus and offering information for families will assist them in making better-informed, healthier choices when eating out. It will be another step towards complementing the Government’s healthy weight strategy, which was published last year. I support these draft regulations.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, today’s debate on calorie labelling regulations has demonstrated how complex and sensitive this subject is. At face value, the idea of labelling calories on the menus of large chains of food outlets may appear sensible and easy. On behalf of these Benches, I thank all those organisations that have sent us briefings, including Diabetes UK and Beat Diabetes, which have helped our thinking on what is not at all an easy subject. This is a complex issue with competing demands from vulnerable people on both sides who need help and support. Helping one group may cause serious problems for another.
We know that there are many people who have or who are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes and obesity. As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, more than a quarter of adults are obese and 66% are overweight. These two conditions provide the basis for a high risk of developing other serious disease, requiring much treatment and possibly leading to early death. This is a serious crisis for our country. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, set that out well in their contributions.
Obese people need support and information to change their lives. Calorie labelling could be a tool in that. Can the Minister answer the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as to why the Government have decided not to put calorie labelling on alcohol? These are rightly described as empty, hidden calories. Is the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, correct that this is because of the alcohol lobby? Doing this would seem more obvious than putting calories on menus.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, sets out the equally serious problems that well over 1 million, mainly young, patients with eating disorders face and how calorie labelling could exacerbate their illness, whether in withholding food or binge-eating. Even though eating disorders are primarily classified as a mental illness, the reality is that a patient’s reaction to controlling their food intake is at the heart of it. Some will always choose the least calorific option; for others, it is the opposite. Labelling for this group acts as a signpost, supporting their control of their intake. As my noble friend Lady Parminter said, calories on menus could bring young people with eating disorders to a “place of fear”. She spoke movingly and eloquently from family experience, a reality that most of us just cannot understand. But we need to listen, as we also need to hear the testimony from the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley made a thoughtful contribution highlighting the need for an integrated public health approach to food that takes account of these wider issues relating to diet and well-being, rather than just focusing on calorie labelling. We believe that public policy should always be evidence-based and we are struggling with the Government’s lack of any compelling evidence on or an impact assessment of mandatory calorie labelling on menus at some restaurants and take-aways. As worryingly, there is little evidence of serious effort to consult experts and stakeholders on all sides of this debate. There has been no formal review of similar initiatives and no attempt by Ministers to trial a pilot scheme or to draw from the evidence from those restaurants that choose already to list calories on their menus, which would have been a useful resource.
As outlined by others, there is limited evidence to suggest that this legislation would even have its intended outcome. A Cochrane review found that there is only a small body of low-quality evidence supporting the idea that calorie counts on menus lead to a reduction in calories purchased. A more recent study found that calorie labelling in American fast-food restaurants was associated with a 4% reduction in calories per order but that this reduction diminished after a year, suggesting that any small differences that may occur are not maintained.
The Minister mentioned reformulation of supermarket products. The 2020 sugar reduction report said that supermarkets had indeed started reformulation and that there were some reductions but that there was still a long way to go before the food industry meets the targets in 2024. That means that evidence is being assembled, but it is not there yet.
Both eating disorders and obesity are extremely important illnesses, which are severely damaging the health and well-being of millions in the UK. On these Benches, we remain committed to tackling both issues. We have long argued, also, that mental health should be considered in every government policy and that it should be treated with the same urgency as physical health.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Parminter: given the concerns expressed from a large number of speakers during the debate, please will the Government commit to reviewing the regulations’ impact, both beneficial and adverse in 12 months’ time to ensure that they are fit for purpose and not wait the proposed three years?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the need to tackle obesity and to support people in so doing is crucial to the health and well-being of individuals as well as the health and well-being of the nation. Excess weight directly impacts how well—and how long a life—we live, carrying a higher risk of heart disease, diabetes and cancer. It places limits on us at work, at home and in our social lives. It is a growing challenge that exacerbates inequalities. There are nearly three times as many hospital admissions due to obesity in the poorest communities as in the better-off.
It is demonstrably not the case that everyone knows how to manage their weight or that it is simply a matter of exercising a choice as to whether we do so or not. The challenge of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle requires information, knowledge and support, as well as personal effort, as was illustrated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington.
The Department of Health and Social Care cites evidence that one in four children and adults is now obese and that restaurant or takeaway meals contribute to the overconsumption of calories because they contain, on average, twice as many calories as the equivalent retailer own-brand or manufacturer-branded products. We know that voluntary compliance on labelling has not worked, and the pandemic has certainly been no friend to healthy weight levels, making this an ever more pressing situation to address.
This statutory instrument offers one step along the way, with many more steps needed, matched by proper investment and a strategic approach. As the display of calorie information and the recommended daily calorie intake is required only of larger businesses—those with 250 or more employees—does the Minister agree that there is greater value to be gained from this measure through the reformulation of products and portion sizes? The sight of a 2,000-calorie meal on a menu may well drive a provider to address that. Can the Minister explain what plan is in place to lever this opportunity for a bigger prize of change?
As we heard, the Government’s impact assessment gives a best estimate of net benefits amounting to over £5.5 billion over the next 25 years. The impact assessment makes it clear that most of the benefits come from a change in personal decision-making, but it seems that the evidence base on reformulation is stronger. It is particularly important that an evidence base around personal choices is acquired, so that we can have full, informed conversations as we look forwards. I hope the Minister will take note of this.
As we have heard in this debate, calories are a very crude measure of what we put into our bodies. It is crucial that we understand the nutritional content of what we consume. Will the Minister explain what consideration was given to a model much closer to what we see on packets in supermarkets? That does not seem to have been considered in the options appraised in the impact assessment. Is extending the scope of these measures being considered and, if so, on what sort of timeline? Will the research base be grown before action is taken?
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe rightly highlights that obesity is also impacted by alcohol consumption. It is right that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley laid down a challenge to the food and drink industry to step up to the mark. We on these Benches will return to this during consideration of the Health and Care Bill.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for bringing real insight to this debate and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Greengross, who all spoke movingly and personally about the reality for those living with eating disorders. To follow this through, before implementation, will the Minister continue to engage with those who have legitimate, very real concerns about the draft regulations and seek to address them?
We know that eating disorders in the UK have increased during the pandemic, while services are simply not good enough, particularly failing children and adolescents. Will the Minister commit to a national strategy, matched by proper investment? Improving access to treatment and support is crucial. We will further press this home through amendments to the Health and Care Bill.
Will the Minister also commit, as a starting point for local authorities, to reinstate the resources already lost to the improvement of public health? The evidence favours interventions that promote a life of healthy choices, while cuts to public health over the past decade have put pressure on local authorities and worked in the opposite direction. I hope these regulations can offer a step forward.
Lord Bethell (Con) [V]
I thank noble Lords for their participation and thoughtful and moving contributions to today’s debate. As I have said, helping more people to achieve a healthy weight is one of the greatest public health challenges that we face as a nation.
My noble friend Lady Jenkin spoke movingly about her own battles with her weight. I completely identify with this personal struggle. I have a constant struggle to keep my own BMI in the green zone, which is about the best thing that I can personally do to live long enough to see my children grow into adults. There must be many who feel the same way.
The out-of-home food environment has an important role to play as an increasingly growing contributor to the food that we consume. People are already accustomed to seeing nutritional information on prepacked food that is typically sold in supermarkets. We want to see clear calorie information when we are eating out or getting a takeaway. This instrument plays an important role in helping to make our food environment healthier and to make healthier choices easier.
On the amendment regarding alcohol, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is right that excessive alcohol consumption is by far the biggest risk factor attributable to early mortality, ill health and disability among 15 to 49 year-olds in the UK. It is estimated that each week 3.4 million adults consume an additional day’s worth of calories just from alcohol. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is entirely right that the public are utterly unaware of the calorie content of alcohol. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I like the occasional drink, but surveys show that up to 80% of adults have a hazy understanding of the calorie content of common drinks, and I confess that I am probably one of them.
Transparency is key to support consumers to make better choices. However, nutrition labelling requirements are currently voluntary for alcoholic drinks; the example of a bottle of alcohol-free Becks makes that point pretty well. I accept that this makes it more challenging for businesses to list calorie information for alcoholic drinks on their menus. I give the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and all those who have expressed concern about the issue this commitment: the Government will be consulting shortly on whether calorie information should be mandated on prepacked alcohol and alcohol served in pubs and restaurants. Covid-19 makes it more important than ever to support the nation to achieve a healthier weight, and the Government are taking action to help people to lead healthier lives.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I completely understand the concerns about the impact of these regulations on those living with eating disorders. In particular, the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Greengross, and my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft spoke movingly, with highly relevant personal testimony. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, that these experiences and evidence-based reservations make Ministers stop and think very carefully about the regulations. They reminded me of the experiences of my loved ones who have struggled with eating disorders, and of my friends whose parents have struggled with the heart-breaking battle of loving children who are dogged by these torments. That is why we want to ensure that people have access to the right mental health support in the right place and at the right time.
To the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Greengross, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I make it clear that improving eating disorder services is a key priority for the Government and a vital part of our work to improve mental health services. We recognise that eating disorders are a serious, life- threatening condition. With that in mind, we have to be careful to consider the views of mental health charities and experts, and we did so as we developed our regulations.
We have consulted widely throughout the development of the policy. We heard from key medical groups, including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which highlighted the importance of tackling obesity and support for the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling in the out-of-home sector. We also studied carefully research in the UK that found that menu labelling is associated with serving items with less fat and less salt in popular UK chain restaurants compared with those that do not display calorie information.
I say in response to my noble friend Lady Fall that research suggests that mandatory enforcement of calorie labelling will encourage reformulation.
We have also engaged with and listened to feedback from those representing the views of people living with eating disorders, including the eating disorder charity, Beat. In response, we have put in reasonable adjustments to help mitigate any unintended consequences.
I therefore reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, with the following commitments. First, following feedback on our consultation, we have decided to exempt food that is provided in schools and other educational establishments due to some concerns about displaying calorie information in school settings. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has noted, we have also included a provision in the regulations which permits businesses to provide a menu without calorie labelling at the request of the consumer. I would welcome any suggestions from the noble Baroness or any other noble Lords on how this can be done in the most sensitive and effective way possible as we draft the detailed guidelines.
Regarding those guidelines and regulations, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that we are working closely with business and local authorities on guidance to support implementation of the policy to ensure that it can be implemented smoothly, including in relation to the practical dilemmas he rightly highlighted such as the labelling of irregularly shaped fish and chips.
My third reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is that we will continue to evaluate the impact of calorie labelling across the population, including on people with disorders. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that, as required under the regulations, the Secretary of State will review the regulations at between three and five years. I make the commitment now that this will be done with the full engagement of all those concerned about this important but delicate regulation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is right: every public health measure is a trade-off. Obesity is a massive challenge we face as a nation. We cannot duck it, but this does not diminish the Government’s determination to ensure that people living with eating disorders have access to the support they need.
In response to the question about the evidence available to support this policy, I highlight that the Government’s impact assessment estimates that 174 billion fewer calories will be consumed in England per year as a result of this policy.
Consumption of fast food and takeaways is particularly prevalent among families. Evidence from 2016 showed that 68% of households with children under 16 had eaten takeaways in the previous month, compared with only 49% of adult-only households. We have a role and a responsibility to support parents, particularly in the most deprived families and areas, to help their children have the best start in life.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is right to emphasise that transparency in our food environment and giving people information they need about their food and drink purchases is important in delivering our ambition to halve childhood obesity by 2030. There is a lot to gain by helping more people to be the right weight, and it is vital for us to work together to achieve this. I commend the regulations to the House.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, time is very tight, but I want to express my gratitude to everyone who supported my amendment, especially those who shared such moving and personal stories. I am grateful to the Minister for his invitation to engage with further suggestions and for his words on impact reviews—there is no time to explore them today, but I shall read them in Hansard and he can be sure that I will follow them up when the Recess is over.
I have no illusions about my ability to prevent the regulations passing. My intention today was to ensure that the unheard voices of those with lived experiences were on the record, and that we have achieved. I have learned the lesson of King Canute and I shall not divide the House. With regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations do not extend to alcohol, even though mounting evidence shows that it is a significant contributor of co-morbidity and obesity, one of the major underlying causes of the nation’s 128,481 COVID-19 deaths, the highest number in Europe; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to require the publication of the calorie content of alcohol by the end of 2021 in order to improve the people’s well-being and good health.”
Strategy for Tackling Violence against Women and Girls
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible]—are at a record low and domestic abuse in this country continues to increase, but charging continues to fall. According to Ofsted, sexual abuse in schools is becoming the norm. Ending abuse against women and girls is a cross-party issue on which all sides of this House wish to see progress. Unfortunately, the strategy the Government have outlined in their Statement falls short. We need ambition that matches the scale of the problem.
I again raise the concern that many have raised before: that the Government have regarded the violence against women and girls strategy as being separate from domestic abuse when, in reality, they are unavoidably interconnected. A policing lead on violence against women and girls is certainly welcome, but we already have one for domestic abuse, one for rape and sex offences, another for historical sexual abuse and one for child sex abuse. This policing lead, we are told, will be full time, unlike the others, and is in line with the recommendation last week from the inspectorate.
The Minister in the Commons yesterday seemed unable to answer questions about how the policing lead would work, including what the relationship would be with the inspectorate in respect of their investigations. What resources and powers will this new full-time policing lead have? Will the individual have the same resources and powers as the other policing leads, or will they have more extensive resources and powers? If so, what will they be?
On plans for the rape helpline, how prompt will the response be via the helpline in linking a victim to specialist support? How long a wait time will we consider acceptable? In the Commons yesterday, the Minister said in the Statement:
“we will be launching a multi-million-pound national communications campaign with a focus on targeting perpetrators and harmful misogynistic attitudes, educating young people about healthy relationships, and ensuring that victims can access support.”
How many millions of pounds will be allocated to the campaign? When will it start and how long will it last? By what criteria will the success or otherwise of the campaign be judged? Crucially, who will the department engage with and consult on the content and design of the campaign? The Minister in the Commons also said the Government had
“launched a specific safety of women at night fund worth £5 million to ensure that women do not face violence in public spaces at night.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col; 1084.]
What exactly will that £5 million deliver? Over what period of time will it be spent and how will its impact be judged?
The Statement says that the Government will
“review options to limit use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment in higher education”,
which is welcome. Why, then, is there nothing about non-disclosure agreements in workplaces, where women are still being abused and silenced—completely legally—in our country?
The Minister asserted in the Commons that
“there are legitimate reasons for non-disclosure agreements in workplaces.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col; 1087.]
That may be, but there are also non-legitimate reasons for non-disclosure agreements in the workplace, including in relation to the sexual harassment of women. What action do the Government intend to take over these agreements? Should the Government not think about taking the side of women who have been subject to sexual harassment in the workplace?
Why is there no national strategy for, or inclusion in this strategy of, adult victims of sexual exploitation? Where do these women find their experiences in this strategy? There is nothing but a gap. The only passing reference comes where the Government say they are going to ask porn sites to voluntarily do better on exploitation—do not hold your breath on that one if it involves a potential loss of money.
Where is the much-needed public sexual harassment law? The Government have said they think offences exist already. That will certainly be of real comfort to the two-thirds of young women who tell us they are suffering abuse every day. Home Office statistics show that 83% of sexual assaults go unreported. What is going to be done to address this alarming situation and the apparent lack of trust between victims and the policing system?
We need to make sure that women and girls, wherever they are and whatever they are doing, are safe and able to feel safe. The violence against women and girls strategy expects services to be able to deliver without any serious funding to deliver it. If that is wrong and there is such additional long-term funding to deliver this strategy, could the Government say how much it will be, and over what period of time?
What is clear is that, on every single step of their journey, women and girls are being failed—and, today, it feels as if the Government do not have enough of a plan to manage that. The Labour Party has worked up a green paper for ending violence against women and girls. We have set out, among many other things, toughening sentences for rape, stalking and domestic murder, and reviewing sentences for all domestic abuse. We have set about introducing a survivor’s support package to improve victims’ experiences in the courts, including fast-tracking rape and sexual violence cases, end-to-end legal help for victims and better training for professionals to give people the help they need. We also suggest the creation, as quickly as possible, of new offences for street harassment.
Clearly, the Government do not expect any early results from their strategy, since the Minister in the Commons said that she was prepared to wait until the end of this decade to see
“changes in the attitudes, misogynistic and otherwise, that underpin so much of this offending behaviour”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1087.]
The chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee summed it up very well in the Commons yesterday when she said:
“Much of this feels very incremental—just limited pilots and evidence gathering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1090.]
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, before I start, I wish all noble Lords, and especially the Minister, a well-deserved, restful and restorative Recess. However, before we get there, such is the importance that this Government place on violence against women and girls that this strategy was announced in the other place at 7 pm yesterday—or, as the Minister in the other place put it,
“at an unusual hour, I think it is fair to say, of the parliamentary day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1083.]
And here we are—last business before the Summer Recess.
A strategy should include a coherent set of specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely objectives, rather than what appears to be the result of a “board blast”, where every possible option is thrown in the paper. The Minister in the other place said that the strategy would build on the
“progress we have made in recent years”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1083.]
She cited London as being the first major capital city in the world to publish a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women and girls, when Boris Johnson was Mayor of London.
The current Mayor of London said this year that the capital’s streets were not safe for women and girls, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in response to his comments, said that the streets of London were
“not safe for everyone all of the time”.
Is that the sort of progress that the Statement referred to?
We have seen an incoherent collection of random ideas before, with the serious violence strategy published by the Government in April 2018. The difficulty is that success should be measured in terms of outcomes, not outputs. Can the Minister tell the House what impact in terms of outcomes that strategy has had on levels of violent crime in the past three years?
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just said, the Statement says that the strategy includes a
“multi-million-pound … communications campaign”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1084.]
It also talks about a £5 million safety of women at night fund, and talks about the broader, £25 million safer streets fund. Exactly what does “multi-million-pound” amount to? How many millions? The Statement is quite specific on the other initiatives, so why not on this one?
The Statement says that the Government will continue to back the police to catch perpetrators of violence against women and girls and bring them to justice, and that they have given the police more powers, more resources and more officers. How much more are this Government currently giving the police in real terms compared with 2010? What is the current establishment of police officers and community support officers in England and Wales—who are the visible policing presence on the street—compared with 2010? Although it is not just how much money is being spent but how it is spent that it is important, can the Minister tell the House exactly how much new money is specifically being targeted on reducing violence against women and girls, in support of this strategy?
It is abundantly clear what the problem is with violence against women and girls: it is the attitude of men, the culture in our society, and the belief among many men that they can do whatever they like to women because they can. They can because they are, on average, physically stronger, and they do not fear the consequences, whether disapproval from their peers or wider society, or effective sanction—whether by the criminal justice system, employers or institutions, including schools, political parties or religious organisations.
Too many men are likely to be given an encouraging slap on the back by other men for abusing women and girls, rather than condemnation. Every single person and every single organisation needs to say clearly and unambiguously that any abuse of women and girls, particularly male violence against them, is totally unacceptable. In particular, male leaders, especially political leaders, must set an example—not by being one of the lads, but by treating women and girls with dignity and respect. Noble Lords will not have to think very hard or for very long to think of an example.
We made drinking and driving socially unacceptable, and we need to make even verbal abuse of women and girls equally unacceptable, including making street harassment a specific criminal offence. We need every man to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I join both noble Lords in commending the VAWG strategy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for wishing us happy holidays—I am definitely looking forward to mine. I often do last business before Recess, so the noble Lord is not wrong in his observation. None the less, this is an incredibly important Statement. My honourable friend Vicky Atkins did not say that it would take a decade, but rather that it is the start of a decade of change. It is the beginning of the journey; it is a statement of intent. I am very glad that she laid her Statement to the House of Commons last night.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about prosecutions being down and what we are going to do about it. We have absolutely acknowledged that prosecutions are down, particularly for rape. My honourable friend Kit Malthouse in another place led the rape review together with the MoJ; it concluded in May. The whole point of the rape review was to make the victim’s horrendous journey a much easier one from start to finish and to ensure that convictions, now so low, matched the number of victims coming forward in terms of proportion.
The noble Lord asked about the police lead on VAWG, as did the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is not just another police lead on something; we intend to make this a specific role. This will be a full-time job, and it is absolutely the right thing to do, particularly in terms of good practice, training, et cetera. The noble Lord asked about the wait time for the helpline. I am afraid I do not know the answer, and I will have to let him know, but we will be spending £1.14 million on it.
The noble Lord also asked about NDAs in universities but not in workplaces. Of course, we are all familiar with NDAs in the workplace and there is no doubt that, if someone is made to sign an NDA and it conceals the fact that they might be sexually harassed, the NDA is null and void. On universities, we want to send a clear message to students that sexual harassment is in no way tolerable on our campuses and online environments and to take the necessary steps to ensure that it is stamped out of our world-leading higher education sector.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, talked about street harassment. Although it is true that there are existing offences that can address sexual harassment, we are looking carefully at where there might be gaps in existing law and how a specific offence for public sexual harassment could address these. This is complex and it is important that we take the time to ensure that any potential legislation is both proportionate and reasonably defined.
We are committed to ensuring that not only are the right laws in place but that they work in practice. First, £3 million will go into the national communications campaign, which noble Lords asked about. It will challenge this kind of behaviour and ensure that victims know how and where to report it. Secondly, we will ensure that police and prosecutors are confident about how to respond to public sexual harassment—for example, through new police guidance. Thirdly, to prevent it from happening in the first place, we need to deepen our understanding of who commits these crimes, why they do so and how it may escalate—for example, through our new funding for what works to tackle violence against women and girls.
Both noble Lords asked about additional money. The total funding for 2021-22 is £300 million. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about additional money. That will be £43 million in addition. On funding for the police, in terms of numbers we have committed to the 20,000 and in terms of future commitment clearly a spending review precludes me from committing to anything further than that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that we can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Hayward (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very much aware of the need to respond to the genuine and substantial concerns of women and girls in our society, but could I just take one moment to remind the powers that be that many gay men are sexually abused or raped and that, as Chris Wild has so vividly described in his books, many boys as well as girls have suffered in residential homes or abusive families and flee them to seek what they believe is greater safety, often on the streets?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point and IICSA is currently looking into some of the institutional abuses that took place in the past. We absolutely recognise that men and boys experience these crimes. That is why the Home Office is funding the men’s advice line run by Respect, which advises male victims of domestic abuse, and the Galop helpline, which provides support to LGBT victims. In addition, as part of the VAWG strategy, the Home Office has committed this year to increasing funding by £1.5 million for by-and-for service provision for victims of violence against women and girls, including by increasing the £2 million specialist fund recently launched by the MoJ with Comic Relief. This will build the capacity of smaller, specialist by-and-for organisations, supporting survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence who are also from ethnic minorities, are disabled or, indeed, are LGBT.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, while not disagreeing at all with the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Paddick and Lord Hayward, especially where rape is concerned, may I sound a more positive note just for a moment? I am sure the Minister would agree that there are beacons of hope to light the way forward on which we should build. The Home Office-sponsored Barnardo’s Cymru domestic abuse scheme is a whole-family approach that allows both parents and child victims to receive support while the perpetrators of abuse take part in rigorous programmes designed to change behaviour, rebuild relationships and keep families safe. Moving statements on BBC Wales yesterday from all the parties involved attested to the success of this approach. Is this not the way forward where domestic abuse is concerned?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I must whole- heartedly agree with the noble Lord. Clearly, a whole-family approach, where the perpetrator acknowledges what they have done and wants to change their behaviour, is absolutely the right way to go. Often, a multiagency approach will work, but I want to join him in commending Barnardo’s for the tremendous work it does in this area.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister say how the strategy will work on the big problem of sexual harassment on the streets, where girls and women have to put up with sexual remarks and other incidents as they walk along, often in the daytime? My second point is that the Minister has told me on numerous occasions that, once a domestic abuse Act becomes law, the Government will ratify the Istanbul convention. This has yet to happen. So, can the Minister say why there has been a delay and when the convention will be ratified?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, I think the noble Baroness will have heard me addressing the issue of public sexual harassment to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick—which is to say that not only is it completely unacceptable but we are looking at where there might be gaps in the law to address it. We are compliant with the Istanbul convention in all but three areas, and I can assure the noble Baroness that we are committed to ratifying and will do so as soon as we are fully compliant. We will then inform Parliament of the date. We will be compliant once Northern Ireland has introduced its new domestic abuse offence in the autumn and we have determined our compliance position on migrant victims. She will know about the pilot scheme. The House must acknowledge that, in some cases, we do more than we need to do to be compliant—for example, with forced marriage protection orders—but we are not complacent.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, nowhere in the Statement is there any mention of online pornography. Yet the Times and the Telegraph both reported that Wayne Couzens, who pleaded guilty to the rape and murder of Sarah Everard, was obsessed with violent, extreme pornographic websites. So what assessment have the Government made of the effect of their decision in 2019 not to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, as planned, on the safety of women and girls? It would have meant that, since the beginning of 2020, we would have had a regulator with powers to take robust action against any pornographic website showing extreme, violent pornography in the UK.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this, and she is absolutely right in what she said. I know this will not be to her full satisfaction, but we are, through the Online Harms Bill, going to be addressing some of the issues that cause concern, such as user-generated pornography. I know that is not what she is referring to, but we are going some way towards addressing it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, clearly we are all united in our condemnation of violence and aggression against women and girls, and we are also united in our view that perpetrators be pursued and prosecuted with vigour and the full force of the law. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that in the context of online pornography I hope to see more moves addressing the availability and access to that among children, which is incredibly concerning to all of us in the way in which it might influence the attitudes of young men and boys to women. In the context of such an important strategy, I want to raise very carefully a concern that is worth us being mindful of, and that is how we can avoid a mindset developing where all women are victims and all men are villains. Are the Government conscious of this, and if so, how are they reflecting that in this strategy and in the way that they intend to roll it out?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. We are not just conscious of it; there have been many debates in this House about anonymity. It is a difficult issue. We have to balance the lack of cases that come to court and conviction with the devastating effects that they can have on someone who is accused. We are committed, first and foremost, to arresting the steep decline in prosecutions for this offence and to improving the victims’ experience of the criminal justice system and access to justice. Any changes in this regard will, of course, uphold the principle of procedural fairness that is due to defendants in all criminal cases. There are existing offences designed to protect the administration of justice from false allegations, including the offence of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the most serious offences. But that does not undermine what the noble Baroness is saying, because for someone who is accused wrongly it can devastate their lives.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, following up on a point raised by my noble friend Lady Gale, what should women and girls who are harassed in broad daylight do in the absence of a specific sexual harassment law?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As the noble Lord will know, we are introducing the online pilot, which will be a repository for people to come forward if they are concerned about any element of violence against women and girls. The noble Lord is absolutely right that people can be harassed in broad daylight. Harassers are completely blatant in what they do, and there are existing offences which can include and address sexual harassment. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, we will be looking at where there might be gaps in the law and how a specific offence for public sexual harassment could address them.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister outline what preparatory work will take place to ensure that specialist work takes place in schools, workplaces, media and communities, on the harmful gender norms and stereotypes which underpin this violence against women and girls?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
One of the things that is quite well established is the procedure for reporting sexual harassment in the workplace, notwithstanding what we were talking about earlier in terms of non-disclosure agreements, which can be used wrongly to suppress sexual harassment.
I think education has to be where it starts, because as a child you develop the values, social norms and morals that you keep for life. The DfE has updated its statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, for this September, which ensures that schools and colleges have even clearer guidance on how to deal with reports of sexual violence and sexual harassment, whether they occur inside or outside the school or college gates—or, indeed, online—and how to identify and take action to make sure that support is provided.