House of Commons

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 15 September 2021

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the Welsh Government on the effect of the planned removal of the £20 universal credit uplift on low-income families.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

The House will be aware that today is the 10th anniversary of the mining disaster in Gleision, in which Charles Breslin, David Powell, Philip Hill and Garry Jenkins lost their lives. I know that colleagues across the Chamber will join me in paying appropriate respect at this time, and of course in sending condolences to their families.

We have always been clear that the universal credit uplift was temporary to help people through the economic shock of the pandemic. We are committed to supporting families most in need and planning a long-term route out of poverty by helping people find work.

[Patricia Gibson]

I echo the words of condolence from the Secretary of State.

More than a third of all those who receive universal credit are in work and will now have to pay an extra £100 a year in national insurance contributions while also suffering a cut of £1,040 per year, and UK inflation has risen to 3.2%—its highest increase since 1997. Will the Secretary of State use his influence to push for the publication of any impact assessment or analysis of the consequence of this cruel cut to universal credit, which research suggests will mean that one in eight people will struggle to afford food?

[Simon Hart]

I know that colleagues across the House have received representations from constituents, charities and other bodies on this subject, so it is one we take extremely seriously, and rightly so. Of course, one of the things the Government are absolutely committed to is to rebalance the economy, both local and national. We have, of course, the plan for jobs, the levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund and the community renewal fund. There is a number of ways in which we are attempting to do that, which will of course help those who are not in work, but also those people on in-work benefits. We are very conscious of the hon. Lady’s observations and, as I say, absolutely committed to making sure that every family, not just those out of work, are helped as best we possibly can.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

A quarter of a million Welsh families now face the grim prospect of losing over £1,000 a year because of this Government’s shameful decision to slash universal credit. We know that the Secretary of State’s colleague, the Work and Pensions Secretary, seems to think that people just need to work harder, but I would remind him that nearly 40% of Welsh people who receive this payment are in fact in work, many of them key workers. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those families and their children who are struggling to make ends meet now and will be so much worse off as a result of this cut?

[Simon Hart]

I touched on this obviously in the answer to the initial question, especially the temporary nature of the increase and of course the many plans and projects we have that are going to enhance and improve the economy in Wales, which will have a positive effect on the very families the hon. Lady talks about. I think it is just worth pointing out as well that it is this Government who increased the personal threshold on NICs—that was of considerable value to families across the land—and there have been other improvements, such as the increase in the national living wage. I think those things need to be taken into account as well, and I am sure the hon. Lady will do that.

[Nia Griffith]

I am not sure that is going to be much comfort to those families who are going to be losing £80 a month. This is not just a blow to Welsh families, but a real hit to Welsh shops and businesses, because we all know that families on low income have to spend their money locally on the very basics of life. This will suck £286 million per year out of the Welsh economy. The Conservative party constantly talks up the sums paid to get this country out of the pandemic, but is not the reality that the Tories are taking money away from Welsh businesses just at the time that so many of them need it most?

[Simon Hart]

I do fundamentally reject that accusation. Having visited numerous companies, large and small, across Wales throughout the pandemic, the message I have had back is one of relief that the UK Government Treasury has been able to step in and offer the levels of help that it has. Particularly in relation to the hon. Lady’s comment about universal credit, what she is suggesting is that none of the remedial measures we have introduced will work. That is clearly not the case, so the families that she and other colleagues quite rightly raise as being concerned about what the future holds should, I hope, be reassured by the fact that the Government continue to be committed not only to companies, but to individual families themselves.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

The north Welsh coast, when one goes from Wylfa to Trawsfynydd to Capenhurst, is intimately connected with the north-west of England through Capenhurst, Warrington and all the way up to Sellafield and Moorside. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that those economies work well together to solve problems in the nuclear industry, and that the North West Nuclear Arc is something we should be very proud of?

[Simon Hart]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, particularly because I have been on the receiving end of such compelling arguments from organisations, such as the Mersey Dee Alliance, that recognise the economic region and the economic drivers and recognise that administrative boundaries can sometimes be an impediment to investment. I absolutely share her enthusiasm and her confidence about what may be available in the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I remind Members that supplementary questions must be in line with the original question.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Government’s attack on struggling families this autumn will make more than four in 10 families with children over £1,000 worse off. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is content with plunging thousands of people into poverty, but these families spend their money in high street shops and local businesses. Government policy will be directly responsible for taking £286 million out of the Welsh economy. This is not levelling up; it is hammering down. What assessment has he made of the effect of the £20 cut in universal credit on the Welsh economy?

[Simon Hart]

The right hon. Lady clearly did not listen to my answers to the first and second questions on this very subject, and her statement—rather than question—was predicated on the basis that absolutely none of the Government’s other economic interventions, such as the plan for jobs, the levelling-up fund and the other encouraging initiatives we have been talking about, will have any positive effect at all. That is clearly incorrect and is clearly not supported by businesses across Wales, which leads me to the conclusion that she is determined to talk down the economic prospects of the country she wants to represent.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is clear that the Government are content that Wales loses almost £300 million. The pattern is clear from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, trade agreements, the control of state aid and now plans to cut the number of Welsh MPs from 40 to 32: the right hon. Gentleman’s Government are taking from Wales and giving to Westminster. Anyone can see that levelling up will only happen when we have a strong Parliament in Wales empowered to do the job and directly answerable to the people of Wales. We all know there is a reshuffle going on; is now the time to reshuffle the Wales Office out of existence?

[Simon Hart]

The right hon. Lady will not be surprised to learn that I am not going to rise to the last of the baits she dangles in front of me, but she needs to make her mind up about whether she wants Westminster representation or not: she complains on the one hand that the numbers might be reduced, whereas in fact they are being equalised to be fairer, and on the other that we should not be here at all.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

2. What plans the Government have to provide funding for rail infrastructure in Wales.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

7. What plans the Government have to provide funding for rail infrastructure in Wales.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

13. What plans the Government have to provide funding for rail infrastructure in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

The Government have and are funding a number of rail improvements in Wales, including upgrading Cardiff Central station and the Cambrian line and upgrades that are in the pipeline to key lines in north, south-east and south-west Wales. I also recently had the opportunity to visit Pencoed to hear the case for an upgrade to the Pencoed level crossing.

[Jessica Morden]

Wales accounts for 11% of the rail network but receives only 2% of rail enhancement funding from this Government. Will the UK Government commit to addressing this underinvestment, and make a start in Newport East by finally allowing the Welsh Government to run more cross-border services under the Wales and Borders franchise and by supporting the new stations fund bid for a walkway station for Magor?

[David T. C. Davies]

This oft-cited figure comes from a Wales Government report which looks purely at renewals between 2011 and 2015. The very same report on page 20 draws attention to the figure that would apply if one looked at maintenance operations and restoration as well, in which case the correct figure would be 4.37%, not 1%.

[Chris Elmore]

I was glad to hear the Minister mention, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), Pencoed in my Ogmore constituency. He will know that the debate about closing the level crossing has been going on since the early ’90s, and I know he is personally supportive and has been to Pencoed to look at the site. However, Bridgend County Borough Council has now put forward cabinet reports to say that the scheme will cost almost £20 million. Department for Transport Ministers cannot keep announcing additional services on the mainline without tackling the safety issues around the Pencoed level crossing. So may I press the Minister to ensure that DfT Ministers back up their announcements with much-needed funding to deal with the problems in my constituency?

[David T. C. Davies]

I would certainly encourage all partners and stakeholders in this, including DfT Ministers—and also those in the Welsh Government, who are responsible for the highways of course—to engage with the rail network enhancement pipeline in the usual way or consider future rounds of the levelling-up fund. I say, too, that the hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for that level crossing and the wider strategic benefits that will flow if this problem is sorted out.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I know the Minister shares my disappointment and that of my constituents in Gower at the lack of electrification to Swansea, but is he aware that we have great issues with the Hitachi carriages and fleet? They are costing a lot of money and cracks have been caused because of their becoming hybrid. Can he confirm that he is aware of this problem, and can he say what conversations he is having with his colleagues in the Department for Transport and what it is costing?

[David T. C. Davies]

I believe that that problem was quite well publicised, so I think we are all aware of it. The rolling stock is being examined. There is no issue around safety. I do not know what the costs are. I understand the hon. Lady’s disappointment about electrification, but she will know, through her sterling work on the Welsh Affairs Committee, that there would have been enormous costs to electrification between Cardiff and Swansea and no benefits for any passengers in terms of decreased time. This Government want to spend that money where it will have the most impact and benefit for rail passengers.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

The community in St Athan in my constituency was naturally disappointed, and even angry, that the Welsh Government did not include a new station for St Athan in their application to the Department for Transport’s new stations fund. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that he will listen to the views of Members of Parliament as well as the Welsh Government when considering applications for new stations?

[David T. C. Davies]

I can absolutely reassure my right hon. Friend on that point. I commend him for the work that he has done in improving rail infrastructure in his constituency. I enjoyed visiting Barry station with him to see the disability access improvements that had taken place sometime last year.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

When the Minister listed all the projects that the Government are undertaking, he did not mention the marvellous work being done by Network Rail on the only wooden bridge in the country being used for rail services, between Morfa Mawddach and Barmouth. Will he make a point, together with the Secretary of State, of visiting the bridge and walking across it when it is finally completed and all the wooden piles have been installed? Of course, it is a walkway as well as a railway.

[David T. C. Davies]

I would be delighted to take my hon. Friend up on what I think is an invitation to visit. I believe that he may even be able to supply a cup of tea somewhere in the vicinity. He is right that I did not mention that particular project. There are so many projects I could mention that Network Rail is responsible for in Wales as a result of UK Government funding. I did not mention, either, the south Wales relief line, the north Wales coast line, the improvements that will hopefully come about to the Wrexham to Bidston line, or a whole host of other projects that are being funded by this UK Government.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

One key way we are supporting rail infrastructure across the country is through HS2. Does the Minister agree that HS2 will have a truly nationwide benefit in places such as Port Talbot and Teesside if we use UK steel in its construction?

[David T. C. Davies]

Of course, many companies in Wales will be tendering for work on the HS2 project, so there will be huge benefits to Wales, huge benefits for the railway industry, and of course huge benefits for the whole United Kingdom. HS2 is also about getting people off the roads and on to the railways, which is something that anyone who supports getting Britain to net zero by 2050 should be in support of.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to support the manufacturing industry in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

I assure the hon. Lady that the UK Government are completely committed to manufacturing in Wales, which is why we have put £3.4 billion into manufacturing and enabled companies to take advantage of the many schemes that were brought forward during the covid crisis.

[Liz Twist]

I thank the Minister for that response. Will he join me in welcoming the Welsh Labour Government’s £20 million commitment to the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in Broughton, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), which will attract business and boost skills across the north Wales region?

[David T. C. Davies]

That, I believe, would be a promising scheme that could perhaps be looked at in conjunction with the growth deals. As the hon. Lady will be aware, £790 million has been put forward for growth deals across Wales, and that is exactly the sort of scheme that is being considered as part of that. May I say how strongly I welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the aviation sector, which I hope will be shared by all her colleagues?

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to help Wales achieve the net zero emissions target.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

10. What steps the Government are taking to help Wales achieve the net zero emissions target.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

Wales’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by close to 31% since 1990. To bring them down to zero, we will be scaling up low-carbon power generation, kickstarting the hydrogen economy and transitioning to zero emission vehicles.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that response. Many parts of Wales are rural like my own constituency in the Scottish borders. These rural areas need a plentiful supply of electric car charging points to encourage people to make the switch to electric cars. How are the UK Government supporting the switch across the four nations of the United Kingdom?

[Simon Hart]

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, because it illustrates a situation very similar to his in Wales. I hope he is as pleased as we are with the £275 million commitment to the electric vehicle homecharge scheme, the workplace charging scheme, the on-street residential chargepoint scheme and a number of other measures, all of which, of course, are UK-wide initiatives.

[Stephen Crabb]

The drive to net zero presents huge challenges to industry all across south Wales, especially for us in Pembrokeshire where the oil and gas plants support thousands of high quality jobs. What further steps can the UK Government take to help the energy sector to adapt, taking advantage of new opportunities in hydrogen but also plans for floating offshore wind? The truth is that we are going to need significant extra help in Pembrokeshire if we are going to make that transition.

[Simon Hart]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. I hope he has taken note of the £20 million commitment to the south Wales industrial cluster. That is driving carbon capture initiatives and similar initiatives. He and I frequently speak to big employers in our area, such as Valero on the Milford Haven Waterway, which are an absolutely critical part of our net zero ambitions in Wales. Of course, the floating offshore wind opportunities in the Celtic sea are well known to both of us and I hope that developers will be able to bid for contracts for difference later this year.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

When it comes to tackling the climate crisis, I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the Welsh Labour Government have led the way: banning fracking, legislating for net zero, establishing a new ministry for climate change, and generating more than 50% of the energy we use from renewable sources, a figure higher than the UK average. Does the Secretary of State also agree that those efforts are undermined somewhat by his own Government’s decision to drop binding commitments on climate change from the free trade deal with Australia? What message does that send to the world ahead of this country hosting the COP26 summit later this year?

[Simon Hart]

I do not acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s challenge in quite the way he would expect me to. I think it has been made perfectly clear that our net zero ambitions are not going to be solved by one country or one Government; it will be resolved by a very serious and joined-up approach to net zero across the UK and beyond. I am very happy, as he knows I am, to work with the Welsh Government to achieve those aims. If we relegate this issue to some kind of political spat, it will make the challenges harder, so I hope he will join me and Welsh Government colleagues in trying to make sure we achieve the mutual aims we claim to share.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State look at the recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Committee that Wales should get its fair share of HS2 funding, the same as Scotland, so we can invest in a modern infrastructure and meet net zero, in particular with the Swansea Bay metro, more quickly?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman and I share many common ambitions for the rail network in Wales. He knows my views on that. He also knows the Union connectivity review will be published shortly. I do not want to second-guess what is in that, but I suspect that he and I need a conversation shortly after that has been published.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

There is great potential for small scale renewable energy schemes in the more rural parts of Aberconwy. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had to ensure that the grid connections are in place to make them viable?

[Simon Hart]

It is fair to say that they are in their early stages. I enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency last week, where these points were raised. He is right to point out that we can come up with all the initiatives in the world, but unless there is a supportive grid to cope with that, our progress will be slower than we would like. Those conversations are in play and I look forward to sharing them with him at the earliest opportunity.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the adequacy of the operation of the devolution settlement.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the adequacy of the operation of the devolution settlement.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

My discussions with the First Minister and his ministerial team are focused on how our respective Governments can use the powers at our disposal to deliver jobs and economic growth for Wales.

[Kevin Brennan]

Hijacking pots of money for Wales in the UK Government Departments that have not operated in Wales for 20 years undermines the devolution settlement and, by extension, the Union, but just as damaging is the bureaucratic delay caused by the uselessness of UK Ministers. Why have Welsh councils still not had a response on community fund renewal projects that are supposed to be completed by March 2022? If the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues cannot do the business, they should get off the pot.

[Simon Hart]

In the last 18 months or more, I have spoken to numerous individuals, charities, churches, universities, the private and public sectors, businesses, investors—you name them, we have spoken to them. Not a single one has raised the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises this morning. They are committed to the economic recovery plans that we are talking about, and, as I said in answer to a previous question, if all these question sessions do is relegate these exchanges to some kind of cheap political point scoring, we will not make the progress that he seeks.

[Beth Winter]

The landslips in the Rhondda last year sent a shiver down the spine of the valleys communities, and many of my constituents in Cynon Valley live in fear of future coal tip disasters. Three hundred of the 2,000 coal tips in Wales have been classed at high risk of endangering life or property. We need to know that they are safe and the UK Government have a clear duty to make them safe. [Interruption.] What discussion has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer ahead of the forthcoming spending review to ensure that sustainable funding is provided to deal with the legacy of the coal tips? [Interruption.]

[Simon Hart]

I think I caught most of that question, but the hon. Lady will no doubt recall that the UK Government put over £30 million into coal tip renewal and coal tip safety issues. It was the UK Government who joined forces with the Welsh Government to make sure that that approach was collegiate and addressed all the concerns that were raised, including those that fall into the devolved space just as much as the reserved space. If she wants an example of the UK Government and the Welsh Government working together and the Treasury picking up the tab, that issue is a perfect example.

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Respecting devolution cuts both ways. Recently, the Welsh Government published a written statement on the evolution of the national grid. It was very welcome—we need to work together—but clearly, the 132 kV lines are a UK competence. Will the Secretary of State pull Ofgem and the operators together to build and evolve the national grid, with consensus from the people of mid-Wales?

[Simon Hart]

I can go a little further than that, having spoken to the Busines Secretary on this topic only yesterday evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) raises a very important point, especially around where the devolution settlement and reserved responsibilities sit. It is absolutely right to raise that but it is also fair to say that an issue of that significance will require a UK-wide approach and, of course, the views and responsibilities of the Welsh Government will be taken very seriously in those discussions.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

If the devolution settlement is to work, the UK Government have to match their rhetoric on the respect agenda. Given that all devolved Governments in the UK have asked the UK Government to cancel the cut to universal credit, can the Secretary of State say that he made that representation to his Cabinet colleagues, or is the post of Secretary of State entirely redundant? [Interruption.]

[Simon Hart]

I barely caught a single word of that, but on the basis that I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s views on this subject before, I will simply repeat my views and observations. Over the past 18 months during the covid pandemic, there has been a very analytical look at what works and what does not work in the devolution settlement by businesses, employers, wealth creators, investors, universities, churches and members of the public. I have to say that this fixation with the niceties of the devolution settlement is not reflected by businesses in Wales at the moment. [Interruption.] If by any chance I have missed the hon. Gentleman’s question, which, by the shake of his head, I suspect I have, we can have a conversation in the Tea Room later.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to increase the number of apprentices in the Wales Office.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

We fully support the Government’s apprenticeship scheme. We have employed apprentices in the Wales Office, and our most recent apprentice has just been promoted.

[Robert Halfon]

Will my hon. Friend set out what he is doing to encourage apprenticeships across Wales? Will he ensure that all new jobs offered in the Wales Office are offered as apprenticeships, not just graduate schemes? Will he ensure that the Wales Office meets the public sector target on apprenticeships?

[David T. C. Davies]

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will certainly meet the public sector target—we have been meeting it. We will be taking on further apprentices and we have just taken on a kickstart worker and somebody from the care leavers scheme.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 September.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I know that the whole House will want to join me in congratulating Emma Raducanu, Joe Salisbury, Alfie Hewett and Gordon Reid on their victories in the US Open. They have made the whole nation proud.

On Battle of Britain Day, we honour the legacy of those brave aircrews who defended our nation.

I am sure that hon. Members will also want to join me in wishing you well, Mr Speaker, for the G7 Speakers and Presiding Officers conference in Chorley later this week.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Caroline Nokes]

I would like to pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister on the sad loss of his mother.

Raising children is very expensive—more so when they are disabled. The children impacted by sodium valproate have suffered physically, mentally and indeed financially. When the Cumberlege report was published, there was real hope that they would get support. However, on the last day before the summer recess, a written ministerial statement indicated that recommendation 4 of that report would not be actioned. May I please ask my right hon. Friend to urge the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to look again at that and give the parents of those children the financial redress that they so desperately need?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind words. On her substantive point, she is entirely right to raise the issues investigated by Baroness Cumberlege. We have given the report full consideration, accept its overarching conclusions and are committed to making rapid progress in addressing all the areas that it mentions, including the one that my right hon. Friend covered today.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Emma Raducanu—a tremendous success in the US Open—the Battle of Britain and the G7 Speakers conference. May I also offer my condolences to the Prime Minister on the loss of his mother? As I know at first hand, losing a parent is never easy.

How many extra hours a week would a single parent working full-time on the minimum wage have to work to get back the £20 a week that the Prime Minister plans to take away from them in his universal credit cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words. On his substantive point about universal credit, it is absurd, because the Labour party—[Interruption.] I will give you a statistic, Mr Speaker: every single recipient of universal credit would lose their benefits under Labour, because it wants to abolish universal credit. I think that this House and this Government should be very proud of what we are doing and continue to do to support the low-paid. It was another Conservative institution, the living wage, that increased the incomes of families on it by £4,000 a head. What the Labour party wants to do is keep this country in lockdown and keep this country in furlough without moving forward at all.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seems to think that it is an extra two hours a week, so let me make it even easier for the Prime Minister: is the correct answer higher or lower than that?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that under this Government, for the first time in decades, wages are rising. Wages across the board are rising, and they are 4.1% up on where they were before the pandemic. In fact, I am very pleased to say—[Interruption.] Of course, what the Opposition want to do is continue to take money in taxation and put it into benefits. We do not think that that is the right way. We want to encourage high wages and high skills. That is the difference between this Government and the Labour party. I think it is a good thing, for instance, that Costa Coffee is now paying 5% more than it was before the pandemic—and never forget, Mr Speaker, that if we had listened to Captain Hindsight, Costa Coffee would still be closed.

[Keir Starmer]

It wasn’t a difficult question, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] It is silly, they say. “How many hours would someone working full time on the minimum wage have to work to make up for the cut?” is apparently a silly question. I will give the Prime Minister the answer to the question. The number is much, much higher. A single parent—who could be a constituent—working on the minimum wage and already working full time would need to work more than nine hours a week on top of that full-time job just to get back the money that the Prime Minister has taken away from them. They are already working full time. They have kids. How on earth does the Prime Minister think they are going to find the time to work an extra nine hours—in truth, an extra day every week?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell you what we are doing, Mr Speaker, to support people on low incomes. We are supporting them not only with the living wage, but with 30 hours of free childcare, and by freezing petrol duty and extending the heating allowance to 780,000 people across the country—but, even more important than that, for the low-paid we are encouraging measures to see their wages rise. We are investing in their skills. We are investing in work coaches.

There is now a dividing line between this Government and the Opposition. We want a high-wage, high-skills economy with controlled immigration; what they want is low wages, low skills, and uncontrolled immigration. That is what they stand for.

[Keir Starmer]

Let us test that right now. We have had three questions and the Prime Minister has not answered one of them, and it is obvious why.

The truth is that these low-paid workers cannot work longer hours to get back the money that the Prime Minister is cutting from them. He knows it; they know it. Millions of working families will be hit hard—very hard—by the Prime Minister’s universal credit cut, and the reason, I tell the Prime Minister, is this. Why would those people have to work an extra nine hours—a full day every week—to get that £20 back? It is because of his broken tax system. He has just said how good it is, so let us test it. After his national insurance rise, for every extra pound that those workers earn, his Government will take more than 75p from them. That is why they have to work for those nine hours—one whole extra day.

The Prime Minister has just said that he is going to raise wages, and what else he is going to do, but that is the situation. Why is the Prime Minister making a bad situation worse for working people by hammering them with a cut in universal credit and a tax rise?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, what we have done with our local housing allowance is increase by £600 the amount of money available to exactly the type of person the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. He has attacked the plan that we announced last week to fix the backlogs in the NHS. I have to say that I thought it utterly incredible that the party of Nye Bevan should have come to the House last Wednesday and voted against measures that would fix the NHS. It is quite clear that ours is now the party of the NHS, and that the Opposition simply do not have a plan. They do not have a plan for universal credit—they want to abolish it—and they do not have a plan to fix the NHS or social care.

[Keir Starmer]

An unfair tax rise which will not fix social care and will not clear the NHS backlog is not a plan. The Prime Minister pretends that there is no alternative but to hammer working people with tax rises and universal credit cuts, but that is not true. His approach means that a working single parent who is a qualified nurse would lose £1,143. A supermarket worker could lose £1,093. A teaching assistant could lose £1,081. At the same time, the Prime Minister has wasted billions on crony contracts, cut taxes for people buying second homes and handed out super tax deductions for the biggest companies. That is not taking difficult decisions; that is making political choices. So why is the Prime Minister choosing to take a tax system that is already loaded against working people and making it even more unfair?

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely ridiculous that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should attack the Government over salaries for nurses when we have put them up by 3% on top of the 12.8% rise that we introduced, when we are hiring 50,000 more nurses and when we are putting another £36 billion into the NHS and social care on top of the £33 billion that this Government invested when we came into office. One in 10 of the people in this country are now on an NHS waiting list. Labour Members know that the NHS backlog needs to be fixed, they know that this Government have a plan and they know that Labour has absolutely nothing to say.

[Keir Starmer]

I just wonder what the millions of people on low wages who are facing a £1,000 cut will think of that. This country’s success is built by working people, but the tax system is loaded against them. The Prime Minister may not understand the pressures facing families across the country, but we do. The reality is this. Taxes on working people: up. National insurance—[Hon. Members: “”Up!”] Council tax—[Hon. Members: “Up!”] Energy bills, food prices, burdens on families: up, up, up. The Prime Minister needs to get real and understand the terrible impact of his decisions on working people across this country. This afternoon, he has the chance to change course, to vote with Labour to cancel the cut to universal credit and then to stop clobbering working people with unfair tax rises. Will he do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I can see that the panto season has come early—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If it has, it is certainly behind him.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me ask you, Mr Speaker, since you are a man of great restraint and taste and judgment: which country has the fastest growth in the G7? Where is employment up? Where are job vacancies at the highest level? And as for wages, they are up. They are higher than they were before the pandemic. I have listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman carefully over the last fortnight, and I am told that he has a 14,000-word essay in gestation. I do not know why he cannot produce it right away. Why does the world have to wait for the thoughts of Chairman Keir? Having listened to what he has had to say—his non-existent plan for universal credit, his non-existent plan for health and social care—I could compress those 14,000 words into four: vote Labour, wait longer. That is what he stands for. Our plan for jobs is working and our plan for covid is working.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

The Prime Minister needs to count the number of words—come on, Sheryll.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Q2. Be it farm workers or lorry drivers, my employers are saying that they want more staff. What more can the Prime Minister do to increase the training and mobility of jobseekers to help them into the jobs they need?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the problem of lorry driver shortages, which is affecting the whole world, from Europe to North America. What we are doing immediately is working to get out more licences. We are taking advantage of our post-Brexit freedom so that all the young thrusters on the Conservative Benches with a post-1997 driver’s licence can now drive a vehicle with a trailer as well—everybody can drive a vehicle with a trailer as well. But after a long period of stagnation in wages for those in the road haulage industry, we are also seeing a long-overdue increase in wages. That is part of the same phenomenon that this Government are introducing and the Labour party is opposing.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister and his family on the sad loss of his mother the other day. And I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating Emma Raducanu on her fantastic success in New York last Saturday.

Of course, we mourn the anniversary last Saturday of 20 years since the horrors of 9/11. We remember all those who paid the sacrifice in that outrage.

This morning we learned that the rate of inflation has reached its highest level in a decade. For ordinary workers and families, prices are going up at the very moment when they can least afford it. Workers and families need more than just a winter plan for covid; they need a winter action plan to fight a Tory poverty pandemic that is only going to get worse.

Does the Prime Minister know, and can he tell us, how much Tory Government cuts to social welfare will cost the average nurse?

[The Prime Minister]

We are protecting people on low incomes up and down the country—[Interruption.] Indeed we are. And we are freezing fuel duty and supporting childcare. We have brought in a huge package of measures, not least the living wage, which has already seen an increase of £4,000 for every family on the living wage.

More importantly, the right hon. Gentleman talks about the income of nurses. We are investing massively in health and social care up and down the country. That will help to fund, apart from anything else, the increase in nurses’ pay that they so thoroughly deserve. I hope he will support that package.

[Ian Blackford]

My goodness, my goodness, an increase in nurses’ pay. Either the Prime Minister does not know or he simply does not care. When we take the cuts to universal credit and the increase in national insurance, the figure he was looking for is that the average nurse will lose £1,736. Once again, this Government are cutting the pay of key workers, the very people we are relying on to see us through another difficult winter. The cost of living is spiralling and people are left with a Prime Minister who does not know how much his cuts are hitting key workers and a Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who does not know how universal credit works.

If any Scottish Tories are in possession of a backbone, now would be a good time to find it. Does the Prime Minister expect any MPs from his Scottish branch office to stand against the callous cuts to universal credit, or has he already bought them off with promises of jobs in his reshuffle?

[The Prime Minister]

What is actually happening is that we are funding the NHS across the whole of the UK, including in Scotland I am proud to say, with record sums. We have ensured that nurses have access to a training bursary worth £5,000 and a further bursary of £3,000 for childcare costs, and that is before we put up their pay by 3%. That is only possible because of the investment we are making, the measures I outlined last week and the package we are putting forward for health and social care. If the right hon. Gentleman is really saying that the Scottish nationalist party is opposed to that investment, if he is really saying that he would send it back, he would be better off banging on, as he normally does, about a referendum. He is better on that.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Q3. Now that the move to have a domestic identity card for each of Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland has started, what consideration has my right hon. Friend given to how the nationalists will use them to break our Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful for the vigilance of my hon. Friend about the matter of ID cards. I can tell him that we have absolutely no plans to bring them in, but I will watch the nationalists very carefully.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I, too, offer my condolences to the Prime Minister on the loss of his mother.

Health waiting lists are through the roof in Northern Ireland and hard-pressed families are being hit by decisions from this Government, but the Democratic Unionist party has been hit by a bad opinion poll so it is threatening to bring down the very institutions of the Good Friday agreement. Will this Prime Minister commit today to fast-tracking the legislation going through this House, agreed at New Decade, New Approach, to stop the institutions coming down if one political party has a petulant strop?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that it is very important that the institutions of Northern Ireland should be robust and should continue, but I also think that a responsible Government have to address the issues of the protocol, the lopsidedness and the way in which the European Union has chosen to interpret those issues, which I do not believe satisfies the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is what we are going to do.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

Q4. May I start by expressing my condolences to the Prime Minister? As my right hon. Friend knows, yesterday I led a Westminster Hall debate on the British fur trade and the import of dead animal products from abroad. I know he cares deeply about animal welfare. Will he please join me in denouncing the horrible, cruel and unnecessary slaughter of an average of 1 million animals every year, just for their skin? In a post-Brexit Britain, we can outlaw this horrible practice, one that I am sure he and many, many other British people hate. Will he meet me to discuss my campaign to end the import of fur to Britain and truly make a fur-free Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for millions and millions of people up and down this country who abhor the fur trade and do not want to wear fur. Obviously, we have banned fur farming in this country for a long time, and we are going to look at what we can do, working with the fur sector, to prevent fur from being imported into Britain.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q6. By the time my wonderful friend Lynda went to the doctor, the cancer was already so advanced that she had only a few weeks to live. Many hon. Members have been through cancer and they know well that early detection saves lives. Unfortunately, of course, long waiting lists will make it more difficult to save lives. The real problem we have is a massive shortage, in the thousands, in the number of pathologists and radiologists to catch the cancers in the first place, and a massive shortage of oncologists and dermatologists to do the treatment. So regardless of the money, how are we are going to make sure that we have the personnel, not in five or seven years’ time, but now, to be able to save lives?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I want to say how sad I am to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent Lynda. I think her experiences have been shared by literally millions of people in this country during the pandemic, because they have not been willing or able to get the oncology treatment that they need because of the pressure of covid on the system. The system is now coming back, trying to help everybody as fast as possible to fix the backlogs. So yes, it is necessary to hire more nurses and doctors, and there about 10,000 more nurses now and about 6,000 more doctors—

[Chris Bryant]

Pathologists and radiologists.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is totally right in what he says about radiologists and pathologists, but may I respectfully say to him that that must be done by means of the big powerful package that we put forward last week to raise the funding necessary? I believe his party should have supported that and it is incredible that it did not.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Q5. Work continues to improve maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Last week, local MPs heard from those affected—including a former constituent of mine whose baby died only eight weeks ago—in a meeting with the Minister for Patient Safety. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right that there is going to be an independent review of local maternity services? Will he join me in asking those affected to come forward to give evidence to that review, so that in future mothers throughout Nottinghamshire get the maternity services that they both need and deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter; I know he has campaigned on that issue. The review is going ahead and we will look at what to do once it has been completed, but in the meantime Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust is going to be supported through the national maternity safety support programme.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Q10. Throughout the country, there are children who have not gone back to school because their schools say that they cannot meet their needs. Do the continued delays to the Government’s review of special educational needs and disability mean that the Government have abandoned those children? Will the Prime Minister listen to the concerns of parents and young people and make sure that their voices are heard in the review?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. When the Government came into office, a key part of the extra £14 billion that we put into education was for investment in special educational needs, to allow local areas to build more SEND schools where they were necessary. We are putting another £780 million into extra SEND education for our kids. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise a particular shortfall in a particular school or area, will she please write to me about it?

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Q7. I know that my right hon. Friend wants to see the United Kingdom growing more crops. We are not going to blaze a trail to self-sufficiency by building over our finest agricultural land. That has to stop, now.On this, Back British Farming Day, we are in harvest time, and all is not safely gathered in. In three weeks, Thanet Earth in my constituency, which is one of the largest glasshouse companies in the country and grows tomatoes, has had to trash £320,000-worth of produce because there are no pickers and no drivers. Because of the lack of labour force, the crops are rotting in the fields and on trees. Will my right hon. Friend seek to introduce immediately a covid-recovery visa, so that this year’s crops are not lost?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says about the importance of buying British and eating British. Our food is the best in the world. He is also right to address the problems that we are currently seeing in the supply chain, but we are taking steps. Of course, it has been a problem for a long time, but we will use the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to ensure that British farms get the labour that they need.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Q11. I express my condolences to the Prime Minister and his family.Does the Prime Minister believe that the burning of fossil fuels will not be a source of energy in the UK in future?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Since just 2012, when I think I was Mayor of London—I was—we have cut CO₂ massively and we have cut our dependence on coal from 40% to less than 1%. How about that, Mr Speaker?

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Q8. Ullswater Community College, which is led superbly by headteacher Stephen Gilby, is a fantastic school in Penrith with 1,500 pupils, more than 200 staff and a 600 square mile catchment area. The school is in desperate need of redevelopment to keep the site fit for purpose. In partnership with Myerscough College, the school is providing a lifeline for land-based education in Cumbria, after the sad closure of Newton Rigg College in July. This is a great opportunity for the Government to level up rural areas, so will the Prime Minister join me in supporting the proposed rebuild of Ullswater Community College.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for the people of Penrith and The Border, and I can tell him that in addition to our support for 500 school-rebuilding projects in the next decade—we are doing 100 immediately—Cumbria County Council has been allocated £5.3 million for the financial year 2021-22 to improve buildings, including Ullswater Community College.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the impending cuts to universal credit will not just have a devastating financial impact on people, but lead to stress and anxiety and undoubtedly have a hugely detrimental effect on their mental health, which, on top of the pressures of the pandemic, could prove devastating for some?

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered that question many times. The answer is no, and, in any case, Labour would abolish universal credit altogether.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Q9. Back in 2004, Scarborough hit the national headlines when rumours of a new dental practice opening led to hundreds of people queuing round the block in the vain hope of registering as NHS patients. Today, while many better-off families continue to enjoy the discounted prices that the NHS offers, many children and vulnerable families still cannot register as NHS dental patients in Scarborough and Whitby. Does the Prime Minister agree that that needs fixing?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. That is why we are investing in the NHS, and we want the NHS to be a better place for the dental profession. Would it not be a fine thing if this House of Commons voted overwhelmingly—with all Members voting—for our package of measures to support the NHS?

[Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

September marks Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. Every day across the UK, 12 children and young people will be diagnosed with cancer, and, of those, two will not survive. My constituent Nadia Majid and her family are campaigning to improve research and funding in this field. Nadia’s son, Rayhan, was only four years old when he was diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumour. Rayhan tragically passed away only four months after his diagnosis. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking all the doctors, nurses and support staff who work tirelessly to fight against childhood cancer and meet with me to discuss how the four nations can work together to improve research and funding into childhood cancers and to support families like Nadia’s?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Lady echoes the thoughts of millions of people. There is not a family in this country that has not been touched by cancer. Childhood cancer is particularly tragic, which is why the Government are investing huge sums in research and also in supporting some of the fantastic charities that she mentions, particularly those investigating brain cancers.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Q12. Dr Camilla Kingdon, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, thinks that the routine testing of children without covid symptoms is still interrupting children and teenagers’ school attendance and does not believe that it should continue. She thinks that covid should be treated like other diseases and that only children with symptoms should be dealt with. I agree with her and her colleagues in the royal college; does the Prime Minister agree with them?

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for Dr Kingdon as I have for my right hon. Friend. It is one of a number of views in the scientific community, but we continue to think that testing is a very important route for keeping schools open, which is the best possible thing for the physical and mental health of our kids.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

My condolences to the Prime Minister on the sad loss of his mother.

I was privileged to be able to take the time off work that I needed to recover from post-traumatic stress disorder, but that should be a right for everyone, not a privilege. Far too many people cannot take the time off that they need because, by the former Health Secretary’s own admission, statutory sick pay at £95 a week is not enough to live on. This is a simple question—yes or no? Will the Prime Minister today commit to full sick pay at a real living wage, not the Government’s current age-restricted minimum wage?

[The Prime Minister]

As the whole House will know, what we have done is make sure that everybody who gets covid-related statutory sick pay gets it on day one. We have also ensured that most people in this country, when they fall sick or when they need to recover as the hon. Lady has, receive considerably more than statutory sick pay.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Q13. As a Queen’s scout, I am always keen to encourage young people to get into the most successful youth organisation in the world, so last week I was delighted that the Scout Association announced the first new age range in scouting for 35 years—namely, the Squirrels—which allows young people of four and five years old to become part of the scout movement. This is particularly aimed at areas of deprivation and disadvantaged children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should congratulate the Scout Association, thank the volunteers who give up their time to enable young people to take part, and encourage young people to get involved in a safe environment for adventure and new challenges?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes; I had no idea that the Scout Association was doing that, but I think it is fantastic. Uniformed youth services make a huge difference to outcomes for young people, and it is fantastic that the Squirrels are now starting them off at the age of four.

[Mr Speaker]

You could register Wilfred. I call Jack Dromey.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

For more than half a century, the GKN factory in Erdington has produced high-quality parts for the automotive industry. Now, following the hostile takeover by Melrose, the company has announced its intention to close the factory, sack 519 workers, and export jobs and production to continental Europe. There has been some welcome engagement with Ministers on this issue, but does the Prime Minister agree that, in one of the poorest parts of Britain, if the levelling-up agenda and support for British manufacturing mean anything, this factory cannot close? Does he therefore also agree that it would be a betrayal of the British national interest were this great, historic factory to become history?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is working with GKN to do whatever we can, but I believe that the future of the UK automotive sector is incredibly bright. That is because—to go back to the question of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—we are the Government who took the historic step, ahead of every other European country, to move towards electric vehicles by 2030. We want this country to be in the lead. We are making sure that we get the investment in the UK that will drive new technology, drive growth, and drive high-wage and high-skilled jobs in this country.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Q14. At a time when our economy desperately needs investment, right now we are missing out on hundreds of millions of pounds of private capital that is flowing into the geothermal sector across Europe, because the UK does not offer a competitive long-term tariff. Geothermal will help us to heat homes, create jobs and level up the UK. We have not yet found time to meet and discuss the subject, but will the Prime Minister find time in his diary in the coming weeks, so that we can discuss the issue and do not miss out on further investment?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sorry that we have not yet found time to discuss this matter properly, person to person. The Government are very much interested in what my hon. Friend says about geothermal projects, so I will ensure that a meeting is arranged as soon as possible.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I am sure that the Prime Minister will be as pleased as I am that the Scottish Land Court has this week given the final green light to establishing a space launch facility in Sutherland. This is great for the UK, and it is time to bury party political differences. On behalf of the delighted crofters of the community of Melness, I extend a warm invitation to the Prime Minister to come to the first launch, where he will be given a delicious highland tea, including some home-made scones.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation. I look forward to taking it up. What we need is a suitable payload to send into space, and I think the hon. Gentleman would do very well.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q15. On Monday, it was a pleasure to meet the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Leicester as they discussed a zero-carbon future with British Gas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development in neighbouring Derby of the modular nuclear reactors can play a major part in this zero-carbon future? What steps are the Government taking to facilitate the roll-out of this technology to the UK and the world, especially this week, which is nuclear week—perhaps in more ways than one?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. We are already working with Rolls-Royce. We gave £20 million seed money to the Rolls-Royce-led consortium when this Government first came in to help them to develop their small modular reactor design. As I said to him the other day, we want to see that company coming forward with a fully worked out plan—a fully worked out business case—that we can all get behind.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has set out today that he wants a high-skill, high-wage economy. He has also been on the record as saying that the tactic of fire and rehire is “unacceptable”. Surely the best way of ensuring that we have a high-wage economy is to work with the proposals in my private Member’s Bill so that we end that tactic of fire and rehire.

[The Prime Minister]

The most vivid example of fire and rehire is that conducted by the Labour party. If I recall, the leader of the Labour party himself fired his deputy leader and then rehired her as shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and shadow Secretary of State for the future of work. The future of work under Labour is low wages and low skills driven by uncontrolled immigration. The people of this country have had enough of that; what they want to see is high wages, high skills and controlled immigration, and that is what this Government are committed to deliver.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend come to No. 1 George Street and celebrate great British farming today, can we have public procurement that uses British food, and can we have food envoys all across the world promoting our great British food and farming?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend, who is the living embodiment of the robustness of British agriculture, and indeed of the benefits of English food—of British food, particularly the beef of Devon, or Somerset. He is right in what he says about food envoys. We have taken that up. Every single embassy across the world has a food envoy.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

My constituents in Bridge House, Croydon live in flats covered in dangerous cladding that will cost millions to remove. They are not eligible for the Government’s building safety fund because it is the wrong type of cladding. Can the Prime Minister confirm: do my constituents have to pay the £23,000 each that they are being charged to remove this cladding, or does he have a better plan?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Lady’s constituents are being told that they do not have to remove that cladding, then the answer is no. It is very, very important that this House should recognise that too many buildings have been unnecessarily—unfairly, I believe—categorised as dangerous and unsafe. Of course we must remove dangerous cladding, and we are doing that, but I want householders and leaseholders—people living in flats across this country—to have the confidence that they can do so in safety, and that is what this Government are doing.

Proposed Heath Common development

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Rugby Community Ambulance Station

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Abuse of Public-facing Workers (Offences)

1st reading
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:44

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for and in connection with offences relating to verbal and physical abuse of public-facing workers in the course of their employment.

“Abuse is a regular occurrence unfortunately. I’ve been sworn at, spat at, pushed, had trollies rammed into me, had grown men tell me they will rape and kill me. I have plenty of colleagues that have been assaulted, one had a man wait in the car park for him and smashed a glass bottle over his head.”

That is one constituent’s account of the abuse they face at work, but there is more:

“I’ve had threats to ‘smash my face in’ and threats such as stabbing, threats to my family, punching threats, needles, threats to follow me home, waiting around until I’ve finished work, arson and generally abusive shouting, swearing, and spitting”.

These stories are a part of a wider pattern that goes beyond only one section of the economy or one type of workplace.

Many people will have looked in horror at the footage from Asda in Clapham, which showed a man brutally attacking workers and customers at that store. My union, the GMB, is campaigning for stronger legal protections for workers because of such assaults. I have also heard from cabin crew workers, who have suffered rising levels of abuse as they try to enforce social distancing protocols on planes; journalists facing increasing harassment, abuse and even assault by far-right groups; NHS workers being accosted by anti-vaxxers and covid deniers while going about treating the sick; librarians facing rising levels of abusive behaviour; workers in bars and restaurants facing violence and intimidation from customers; and transport workers, often working alone, who have been spat at, threatened and physically assaulted. Everywhere, we have rising levels of abuse directed at people who work with the public.

Last June, a survey conducted by the Institute of Customer Service found that more than half of customer-facing employees have experienced increased hostility from customers during the coronavirus crisis. More than half of the participants in a survey from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers reported being threatened with physical violence. Some 88% had been verbally abused, 13% reported being racially harassed and 16% had been spat at or targeted with other bodily fluids. In a 2010 survey, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers reported very similar.

Covid has made this growing problem even worse, but it would be a mistake to think it was the cause. Before the outbreak, the 2020 crime report found that 83% of people in the convenience store sector had been subject to verbal abuse. It is estimated that there have been more than 50,000 incidents of violence. Some of the responsibility lies with individuals. We need to see a change in behaviour and in the culture of how we treat front-facing workers. That change will not happen on its own. Part of our discussion should include what employers can do to protect workers. We need better reporting, better support and a more robust pursuit of prosecutions, but we also need to see the Government take action.

Today, with this Bill, I am here to propose that the verbal or physical abuse of public-facing workers carrying out their duties has to be made its own specific offence. Some say we already have enough on the statute book on this and that there are already laws that, taken together, cover the offence of abusing frontline staff, but our laws reflect and shape our society. If the existing legislation reflects a situation in which we have seen spiralling levels of abuse, it is time that changed, because the status quo simply is not working.

The British Retail Consortium reports that only 6% of incidents of violence and abuse ended in prosecution, and in only 3% of cases was the victim performing a public service an aggravating factor. The lack of action has consequences. In a survey conducted by the RMT, 43% of respondents said they had not reported the incidents to their managers. When asked why, the most common reason was that they did not feel it would be taken seriously or that it was just part of their job. A quarter said that they had reported incidents and no action had been taken. USDAW found similar, with a survey saying that a quarter of its members had never reported the abuse they have suffered and that it was a regular occurrence.

The most recent polling from the Institute of Customer Service reports that nearly half of the workers who participated in the survey do not report incidents of abuse. Over half of those who had been abused did not think it would make a difference, and why would they when the rate of prosecution is so low? No wonder the system is not working. The sentencing for common assault is complicated. There are three categories of harm and culpability, 19 aggravating factors and 11 mitigating factors. A new law would make the process far simpler. We have already seen how it could look in practice. The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018—the “protect the protectors” Act—provides a good template.

The 2018 Act was a welcome step forward, but the law has been applied inconsistently. For example, the Prison Officers Association told me that it has been unevenly applied to its work context, with different rulings classifying prison officers as emergency workers or not. Similarly, social workers, who are often required to engage in emergency work, are not included in the Act, but they are protected while enforcing child protection orders or carrying out mental health assessments in Scotland under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005. Those inconsistencies would disappear if the law encompassed all public-facing workers.

A new offence would simplify the legal process, iron out inconsistencies and encourage law enforcement to proactively investigate and support complainants against perpetrators. It would also empower frontline workers to speak up and report incidents of abuse, knowing that there is a greater chance that they will be listened to and investigated.

It should be an inalienable right to be treated with respect and dignity in the workplace, but many people feel that they are ignored by a system that does not care about them or take them seriously. Today we have an opportunity to demonstrate that we do care. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Olivia Blake, Andrew Gwynne, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Rachel Hopkins, Kim Johnson, Navendu Mishra and Kate Osborne present the Bill.

Olivia Blake accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January, and to be printed (Bill 157).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

5th Allotted Day

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

12:52

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to cancel its planned cut to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit which from the end of September 2021 will reduce support for many hard-working families by £1,040 a year.

I reiterate what I said when we had this debate in January: while, understandably, strength of feeling is high when talking about something that affects so many families and households across the country, this should not be a debate with personal abuse or accusations of bad motive. I ask everyone following the debate at home to consider that, too. If we instead took a moment to assess the matter properly and considered not just the impact on the 6 million affected families but what is in the best interests of our economy as we recover from the pandemic and, crucially, what we need as a country to be able to face the inevitable shocks and economic problems that will come our way in the future, we would decide that it would be unconscionable to take this money away.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

In my constituency, £10.5 million will disappear from the spending capacity in our local economy when more than 10,000 people and working families lose access to this benefit. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will have a tremendously bad effect on local spending power?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The reduction of £20 a week for 6 million low-income families will be the single biggest overnight cut in the history of the welfare state—bigger even than the cut to unemployment benefit in 1931 that caused the Government of the day to collapse. The scope of the cut, affecting one in 14 British workers, is also unprecedented. For those reasons alone, it is right that we are having this debate and that our constituents know where we stand.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is courteous in giving way, but his proposal would cost £6 billion. Which tax would he raise to pay for that?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Will the hon. Member tell me how many households in his constituency are in receipt of universal credit? I am giving him a chance to put on the record how many of his constituents are affected. There is a whole section of my speech in which I will tell him how the Government can afford to pay for this.

I did not know that the hon. Member did not know the figure for his constituency—I promise that I was not trying to catch him out. I was simply trying to make the point that the recovery of his local economy would be adversely affected by taking that spending power away, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) made clear for her constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for introducing this important debate. Northern Ireland has the highest levels of child poverty in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My mailbag, like everyone’s, is full of real-life stories of people worried sick about how they will be affected. Does he agree that the removal of the £20 universal credit payment will plunge even more people into food poverty and have a detrimental effect not just on their pockets financially but on their health? It is a double whammy, and they just cannot take it.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree with the hon. Member. Opposition to the cut is truly universal, for those reasons. It includes MPs, charities, unions and six former Conservative Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions. If we are being honest, I think several serving Conservative Ministers also share that view. In this debate, I want to knock down the fiction that there is somehow a choice to be made between cancelling the cut and getting people back into work. I want to talk about what the cut will mean for the families affected and the impact that it will have on all our local economies and the national resilience necessary to meet future challenges. I also want to talk about how the Government could easily fund universal credit at its current rate without making this counterproductive and harsh cut.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am inundated every week by employers who simply cannot get workers. Should we not be seeking to raise the sights of many working people to get another, better-paid job? They are out there.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

In the right hon. Member’s constituency, 4,000 households are in receipt of universal credit. I want to ensure that, at the beginning of the debate, we knock down the argument, which we have also heard from the Prime Minister, that a focus on jobs will somehow mean that we do not need to keep universal credit at its current level. Of course we should get people back into jobs, but it is simply false to say that the choice is between keeping the uplift and doing that.

Let me remind the House again that universal credit is an in-work benefit. Almost half of the incomes that Government Members wish to cut are of people in work. Either the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and several Conservative MPs do not know how universal credit works or they are being wilfully misleading. I do not know which is worse. Let us have a real debate rather than this ignorant rhetoric about work or welfare, because—this is the crucial point—if as a country we could get the people affected into better-paying jobs, the cost of keeping universal credit at its current level would go down automatically. That is exactly how the system is designed to work. Anyone saying that the cut needs to happen to get people back into work, or to get them working more hours, does not know what they are talking about.

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will give way to the hon. Member one more time.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Member is kind. I hope he will answer my intervention rather than re-intervene on me; I found that very odd earlier. Is it better in principle that people receive £20 through the benefits system or through going into longer hours, with more progress in work and building up a career where there is no limit on what they achieve?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Of course it is better that people are in work, but the whole point of reform in this area over the last decade and a half has been to try to create a system that integrates with the world of work. I cannot see how the hon. Member does not understand that. I cannot see the logic in his argument that a cliff edge is necessary for the outcome that he wishes to see.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling argument about universal credit being an in-work benefit for many people. I have been inundated with calls from constituents who are supermarket workers, teaching assistants and carers. They are already working long hours and they have gone above and beyond during the pandemic. Does he agree that this is not the way to thank those hard-working key workers for everything that they have done for this country?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree absolutely; that is the point. We saw in the exchanges between the Secretary of State and me on Monday, as well as in Prime Minister’s questions, that the Government’s proposition is that somehow people working full time will be able to work 50 or 55 hours a week, on top of what they are already doing. The Opposition are more than happy to have a discussion about raising pay—we have plenty of ideas. Let us discuss raising the minimum wage to at least £10 an hour now or reducing the universal credit taper rate so that people keep more of what they earn. To dress up this devastating cut as a choice between supporting jobs and supporting families is an insult to the millions of working people who will see their incomes drop. Hon. Members who support the cut should at least have the decency to stand up and say so rather than hide behind straw men.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I will give my hon. Friend some statistics from my constituency, where 37% of all children—that is 6,802—are living in poverty, a figure that has increased considerably under the Tories. Thousands of them and their families rely on universal credit to put food on their tables. With the latest figures showing inflation rocketing, and that is very much on food, does my hon. Friend agree that adults and children will go hungry if the Government do not do the right thing?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, it is also important to say that there are 1.7 million people this will affect who cannot work, owing to disability, illness or caring responsibilities. I have not heard a single mention of them from the Government, or the offer of any help coming their way to mitigate this cut.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Government said at the time they increased the universal credit payment that it was to pay for essentials during the pandemic. I take that to be food and fuel. Does the shadow Secretary of State believe that food and fuel prices have fallen since the pandemic, and if not, does that not just do away with the Government’s argument altogether?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, who makes two points: first, if the Government believed this level of need was evident during the pandemic, the crisis that people face—whether that is illness or redundancy—does not change whether or not there is a global pandemic; and crucially, yes, he is right that fuel costs are going up. We had the announcement this morning that inflation is over 3%. Anyone who has been to a British supermarket in the last few months knows how much food is going up, so the need is absolutely there. Frankly, the Government’s case that somehow this support was needed in the pandemic and can be taken away has absolutely nothing to it.

That brings me to one more point I want to raise before I talk about the impact on people. I want to highlight again the situation for people on legacy benefits, such as employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance, who never had this uplift to begin with. I believe, and I have said so many times, that these people are the victims of discrimination. Universal credit is the clear successor benefit to these benefits, and the decision to not uprate them was initially presented to this House as a technical problem, rather than a policy choice. The situation they have been put in is grossly unfair, and we will continue to keep raising this. The only reason I did not include those benefits in the wording of this motion today is that I did not want any Conservative MP to be able to cite that as a reason to refuse to back this motion.

It is the impact on people that should be paramount in our minds. I am sure all hon. Members, whichever side they are on, have been inundated with people getting in touch to tell them exactly how much this money means to them. The leaked internal analysis from the Government that appeared in the Financial Times last week described the cut, in the Government’s own term, as “catastrophic”. The human cost of taking this money away cannot be overstated: £20 may not seem like much to some people, but it is makes the difference of having food in the fridge and still being able to put the heating on, or being able to get the kids new school shoes without worrying how to pay for them.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. In Oldham, there are over 11,000 people in work reliant on universal credit with 22,000 children. Is he as concerned as I am that the long-lasting impacts of driving these children into further poverty—as we saw, for example, in the Nuffield Foundation report yesterday—are going to be detrimental not just for those families, but for society as a whole?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is my constituency neighbour, and she knows that her constituency is very much like mine. We have seen the impact of the austerity years and what that has meant, not just in terms of the impact on people, but with how much need that has pushed on to other services—the NHS, the police force—and, frankly, with how so many of the preventive services that were once there have had to go from local authorities. The position people are in, as things stand today, is not one in which anyone could reasonably say that there is capacity to further reduce support and take so much money out of local economies.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

According to the Resolution Foundation, over 40% of people on universal credit were food-insecure before the Government introduced the £20 uplift, so does my hon. Friend agree that by cancelling the uplift and cutting universal credit by £20 a week, the Government are taking the money from people that they need to put food on their tables and to support their families?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Again, no one could dispute that case. Last week I went on a visit to Peterborough, which is the Conservative constituency most affected by this cut, and I went to volunteer in a local food bank. Anyone volunteering in that situation and simply observing the level of need coming through the front door could not in any good conscience say that the people going there could sustain themselves if this cut were to take place. Some of the volunteers there are people who work for the NHS, who in their spare time are volunteering on the vaccine programme and, in their spare time from that, are volunteering at the local food bank. That is what the people of this country are doing, and if only they had a Government who were willing to give the same level of commitment, how much better things would be.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. We have been through a period when communities have come together, and he has just talked about volunteering and the way that communities have come together to deal with food poverty in particular. Children have been involved in that, and this is the Government who failed to feed our children during holiday time, so it is no surprise that they are bringing in this cut. Even in a constituency such as mine in London, over 5,000 children live in households that receive universal credit and are going to face a cut on top of what we have all been through over the last 18 months. It really is time that this Government started to think about the consequences of what they do to the poorest people in our communities.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Again, I think the case my hon. Friend has made is self-evident. I would also say that if we look at the moments of national crisis in British history and at how the country has responded to those, we see that we have always sought to learn from those crises and to take the best bits of our response to them. This announcement from the Government—the debate today—is their saying, “There’s nothing to take from this; there is nothing to keep that sense of solidarity or that action to try to improve things for people, and we are walking away from it.” I think that that, perhaps more than anything else, is what makes so many people frustrated with the tin ear the Government are showing.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Erdington may be rich in talent, but it is one of the poorest constituencies in the country. Some 63% of working age families with children in my constituency face a £1,040 cut in the biggest overnight cut to social security in the history of the welfare state. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Government seem to be oblivious to the despair of mums and dads who are wondering how they are going to be able to feed their kids as a consequence of soaring bills—electricity, gas—and prices in supermarkets, and that at a time like this this cut is truly the cruellest cut of all?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Again, I am pleased my hon. Friend has been able to place this on the record for his constituency, because that is how everybody sees it.

Last week I met some of the families who gave evidence at the Work and Pensions Committee—great people, real people—and they told it exactly how it is. On Monday, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), tried to say this actually is not a cut because the Treasury never budgeted to keep the uplift in place. Let me tell him that it is a cut to those families who came here to give evidence in the session last Wednesday, and it is a cut, as hon. Members have said, at a time when other things—the cost of heating, the cost of food, the rate of inflation—are already going up in real terms. Let us in this debate deal with the reality of people’s lives, not with Treasury fictions.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I took a moment to look back at some of the calls the hon. Gentleman has made over the last couple of weeks to increase benefits. When I added them all up, I found that there is not just the £6 billion for this benefit, but a total of about £15 billion that the Labour Front Bench has called for. Can he tell us how we are going to pay for that, because it is real people who will be paying for those benefits?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will tell the hon. Member about the real people. There are 7,700 families in his constituency whom this cut will affect, and the decisions the Government will make—[Interruption.] I am not going along with Conservative Back Benchers trying to tot things up and coming out with them in the middle of a debate. No, let us talk about the real impact on the 7,700 families in his constituency. The message he should be considering is: what will happen to his local economy and what will happen to national finances by taking that money away from them? This is a very important point.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Some 7,850 of my constituents will in three weeks’ time also lose £20 a week. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real cost will be the impact on people’s lives—the lost opportunities for those children’s futures and the hopes we all carry? Is it not right that we invest in people, not see this as a cut in itself?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Absolutely. That investment in people is essential, and this uplift that we are talking about today cannot be considered without remembering the benefits freeze that lasted for four years prior to 2020. As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), has said, the uplift only really restored what the value of UC would and should have been.

The pandemic exposed what many of us already knew: that social security in this country had become so threadbare it simply would not have got us through the pandemic. Since 2010 there has been unprecedented growth in in-work poverty in the UK, and food banks have become the norm in every town and city. No constituency has been exempt from that, and, most of all, one in eight working people in the UK is currently living in poverty. So the Government should not be seeking to congratulate themselves on making this uplift during the pandemic; they should ask themselves why they let things get so bad to begin with.

There was another laughable moment in Question Time on Monday when the Secretary of State compared the Government’s response to that of the Labour Government after the global financial crisis. Back in 2008 there was a functioning and supportive welfare state: tax credits acted as a superb automatic stabiliser; Jobcentre Plus had already been created, bringing together the old social security offices with the jobcentres, which all Governments since have recognised as a huge strength; unemployment did not hit 3 million, as initially predicted; and initiatives such as the future jobs fund played their role. So that Government had already done the hard work back then, and that is the lesson this Government need to learn.

As many Members have said, great as the impact on families is, we also have a responsibility to consider the impact of this on the country as a whole. The money we are talking about is spent in local shops and on local services, the very businesses that have had such a tough time because of the necessary public health restrictions most of us here backed for good reasons.

The recovery is promising, but it is not a done deal and there is a lot of ground to make up. This is the wrong decision for the economy and it also fails to learn the lessons from the pandemic and build the resilience we need as a country to face future challenges.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I absolutely support everything my hon. Friend is saying in his speech, and the Government should listen hard, because we have all lived through a very difficult 18 months and there are increasingly difficult times ahead as well. We have learned many lessons during this period, such as that we should invest more in the things we value most. This money is targeted at families; 40% of families with children in my constituency will lose out as a result of this decision, and that will have an impact on those children. We have one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world and we know that working families are struggling. The Government can do something simple to support those families by changing their direction on this cut today.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is right. The lever the Government have to alleviate this basket of problems—childcare costs, fuel costs, food costs—is to not go ahead with this decision.

My hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my next point. If it really is the Government’s ambition to level up the UK, it is hard to see how that can mean anything when this cut disproportionately affects the places the Government say they want to boost. Despite all the rhetoric, this cut will take £2.5 billon out of local economies in the north and the midlands, including Stoke-on-Trent which would lose over £32 million and Blackpool which would see £23 million cut.

We all know this money is not being invested or hidden away; it is being spent. It is being spent in shops and restaurants in local high streets that desperately need a boost after last year. After the last week, it seems that the Government are keener on taxes up than levelling up.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the last Labour Government and the 2008 financial crisis, what support did that last Labour Government give to those families?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I addressed that in an entire section of the speech so I refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Actually, that is a really important point because the hon. Gentleman was guilty in his comments on the previous welfare system of looking at it through rose-tinted lenses. There were huge problems with the previous welfare system. It caught hundreds of thousands of families in poverty traps, and at every opportunity since 2010 the Labour party resisted our efforts to reform welfare, to make work pay and to provide better financial support for families in Britain.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and he has been vocal in opposing the Government and we all have respect for that, but I must put a few things on the record in response to his intervention. The reductions in poverty under the last Labour Government were tremendous, and we did not even know how good they were until we got the evaluation, sadly a few years later when already so much of that had been taken apart. Of course there were problems with the previous system, but no one should try to claim that the last Labour Government were not a reforming Labour Government. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, after that Labour Government came to power a single parent did not have to go out and look for work until their eldest child was 16—there was no regime in the world like that—and Jobcentre Plus did not exist. So there was a lot of reform and the system was improved, but crucially—this is the big difference from the reforms of this Government—our reforms brought poverty down, brought more people into the workplace, and made this country stronger, more resilient and a better place for everyone. That is why, sadly, our record is overwhelmingly better than this Government’s.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Everybody acknowledges that the way out of poverty is employment; why when a Labour Government leave office is unemployment always higher than when they first went into office?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I have dealt with this intervention before—being involved in so many Finance Bills does give that experience—and that is false; a quick Google search will put the record straight for the hon. Gentleman.

The great Labour Government after the second world war who created the welfare state, built 1 million council houses and created the national parks while having to deal with demobilisation after the war are not hugely relevant to people who want to cut £20 a week from 6 million families today. But I will always defend the post-war Labour Government, the greatest Government in the history of this country.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

No, we have had enough history and the hon. Gentleman has intervened twice; we can look forward to his speech.

In relation to the tax rises announced last week, the combination of this cut and the rise in national insurance is absolutely outrageous. As many as 2.5 million families will lose £1,300 a year. This Government are already a high tax Government, and due to that and the decision to freeze personal allowances and hike council tax combined with the much lower than expected Government borrowing costs, projections are already coming in for the October spending review suggesting that there is far more room for manoeuvre than anyone previously thought.

The Resolution Foundation, the most respected analyst of the labour market and welfare state in the country, said last week that the Chancellor

“will be significantly boosted by the good news the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) will deliver within its updated forecasts on 27 October. Borrowing this year is likely to come in several tens of billions lower than expected, having already borrowed £26 billion less than previously forecast in the first four months of 2021-22. More importantly, if the OBR moves its forecast for the long-term scarring effect of the pandemic on the British economy (currently 3 per cent of GDP) into line with the more optimistic consensus (the Bank of England now expects scarring of just 1 per cent) he will have a windfall that lasts, possibly to the tune of around £25 billion a year.”

I believe the final forecast might be slightly less generous than that, but the point remains that a decision to keep UC and working tax credit at the current levels could be made within the fiscal headroom the Chancellor already has when the spending review takes place.

As the Resolution Foundation made clear,

“To govern is to choose”,

and the question for hon. Members today is do they really believe that those on the lowest incomes, in some of the hardest jobs in the country, who got us through the pandemic, should take a disproportionate share of the burden going forward? Is that fair, is that a recipe for national success and is that ensuring our country is as resilient as it needs to be to meet future challenges? No, no, and no again.

Looking to the future, I want to replace UC with a better system because I recognise that the argument we are having today over the core amount is not the only problem: the five-week wait is a huge issue for people; the level the taper rate is set at is wholly wrong; and people should be able to keep more of the money they earn. Fundamentally, the Treasury caused a huge problem by causing UC to be associated for many of our constituents with austerity, cuts and sanctions, but that is an argument for another day. The choice we have to make right now is whether to proceed with this cut and, whichever way we look at it, we should not. I hear there are rumours that a reshuffle is under way. As Members will know, if a Cabinet Minister were to lose their job today and return to the Back Benches, they would receive a pay-off of £15,000. Will anyone in this debate say that that is unaffordable? It always seems to be a different rule for the people we are talking about than for everyone else in the country.

I implore Members to think about the wide-ranging effects of their decision in this place today. Charities say that the cut will cut a lifeline to millions. Economists say it will suck spending from our local high streets. Even the Government’s own internal analysis makes it clear that it will be catastrophic. No one in this House can say they did not know. No one will be able to say they were not warned. The effects of this cut are clear as day. It is wrong for our constituents, wrong for the British economy; quite simply, it is wrong for Britain. Conservative Members have a choice to make. I, and the millions this cut will hit, implore them to see sense, back the families who sent them here, and cancel the cut.

13:20

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Just this week, the official jobs statistics showed that more people are getting back into work and there is a record number of vacancies. That is a tribute to the British people and businesses. It shows that our plan for jobs is working. It shows that our comprehensive and unprecedented support for citizens and corporations as well as the NHS, in trying to protect lives and livelihoods, has worked. After the terrible personal and economic impact of covid, boosted by the successful vaccination roll-out, Britain is now rebounding.

It was right that we took prompt and decisive action to support our nation during this challenging time. We had the job retention scheme, the self-employment grants, the VAT changes, the business rates relief, the suspension of evictions for people and businesses who were renting—I could go on. We could only do that, though, because we went into the global pandemic with strong economic foundations built as a result of 10 years of Conservative measures to restore the nation’s finances after the financial crisis on Labour’s watch, when, memorably, there was no money left. Those measures included a sustained focus on supporting people to move into and progress in work through universal credit, with the highest level of employment ever seen in this country just before covid hit.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

If this cut goes ahead, with £20 a week taken off universal credit, it will reduce the support for an unemployed family to the lowest level as a proportion of average earnings at any time since the welfare state was established after the second world war. How can that possibly be justified?

[Dr Coffey]

As I will probably say a bit later as well, this was indeed a temporary uplift, recognising the financial impact on people newly unemployed and that the uplift would be somewhat of a cushion for their financial circumstances. However, do bear in mind all the other support that we have given to help families get back on their feet, all the other elements that we have used to help people manage the cost of living, as well as the extra welfare grants that we targeted specifically through local councils. They have all been actions to help people, and we are helping people back into work, and better-paid work.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I am going to make a little more progress and then I will come to the hon. Gentleman.

Those foundations meant that we had the fiscal firepower and responsive welfare system to take decisive and unprecedented action in the face of the covid emergency. We delivered a package of over £400 billion to support the British people and businesses through the economic shock and injected over £7 billion extra into the welfare system, increasing local housing allowance rental support by nearly £1 billion, as well as over £400 million of targeted grants for local government to directly help the most disadvantaged and vulnerable families in local communities.

[Alan Brown]

If a constituent comes to my surgery saying that they cannot afford to eat and have to go to a food bank because of the removal of the uplift, does the Secretary of State think they will feel any better when I say, “It’s not a cut; it’s just the removal of a temporary uplift”? What does she say to constituents who are on universal credit for the first time? They will have no idea that this cut is coming.

[Dr Coffey]

We have communicated once already with recipients of the universal credit temporary uplift. That has already gone through. The second message is under way, and the third message will be done. I think that we have taken responsible action to make sure that people realise that this change is coming, but of course the hon. Gentleman’s constituent will still be engaging with their work coach about how we can perhaps help them into better-paid work than they had before.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The Secretary of State started by listing the support that this Government have given to businesses, and specifically small businesses, which are very important in my constituency. How can she justify taking £5 million out of the local economy in Arfon?

[Dr Coffey]

I would expect the hon. Gentleman to be welcoming the investment that we will be making in getting people not only into work but into better-paid work. I am sure that will have a direct impact on supporting the economy in his area.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I have already given way a bit, so I will make some more progress.

Let us recognise that not everyone was fortunate enough to be furloughed; sadly, many people were made redundant. Fortunately, we had the universal credit system, and with the mass efforts of the great civil servants in my Department, we responded instantly to support the millions of people who turned to us for help. I will never tire of praising my Department for how we helped those at their lowest ebb. I know that that would simply not have been possible with the old benefits system. People would have been queuing round the block trying to get into jobcentres, especially in the middle of a lockdown. It may be an inconvenient truth for Opposition parties, which have constantly tried to demonise universal credit, but universal credit proved itself even more during the pandemic, showing that it worked both by design and in delivery.

[David Linden]

I, too, pay tribute to the civil servants and the work coaches in the Secretary of State’s Department. That is the point that I want to explore with her. We all understand that unemployment is yet to spike. We expect that there will be problems as a result of the furlough scheme ending. I think that is widely anticipated; indeed, the Government have gone around opening temporary jobcentres and appointing more work coaches until March next year. If the Government understand that unemployment is about to spike, why are they removing this uplift to universal credit right now?

[Dr Coffey]

Of course, we now have a record number of vacancies, but we are also about being ready and anticipating. The OBR forecast that there would be a significantly higher unemployment effect as a result of what happened, and it mattered that we had jobcentres and work coaches ready to help people with that. I hope that we can now make sure that our army of work coaches can continue to help just under 2 million people still looking for work to get into those 1 million vacancies, as well as their efforts to help people progress in work.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[Dr Coffey]

I give way to my honourable neighbour from Suffolk.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and neighbour, who is making an excellent speech. She is right to highlight the resilience of the universal credit system, but on the point that is made about taking money out of local economies, is that not an insult to John Maynard Keynes? Is it not a fact that if individuals get more hours and better-paid work, there will be more money going into their economies, and on a more sustainable basis?

[Dr Coffey]

I would not normally rely on John Maynard Keynes to help the cause, but undoubtedly, there is an element of investment; we are seeing plenty of investment by the Government in our economies and in businesses in support of that, not least the £650 billion programme announced by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor earlier this week, which we estimate will generate an extra 425,000 jobs just in the next few years. We want people to have more take-home pay. That is why we have pursued increases to the national living wage, which is now at 60% of median earnings. The intention is that it will reach 66% of median earnings before the end of this Parliament—and that is just the minimum. We want people to have high-skilled, high-paid jobs, and that is why our plan for jobs is all about helping people take advantage of the support that is there.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Spending £6 billion handing an uplift to all recipients of universal credit, irrespective of their circumstances, was never a targeted way of affecting those people who are most in need. That is why it was temporary. When the Secretary of State comes to the longer term, will she consider the taper and the way that childcare costs are met?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is right that it was quite a blunt way of quickly delivering instant support, particularly for those most financially impacted by covid, many of whom were made redundant for the first time in their lives. I am conscious that we have still more to do to try to make sure that people can keep more of what they earn. I also have strong views that we need to continue to try to make best use of the funding that goes into childcare. As my right hon. Friend will know, under universal credit 85% of childcare costs, worth up to £13,000 per family, can be reclaimed. That is higher than that possible under tax credits.

Coming back to universal credit, the point has been made by hon. Members across the House that it is a dynamic benefit. It supports people in work and out of work, which is exactly what it was designed to do. People are better off working than not working, unless they cannot work. That is why, automatically and instantaneously, when people started to see a change in their working patterns due to the covid pandemic, it responded to the needs of people already in the system. Those affected saw their universal credit payments rise straight away when they lost working hours or found themselves out of work completely. That is a key part of why the UC system is absolutely vital. I am pleased that the Opposition seem at least to have decided to drop their opposition to that, even if it is just to rebrand. Nevertheless, we decided to somewhat cushion the fall of people made redundant.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be quite nice if the Opposition actually came here and apologised for year after year, in Opposition day debate after Opposition day debate, spreading scare stories and terrifying the poorest and the most vulnerable in the country by telling them that universal credit would not work? When we were under the biggest strain this country has ever faced, universal credit worked. That is a testament to my right hon. Friend, her great Ministers and the thousands of DWP staff up and down the length and breadth of this country.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are still 3 million people on legacy benefits. We estimate that about half of those people would be better off on universal credit and that a significant number of people would see no change, yet the scare stories and the fear that the Opposition generated are why people are still not transitioning across the system. They will do just that now, because this Parliament voted to end legacy benefits; it voted to have universal credit, so we are still, through our action programme, going to move people across to universal credit. I am with my hon. Friend that many people would actually and substantially be almost certainly better off if they moved. For those people, we have to have a managed migration. We have, of course, already put in place a transitional payment.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State said a moment ago that we are spreading scare stories. Can I say to her—she may wish to comment on this—that talking about the very real impact of losing £20 per week for people who are already struggling is not a scare story, but reality?

[Dr Coffey]

I recognise what the hon. Lady says. I am talking about the fact that universal credit has been demonised ever since it was introduced, yet people on legacy benefits—about half of them, we believe—would be financially better off if they moved over to universal credit, regardless of the £20. A significant proportion more would see no change to their financial income. People are scared to move over and that is why there is a missed opportunity for them to access some of the support we have today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Coffey]

I am going to make some more progress and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb).

Returning to the crux of the debate, the temporary £20 uplift was an important intervention to help people facing the greatest financial disruption to get the support they needed. It brought the universal credit standard allowance close to the level of statutory sick pay, the minimum amount required to be paid by employers for people who could not work.

In the Budget earlier this year, recognising that the country was still under restrictions, the Chancellor set out that we would continue covid financial support until autumn, several months after the country came out of lockdown. That helped many people stay on furlough and be connected to their employers as businesses gradually opened, and meant keeping that extra financial support for people on universal credit and tax credits for an extra six months. As our economy continues to recover, it is right that we are investing in jobs and skills to boost pay, prospects and prosperity for people right across the UK as part of our plan to level up and build back better.

[Stephen Crabb]

On universal credit, I have spoken to dozens and dozens of work coaches all over the country. Every single one of them has told me, without a shadow of a doubt, that universal credit is a better benefit than what was before. It is down to the enthusiasm and the skills of work coaches, to a large extent, that universal credit has been such a success during this very difficult period.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We already had about 640 jobcentres. We are opening a further 200 by the end of the year, recognising that we need to support more people. Of course, work coaches do not just deal with helping people—people with disabilities and a limited capability to work—to get back into work. Work coaches do a wide variety of work to support some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. Again, I thank him for paying tribute to our work coaches. They will play a key role in the time ahead. Perhaps the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth would like to intervene now?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I would be delighted to, although it is not specifically on work coaches. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that there are winners and losers with universal credit. Last week, the Select Committee heard from four single parents about how they are the losers. I would add that disabled people are also losers. What is the cumulative impact of the cuts to universal credit, the introduction of the new national insurance contributions payment, the rise in food prices and energy bills, and the childcare costs which we have already heard about? What would the impact be on a single parent with two children living on the minimum wage with support from universal credit?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will know that every individual or household on universal credit has very distinct relationships, which is why we can find households earning up to nearly £40,000 still being recipients of universal credit. It depends on the circumstances. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) said the other day, trying to do some kind of analysis by trying to make individual assessments is just not viable. However, we know, and she knows—

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will give way to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions shortly. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth must agree with me that the best way to get more pounds into people’s pockets is through work. We have universal credit work allowances for people with children—this may have covered some of the people who gave evidence to the Select Committee—who have a limited capability to work, so they can keep all the extra money they earn until the allowance is used up and the taper rate kicks in. That is why we have given extra support for people who may not currently be working full time. That is an extra way for them to get all the money they earn for more hours.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. A care worker or a low-paid public sector worker—for example, a nursery assistant—who works full time, loves their job and has no prospect of a pay raise any time soon, is now about to be told that they will have £20 a week taken away from them. What does she say to those care workers about why that is fair?

[Dr Coffey]

The right hon. Lady is right to praise care workers, who played an important part during the covid pandemic. It is my understanding that half a billion pounds of the health and social care levy, which was passed yesterday—the Opposition voted against it—will go to supporting the workforce in the care industry, recognising aspects of skills and pay. I want to put across to the right hon. Lady that we know—there is evidence on this—that where both parents are working full time, 97% of those households are not technically in poverty. That is why we have such emphasis. Households with children working part time are more likely—substantially higher, closer to 42%—to be in poverty. Frankly, five times the rate of people who do not work at all—workless households—are in poverty compared to those who are working. That is why we have worked really hard to reduce the number of workless households. I think there are 650,000 fewer workless households, lifting children out of poverty.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will make some progress if the hon. Lady will allow.

We know that the best way to get more pounds into people’s pockets is through work. Those of us on the Conservative Benches believe in a welfare safety net, not a welfare trap, where it feels the Opposition are keen to keep people. We know that work and progressing in a job is the best route out of poverty, and I have spoken about parents working full time. That is why the Government, having provided unprecedented support during the height of the pandemic, are now right to focus on helping people back into work and helping those already in jobs to progress in their career.

Although the legacy benefits system penalised people for taking on more hours, universal credit ensures that working always pays. We got rid of the cliff edge that was part of working tax credits where people were penalised for working more than 16 hours and of the other cliff edges. I repeat that that is why we have UC work allowances focused on people with children or with limited capability to work, so that they can keep all the extra money that they earn until the allowance is used.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She says that universal credit is responsive, but when she announced this cut, we did not know that there would be a 3.2% increase in inflation. My constituents are in work; it is just that the cost of living in York is exceedingly high. This proposal will hit them significantly, so will she take it back and reconsider in the light of inflation rising?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady represents a beautiful city—a magnificent city—and she will know that the jobcentre and our work coaches are working hard there with the communities. In lifting the local housing allowance rates, we made nearly a £1 billion investment, and we have maintained that in cash terms to recognise some of the costs of housing, which are truly challenging in very popular areas such as hers, and I am sure that she will welcome that.

We are making the most of our 13,500 extra work coaches. Right across the country, we have doubled our jobs army, which is helping people to get into work and to progress in work by accessing skills and job schemes. Our plan for jobs employment programmes are providing tailored support to help more people to move into and progress in work.

[Andy Carter]

Last week, I visited the jobcentre in Warrington and saw for myself the work that the new job coaches are doing, particularly with young people. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to focus on young people and that that is exactly the work that the kickstart programme is doing?

[Dr Coffey]

I agree. Kickstart has so far given over 69,000 young people a foot in the door as they start their working lives. There are more jobs to be filled and we are working with employers to accelerate the recruitment process in that regard.

We also have a scheme called SWAP—the sector-based work academy programme—where people might consider changing their career. The beauty of SWAP is that it is employer-led. We have helped 64,500 people gain the skills that they need to land a job in a whole range of growing sectors. At the end of the training and work experience, there is a guaranteed job interview.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will make some progress and then come back to the hon. Lady. We also have the job entry targeted support scheme, which, again, provides tailored support, and 138,000 newly unemployed people have got a leg up that way to make sure that they can try to find sustainable work. The restart scheme has recently started. That will provide intensive help, supporting over 1 million jobseekers who have been out of work for over a year. That is not all, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Will she explain to the House why, if everything is reasonable and as it should be, her six predecessor Conservative Secretaries of State for the Department for Work and Pensions have all come out against this cut?

[Dr Coffey]

I think it is fair to say that in the letter I saw that my six predecessors had signed—they are magnificent people and it is an honour to follow in their footsteps—they were keen to have the extra financial support that has gone into aspects of the welfare system and to help people in that way. It was not specifically about the £20 but about recognising, as has been said today, that there may be better ways of using that financing. I am conscious that the media may have reported that in a slightly different way and I am not going to put anybody on the spot. However, I think they valued the extra money that went in, and I want to continue to support people.

[Stephen Crabb]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend, one of the co-authors, but I am conscious that the universal support, alongside universal credit, was a key element of their request.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again; she is being incredibly generous with her time this afternoon. The central argument of the letter that we sent to the Secretary of State and other colleagues in Government was about trying to retain the investment in universal credit. There are different ways to spend that money. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that investing in the standard allowance gives us more bang for our buck in protecting families against poverty. It was really a last-ditch attempt by me and a number of my colleagues who had served in that Department to persuade the Government to hang on to the crucial extra investment that had been put in at the start of the pandemic and which has made such a powerful difference to so many poor families up and down the country over the last 18 months.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend. Anybody who has served in this office, including the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will recognise, for the people we meet daily, as other hon. Members do in their constituencies, what a difference an intervention from a work coach or a decision maker can make to really boost people when they are at their lowest ebb. I do not know whether any hon. Members watched the series “The Yorkshire Jobcentre” on Channel 4. Our social justice team there go above and beyond in trying to help people who have been rejected by the rest of society to get their lives back on track. That is the sort of work we can do. I understand why my right hon. Friend is keen for the welfare budget to still be substantial in supporting such people.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. She has been talking about work coaches and how these fantastic people can support people into work and the different people they help. Will she tell the House more about how work coaches and universal credit are helping disabled people back into work?

[Dr Coffey]

I will. I am pleased to say that I think there are more people with disabilities in work at the end of the pandemic than there were at the beginning. There is a number of things and I encourage my hon. Friend to read the Green Paper on what we have set out as possible ways forward. We want to make elements such as the Access to Work programme work better in terms of potentially being transferrable. In particular, we have some specialist schemes that we target on people with disabilities, and particular efforts are being made to help people with disabilities to access kickstart. We will continue to try to support people with disabilities to make the most of their potential, as we set out in our broader approach in the national disability strategy.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will not, because I am conscious that we are nearly an hour into this debate and many hon. Members will want to speak about this important matter.

Right across Government, we are investing to help people to get better-paid jobs, whether that is through digital boot camps, the lifetime skills guarantee, the £650 billion infrastructure programme that will generate 425,000 jobs, the £8.7 billion affordable homes programme expected to support up to 370,000 jobs, and the green jobs taskforce, which goes from strength to strength as we work our way towards net zero. I have referred to the extra funding through the health and social care levy, which will include support for care workers, but we will not stop as we help people to progress in work. This Conservative Government and Conservative party want people to prosper as we build back better and level up opportunity across the country.

Tackling poverty through boosting income is one element and we will continue to support people with the cost of living. We have kept the uplift in housing support through the local housing allowance rates, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), maintaining it in cash terms this financial year. We spend over £6 billion on supporting childcare, which is equivalent overall to about £5,000 per family. As I said to the House, that can be up to £13,000 per family for people on universal credit.

We have increased the automation of matching benefit recipients with energy suppliers to make it easier for the warm home discount to be awarded almost automatically. I was very pleased to see that more mobile and broadband suppliers stepped forward with social tariffs for people, which is why I am delighted to let the House know that we are working with those suppliers to make it easier for them to verify the identity of people seeking those special discounts. I am also leading cross-Government action to do more on tackling poverty and the cost of living, which will help many families with their day-to-day costs.

We have heard that universal credit is flexible and that people are treated individually. I am very aware of the challenges on food insecurity. That is why we included the questions we did in the family resources survey so that we can start to think about how we can direct our policies specifically to those people. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) was trying to get out of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), what is accurate—I am pretty sure to say—is that, in 2008, tax credits may have changed, but that was effectively for people in work. What we did not see was a boost in the unemployment benefits, so when the shadow Secretary of State criticises us for putting an extra £20 a week in the pockets of people who were newly unemployed, I do not think that his assertion is defensible.

One thing that the House may see in a couple of years is that, although in the last year of the last Labour Government we saw a reduction in relative poverty, that was largely driven by the fact that higher-paid people were unemployed—we saw a shrink in relative poverty simply because of a statistical anomaly. We have to deal with real-world facts and make sure that the provision of cash, by helping people with their income, is really the way to help them to get on in work but also to help them with the cost of living.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It is incredibly generous of the Secretary of State to take an intervention from me on the Front Bench, but if relative poverty is what we are measuring—although Conservative MPs have broadly run away from that measure since saying that they would accept it—I have to say that child poverty in the UK is heading towards 5 million under this Government.

If the Secretary of State wants a discussion about the legacy of 2008, rather than about what is happening today, let me say first that benefits had not been frozen for four years under the Labour Government, so they kept their real-terms value. Secondly, the Secretary of State says that she has put more money into the system, but take the money for housing that she mentioned on Monday. That was not more generosity; it was not a boost; it was funding the level of policy that the Government already had with the 30th percentile. They were not improving on it; they were simply putting in the money that should have been there from the beginning. That is the crucial difference.

[Dr Coffey]

The last Labour Government—admittedly that was quite a long time ago and many Members of this House will not have been serving here then—did not build enough homes. Prices were not tackled, money was not well spent and we were left with no money.

The shadow Secretary of State will be aware that I am not a fan of talking about relative poverty, because it is simply a statistical element. However, since 2010, there have been 60,000 fewer children in absolute poverty before housing costs. Children living in workless households were around five times more likely to be in absolute poverty last year than those in households in which all adults worked. We know that full-time work reduces the chance of being in poverty. Overall, there are also 220,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

When we talk about the legacy of the last Labour Government, we must never forget the sky-high rates of youth unemployment that we inherited from them. Will my right hon. Friend commit to carrying on the brilliant work that she has done to reduce youth unemployment in the midst of this crisis?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend will be conscious that we are making progress right across the country in tackling that issue. I am conscious that we intend to level up. That is why we are doing a lot of work to make sure that communities right around the country, as well as in her great constituency of Sevenoaks, can take advantage of the schemes so that they can get on and prosper.

With the economy rebounding, now is the time to trust in our track record, which delivered the highest ever employment levels before the pandemic. We know that work and progressing in work are the best route out of poverty. We now have a unique opportunity, with more than 1 million vacancies in the labour market, to help people to move into new and better-paid jobs or to progress in their existing job, raising their earnings and building their financial resilience. We will continue to deliver our plan for jobs, because as we build back better and fairer, a working Britain is at the heart of a Britain that works.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to catch my eye. I do not think that there will be time for everyone, but we will start with a time limit of five minutes—which, of course, does not apply to the spokesman for the SNP, David Linden.

13:53

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I want to begin by describing the importance of this debate:

“There are plenty of times where I’m getting such bad hunger pains that I can barely move.

I can last for a while without eating. I’ve been trying to put my mind off the hunger by either doing exercise, or maybe doing a bit of work on my computer.”

That is a quote from Morgan. He is 23 and has spent six months sleeping on friends’ sofas and occasionally on the street. He is currently suffering from severe depression that impacts on his ability to work. As a universal credit claimant, Morgan has stated that the proposal to cut the £20 uplift is

“literally like taking food off my table.”

That is the reality of life in Tory Britain—the reality of a decade of austerity measures and cuts to social security. Morgan is just one of 5,917,053 people, because that is the number of people who are relying on the £20 uplift to universal credit. Throughout this debate, when we inevitably get drawn into the hurly-burly of parliamentary politics, I want us all to keep in mind Morgan and the nearly 6 million people we are talking about, because it is their livelihoods that are on the line and their financial security that is at risk.

We are not talking in hypotheticals. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report lays it bare: cutting the universal credit uplift will plunge 500,000 people into poverty overnight. We all know the impact that the universal credit uplift has had on claimants. The additional £20 per week has been monumental in helping families get by. Audrey Flannagan, who runs the Glasgow SE food bank in my home city, recently told the media:

“If you look at the impact it”—

the universal credit uplift—

“has had on the food bank, last year in the first three months from January to March we saw 601 single people pre the £20 uplift. January to March this year, we saw 151 single people. That’s a massive difference, not all because of the £20 uplift, but a lot will be because of the £20 uplift.”

The uplift to universal credit was desperately needed before the pandemic, and its impact can be seen right across the voluntary sector.

The British Government now have the opportunity to address the failures of universal credit and truly help those who are most vulnerable as we seek to recover from the pandemic. The first step should be to make the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent; indeed, it should also have been extended to those on legacy benefits, who have been so cruelly overlooked and left behind by this Government.

I have heard Ministers defending removing the uplift by repeating the line that it is best for people to get back into work rather than rely on benefits. In fact, the Chancellor himself has said that

“going forward, my view and the government’s point of view is the best way to help people is to help them into work and make sure those jobs are well paid”.

That only goes to show just how little Tory Ministers know about the benefit that they pontificate on. For their benefit, I will explain.

Universal credit supports both those unemployed and those employed on a low income. More than a third of people claiming universal credit are in employment. Of the nearly 6 million people on universal credit, 2.3 million are actually employed. On top of that, a great number of those employed claiming universal credit are parents. The latest figures show that roughly 1.9 million families with children will see their benefits cut at the end of this month.

The Child Poverty Action Group has stated that the number of poor children in working families is on the rise. Even before the pandemic, there were 4.3 million children growing up in poverty in the UK. That is nine children in a classroom of 30—a shocking indictment of Tory Britain. The proposed cut to universal credit will put a further 200,000 children into poverty, including those in working families. It is simply unthinkable.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the impact on families of low-paid workers. We heard this morning that inflation has now gone up to 3.2%. Workers in my constituency now face an increase in national insurance and higher food costs. They are already facing higher heating costs, and let us not forget that many people in rural constituencies are off the grid for electricity and gas, so it is more expensive for them anyway. This cut to universal credit, according to the Government’s own advice, will cause a catastrophe. Does he agree that, for families in constituencies such as mine, the catastrophe will be even bigger?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend’s constituency was one of the earliest areas where universal credit was rolled out, so he is familiar with it, and as a highland MP he is acutely aware of the much higher energy bills. The universal credit cut will probably mean a choice between heating and eating this winter for people in his Inverness constituency. He is right to put that on the record, and I hope that Members who represent constituencies in other parts of rural Scotland will bear that in mind, particularly on the Conservative Benches. It is simply unthinkable that the UK Government are even considering this policy. All MPs must consider whether they want it on their conscience when the Division bell rings tonight.

Whether or not someone claiming universal credit is in employment, the £20 uplift is vital to their income. To quote Morgan again:

“We should not have had to have gone through a pandemic just to get that increase”.

Morgan is right. The most vulnerable people in our society had been suffering for decades, long before the pandemic hit these shores. Years of austerity have deepened the inequality and poverty in our society, and the pandemic has only magnified those pre-existing inequalities. Years of austerity have deepened the inequality and poverty in our society, and the pandemic has only magnified those pre-existing inequalities in our welfare system.

A decade of Tory rule has left workers, on average, £l,000 a year worse off. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics shows that, when inflation is taken into account, the average wage is worth less in 2021 than it was in 2010. Despite the continual Tory mantra that getting people into work is the best route out of poverty, wages continue to fall, and austerity continues to deepen inequalities. The pandemic has only served to bookend the decades of cruel welfare cuts and truly highlight how inadequate support has been.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that, while much of the debate focuses on young people and people with children, older people, particularly older single people, will be affected by this cut as well? I have a 60-year-old female constituent with a mortgage whose hours of work have been cut from full-time to 26 hours a week. At her age, it will be hard for her to find more work, and she tells me that losing this uplift will mean the difference between keeping and having to give up the home that she has worked so hard to pay for.

[David Linden]

My hon. and learned Friend is right to place on record the impact of the pandemic on not just young people but women in particular, especially older women. On Monday we will have before us a Bill that suspends the triple lock; that is another betrayal of a manifesto commitment from the Conservatives—something that may not come as a surprise to those of us on these Benches.

I want to emphasise the sheer number of organisations that are campaigning for this uplift to be kept in place. One hundred organisations, including charities, children’s doctors, public health experts and research groups, have signed a letter calling on the Prime Minister to abandon the plans to cut universal credit. One such signatory was Bright Blue, a Conservative think-tank; some on the Government Benches are members of that very think-tank. We have also seen a letter signed by no fewer than six previous Conservative Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions who have condemned the proposed cuts. All the devolved Governments have also called for the £20 uplift to remain.

Analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that more than a third of working-age families in 413 parliamentary constituencies will be hit by the cut. Of those, 191 are represented by Tory MPs. The Scottish Conservative MPs on the Benches opposite me—if they have bothered to turn up for the debate—will know the consequences of the universal credit cut that they plan to reaffirm tonight. They know the statistics; they know the threat of poverty that hangs over their constituents; and yet they do not care.

In Moray, 6,110 households will be at risk of sliding into poverty. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) clearly does not care. In West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, 3,620 households will be going into winter facing harsh decisions between heating and eating. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) does not care. In Banff and Buchan, 6,280 households will have to face relying on foodbanks to feed themselves this winter. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), does not care. In Dumfries and Galloway, 8,190 households will experience huge anxiety and worry over their financial futures, which will take an immense toll on their mental health. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) , does not care.

In Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, 7,150 households will have their incomes slashed by £1,040, a figure that has become increasingly necessary during the difficult months of the pandemic. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) does not care. In Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, 6,050 households will be victims of this heartless Tory austerity policy, which will cement poverty and inequality in that community for years to come. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) does not care. It will be clear that the Scottish Conservatives do not care about some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend has set out a powerful series of facts. Given what he has just said, does he agree that it is interesting that the Tories in the Scottish Parliament make great play of trying to address the attainment gap, something which cannot be done as long as children are living in poverty? The House of Commons Library tells us that inequality in Britain has been the worst in north-west Europe in every year of the 21st century for which figures are available.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the difference between what the Conservatives say in the Scottish Parliament and what they do—that is, in Westminster, probably not vote for this motion tonight. Of course, there is a wider question: what is the purpose of devolution? Is it meant to be a sticking plaster for bad social security policy coming out of Westminster? The Scottish Government can introduce measures such as the game-changing Scottish child payment, and can go further and double that, but if the Government vote for this cut tonight, it will mean that the Scottish child payment is essentially nullified, and that will be in the hands of Scottish Conservative MPs.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the families who will be affected by this cut. I believe that my constituency holds the record, with 63% of working age families with children who will be affected. Does my hon. Friend agree that, no matter how hard charities, Glasgow SE Foodbank, the local authority and the Scottish Government try to help mitigate that, the cuts from the Tories are so deep that families in my constituency will go hungry this winter, and the Tories will not lift a finger to do anything about it?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done in trying to lobby the Chancellor, who appears to have decided that he will deploy the politics of Margaret Thatcher and pit people against each other. Unfortunately, it is my hon. Friend’s constituents who will feel the wrath of that.

The British Government need to face the reality of what the cut will mean for people across these islands. Slashing universal credit will impose the largest overnight cut in the basic rate of social security since the modern welfare state began. It will mean millions of families being plunged into poverty, facing real financial hardship as we go into the cold, harsh winter months. So when the Division bell rings tonight, my party will vote Aye to this motion, and we will continue to push for these cuts to be cancelled. However, it is increasingly clear that independence is the only way to keep Scotland safe from the cruel Tory cuts that only seek to deepen inequalities and poverty in our communities.

Independence will guarantee Scotland the full powers needed to build a strong, fair, and equal economy, while eradicating poverty and supporting the most vulnerable people in our communities. So yes, we will vote for the motion on the Order Paper tonight, but I suspect that the only vote that will truly end the ongoing Tory assault on social security is a vote for Scottish independence in the upcoming referendum, and, frankly, it cannot come fast enough.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We now have a time limit of five minutes. I call Stephen Crabb.

14:07

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks fairly short. My views have not really changed since the last time we debated and voted on this issue. On that occasion I voted against the Government for the first time ever, because I felt so strongly about the course of action that we were intending to follow and the impact that it would have on workers on low incomes and their families up and down the country.

The truth about the pandemic is that it has not been a time of increased hardship for everyone. For the lucky few, it has been something of a gold rush; for large numbers of other people, it has been a period of reduced household expenditure and increased household savings. Many people have become richer during the pandemic. However, those are not the people we are talking about this afternoon. Many of the people we are talking about this afternoon carried on working throughout the pandemic. They did not enjoy furlough, or some of the comforts of working from home. Typically, these were people working in supermarkets, doing cleaning jobs or working in the care sector. I believe that as the modern Conservative party, we should be standing on the side of people like that: people who go out to work, who choose to work, and who want to improve their circumstances.

I was surprised when the standard allowance was increased by £20 a week; I had not seen it coming. I was delighted when it was increased, but I was surprised that it had been increased by that amount, and it was not immediately clear to me why the amount in question had been chosen. I must confess that I am not sure that the Government have been very clear about why they picked it, unless it constitutes a recognition that the standard allowance in March 2020 was too low to provide anything like a decent, respectable level of income replacement as an out-of-work benefit. It is that question of adequacy to which I think we will return time and again during the remainder of this Parliament.

I came to the view a while ago that the level of universal credit in March 2020 was too low. One of the key reasons that it was too low involved decisions that I was part of in 2015 to begin freezing that benefit and seeing the value of it eroded at the time. I used some of the exact same language and arguments when I was doing her job that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used this afternoon at the Dispatch Box. The assumption at the time was that we were in a time of almost full employment, and we assumed that there would be a virtuous cycle of wage increases and that people would be living demonstrations that work was the very best route out of poverty. That did not happen. Instead, we saw an increase in in-work poverty, and that fact should be profoundly troubling to those of us on this side who really believe that work is the best route out of poverty. I fear that we are in danger of repeating the same cycle of assumptions that were proved incorrect last time.

One reason that in-work poverty increased in the years leading up to the pandemic was, I am afraid, directly related to the fact that we had frozen the main rate of working-age benefits that supported families on low incomes. If we look at the data and the evidence, that conclusion is unavoidable. Anyone who thinks that we have generous benefits in this country is wrong. If we look at this internationally or historically, there is no way we can describe UK benefits as generous. We do not have generous benefits. I do worry—this has come across a bit in the debate this afternoon—about the view that if we can only make welfare just that bit tougher and more uncomfortable for the families who rely on it, we will get better engagement with the labour market and see more people going out to work. The evidence does not point to that either. It shows that a family living in destitution and with anxiety and mental health problems that are a direct result of their financial circumstances is less well able to engage with the labour market productively or to increase its earnings or its hours.

I know that the views of No. 10 and the Treasury are firmly locked down on this, but this is not going to be the end of the matter. We are going to keep coming back to talk about this issue for the remainder of this Parliament.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Crabb]

I will give way just to give myself a bit more time.

[Carla Lockhart]

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly making a very valid point. Does he agree that, with one in four children in Northern Ireland growing up in food poverty and with 22% in fuel poverty, this proposed cut along with the increase in national insurance contributions will plunge people into further poverty and that the Government need to cease with this plan and support the most vulnerable in our society?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady makes a strong point.

We on this side of the House do not believe that benefits alone are a route out of poverty. We emphasise things like work and the importance of education, but what a scandal it is that we are still churning out so many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds whom employers reject and do not want to see because they do not see them as fit for work. We also emphasise the role of communities and the importance of family structure and role models. These are all things that can help to move people out of poverty, and we are not wrong to do that. The Labour party is guilty of over-emphasising the important tool of social security, but I say to my colleagues on the Government Benches that we should not make the mistake of overlooking the importance of good welfare policy. This is not about being wet on fiscal discipline or about being Labour-lite. It is about recognising what is good, responsible social policy, and I am clear in my mind that this sudden, abrupt withdrawal of the £20 uplift that millions of families will experience in the coming weeks is not the right way of doing welfare policy.

14:13

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the argument that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has just set out, and I am grateful to him for reaffirming his support for the £20 a week rise. Like him, I want to focus on the question of adequacy.

If this cut goes ahead, it will reduce real-terms support for an out-of-work family to the lowest level since Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. The economy has grown by more than 50% in real terms since then, but the Government’s proposal is that support for unemployed families should not have grown at all over those 30 years. That support will be about one seventh of average earnings, which is, as I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, the lowest proportion of average earnings it has been since 1948. The Secretary of State made no attempt to justify why it was so low. I invited her to do so, but she did not, and of course it cannot be justified. The House of Commons Library tells us that, if we go back to 1911 when unemployment benefit was introduced, it was set at a higher level as a proportion of average earnings than the system will deliver if this cut goes ahead. The cut will take effect just as we are seeing prices surge, including food prices, as we have seen in today’s inflation figures, and energy bills, with the Ofgem price cap lifted.

The Work and Pensions Committee heard last week from a lone father of two children who told us what this was going to mean for him:

“The uplift sent some relief and for that to be removed is going to leave us with that big question again: do I go hungry, do my kids go hungry or do we keep the house warm?”

Somebody worrying about how to buy their next meal is not going to be able to focus on finding a decent job. Taking away £20 a week will leave the level of support below the basic minimum that is needed and that we require the system to provide.

The cut will hit working families hard as well. The Committee heard from working lone parents who will lose £86 a month from their income. One of them told us that

“if one of the children gets a party invite—which some weeks is my worst nightmare because then I have to find the money for them to be able to do that—it is kind of a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul all of the time anyway. There have been months where I have to decide which bill I am not going to pay this month...you are constantly playing catch-up on utilities particularly...The extra £86 a month has allowed for us not to be doing that so much.”

And that is a parent who is in full-time employment. If this cut goes ahead, it will reduce support for working parents and unemployed parents below the basic minimum that we all want people to have to enable them to look for a job, or for a better job, and to care for their children—things we all want them to do. We will instead be imposing grinding hardship on a very large number of people at a time of surging costs and inflation. Taking away the £20 a week now will mean that the level of support provided will be less in real terms, given today’s inflation figures, than the support that was available going into the pandemic.

The Government have lost touch with what people are having to deal with. The Secretary of State’s claim that people could make up the extra £20 a week by working an extra two hours is simply wrong. Governments do lose touch, but this House must not. We must retain a recognition of the realities that people are dealing with. We need to grasp what this will do to families, even though Ministers do not. It is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Half of those claiming universal credit only started doing so during the pandemic. They are not returning to their former level of support. Many will have to get used to a lower income than they have ever had to cope with, and that will come as a rude shock to those who were convinced at the 2019 election, maybe for the first time, that the Conservative party understood what they were dealing with. Every former Work and Pensions Secretary since 2010 opposes the cut, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire reminded us. It will leave the system unable to do the job we need it to do, and the House must reject this cut.

14:18

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) talked about people finding jobs and finding better jobs, so I thought I would start by talking about what is happening in the jobs market at the moment. We have seen increasing wage growth and vacancies at a 20-year high, with 1 million vacancies in this country. We have also seen almost record low unemployment—lower than in the US, France and Canada. Those are exactly the kind of market conditions that we want to see to help people to find better jobs. They show how that the plan for jobs—that £400 billion of support that we put into the labour market—has worked. It also shows that we have 2 million fewer people in unemployment than expected. Surely that is one of the best ways to reduce poverty in this country.

[David Linden]

I am glad that the hon. Lady is keen to talk about statistics. She will be aware that 2,849 people in her East Surrey constituency are claiming universal credit while in employment. What will she say to them when she marches through the Lobby this afternoon to choose to take £20 a week off their money?

[Claire Coutinho]

I will talk about the things that I already talk about with them: the youth hub and the work coaches that the Department for Work and Pensions has put into my constituency to help people into work, and the jobs that we are creating in the local economy, which are helping people into work.

Secondly, on skills, not only have we introduced the kickstart scheme, which is helping 2,500 young people a week into the quality jobs we want to see them in, but we have introduced a lifetime skills guarantee. We have improved schools during our period in government, going from two thirds of children being in good and outstanding schools to 86% of children. We have increased the number of job coaches and the amount of money going into apprenticeships and traineeships. These will all set people up to have a good job and a good life.

We are also looking at the root causes of poverty. I assume the Labour party would support the national living wage, which is an extra £5,400 going into people’s pockets since 2010. We are doing things like the troubled families programme and the reducing parental conflict programme, about which I am particularly passionate because, unlike some Opposition Members, I think relationships, not just financial benefits, are one of the best ways to help people out of poverty. That is really important.

I also highlight some of the inconsistencies I have heard today, which I find quite troubling. The Labour party would keep the triple lock, with its 8% rise funded by working-age people. [Interruption.] Let me go through what is happening: 2.5% last year, 2.5% or more this year and back to the triple lock next year. The Labour party would keep it at 8%, funded by working-age people—£5 billion out of their pockets.

Let us talk about pay rises for those who helped us during the pandemic, which the Labour party voted against yesterday. Let us talk about taxes.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

National insurance, there’s one.

[Claire Coutinho]

Yes, a tax that the Labour party raised in 2003. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot have shouting from Members who are sitting down. If the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) wishes to intervene, she should stand up and ask to intervene.

[Claire Coutinho]

Let us talk about taxes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the 2017 manifesto on which many Labour Members stood contained the highest taxes in peacetime—£80 billion-worth of taxes—and that was before the pandemic, so I find it surprising that they are trying to paint themselves as the party of low taxes. I do not think anyone in the country will believe that.

The vision we are trying to present to communities in this country is one of jobs, wages, growth and investment, and those communities are now voting for us because they buy into that vision. Look at people like Ben Houchen, the Teesside Mayor—that is what he is bringing to those communities. That is what people are looking for, and I believe it is the best route out of poverty.

14:23

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

On the face of it, today’s debate is about how we want to protect people’s incomes and stave off the threat of poverty for future generations but, scratching beneath the surface, we see what is really happening. The UK Tory Government have lost sight of what modern work means. They no longer understand the economy in which we live and how to implement policies that futureproof the world of work for tomorrow. In short, they have become stuck in the past, again.

When the Conservative party introduced universal credit, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, it heralded it as a panacea for poverty in the UK, but we have seen UC used as a vehicle for cuts to working wages. Today is no different. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, repeatedly stoked the idea that those in receipt of welfare were out of work and should be punished, and that they should be ashamed of receiving additional support even when they were in work. Apart from being morally reprehensible, that is utterly wrong. Although the current Chancellor has better polish than the former, he is taking exactly the same path, a path that leads to poverty and the degradation of our local economies.

In my Ogmore constituency, we currently have 7,060 households in receipt of universal credit or working tax credits. Of those, 36% are in work, but the figure I want Ministers to listen to most carefully is that 4,731 children in Ogmore live in a home receiving universal credit. When Conservative Members vote this afternoon, I ask them to remember those 4,731 children whose families will face hardship. Those children have done nothing to deserve the cut that the Conservatives are pushing on their families, apart from being born into hard-working families who are often already working full time and just need this small piece of additional support that goes so far to ensure that their children can eat or live in a warm house. That is today’s modern Conservative party.

These numbers may seem abstract and distant, but each one represents a family who will lose £1,040 a year due to the decision made by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. That in turn will snatch £7.3 million from my constituency, which is money that would have been spent in local businesses that in turn could continue to employ their staff and hopefully expand.

The pandemic has shown us the power of Government—the power of collective risk and shared reward. These are not just high ideals, they are policies that have been put into action by the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff with self-isolation payments, financial support for utility bills, free financial advice and debt advice, the discretionary assistance fund, the covid-19 statutory sick pay enhancement scheme, the economic resilience fund and the most generous business rates relief anywhere in the UK. All of this has been done by a Labour Government who understand the modern world, the modern economy and modern household budgets. Comparing this forward thinking with that of the UK Government, we see a stark difference between a Welsh Government who care and a Westminster Government who have no interest.

The world of work is now more insecure, with a rise in zero-hours contracts and agency work being the main driver. The UK Government have rejected calls to overhaul this outdated system and make it one that rewards hard work. Instead, they cling to the outdated dogma that cutting UC will give people the incentive to earn more, despite the fact that many people in receipt of UC are already working full time. Are people meant not to care for their children or see their family? Are they meant to work every weekend? Is this the modern Conservative party?

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech that very much reflects the experience of my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. Does he agree that these people are also having to deal with a huge increase in food, fuel and energy prices? We are seeing inflation at record levels, having jumped to the highest rate since 1997. These people are having to spend more of their income, at the time of this cut in UC, on food, fuel and other essential items.

[Chris Elmore]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Today’s figures show that the Government are out of kilter with what is happening to constituents across the land. Do Conservative Members not do a weekly shop like their constituents? Do they not see that prices are rising, whether on fuel or food? These things makes a huge difference, and the Conservative party is condemning families to have less in their back pocket as we approach the autumn and winter months. This afternoon Conservative Members will march through the Lobby and pretend it has no impact on their constituents. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There are only so many hours in the day. Where are these people meant to find the hours to make up for the cut that the Conservatives are pushing through in the coming weeks? This is why we have seen poverty skyrocket across the country. The cut to UC is simply an old idea imposed on a new generation. If the Government were serious about tackling structural problems in our national economy, they would get to grips with low productivity rates and support investment led by communities, not Whitehall.

Yet again, the Government’s actions stand in stark contrast to their rhetoric. They claim to be levelling up—it would be funny if it was not so serious—but in truth they seek only a race to the bottom. Conservative Members will show their true colours again this afternoon in voting for stale economic thinking, whereas Labour Members will show a fresh alternative for the future of work.

14:29

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the levelling-up agenda. It is a flagship Conservative policy, it was a key part of the 2019 manifesto, and it is very much built on the concept of the northern powerhouse, which was established in 2014. The levelling-up agenda can change lives and communities. People often ask what “levelling up” actually means. I think it is quite simple: the goal is to improve people’s lives.

To achieve that, clearly there will be a number of initiatives, on infrastructure—road, rail and broadband; better housing; an improved environment; better health outcomes; and the skills and education agenda, which we cannot get away from and which is vital. In my view, it is also about raising income levels, particularly for the lowest paid. We have achieved much on that over the past 10 years: personal allowances have risen considerably above inflation; council tax rises have been suppressed, particularly in the early years of the Conservative Administrations; the minimum wage has gone up substantially above inflation, improving people’s take-home pay; and, most importantly of all, we have seen the creation of thousands, if not millions, of jobs over the past 10 years, which Conservative Members believe is the best way out of poverty. More money in people’s pockets creates greater freedom for individuals and their families, and can help those families to live better lives.

Last year, along came the pandemic, and the Government’s response has been terrific: the furlough scheme has been brilliant; other supporting measures, on rates and other funding initiatives, have been very beneficial and supportive to the economy, to communities and to individuals; and of course we have had the £20 a week increase in universal credit.

Universal credit itself has been a huge success. It coped extremely well in the pandemic, with the many tens of thousands of applications that all came surging at one point. All credit to the jobcentres up and down the country, and I give full credit to Department for Work and Pensions Ministers for the great job they have done. At the time, the Government said that the measures would be temporary, probably believing that they would last only six months or thereabouts. However, £20 a week—or £1,000 a year—has made a real difference to real families up and down the country, and we must remember that 40% of people on UC are in work, 35% of those on UC are actually seeking work, and probably half of those on UC at present have never known anything other than the rate they are currently receiving; they have got used to having it. Let us imagine somebody on £30,000 a year being told that they are having to take a £1,000 salary cut—they would not be in the least bit happy. This is even harder for those who are on less.

There are consequences of such a cut for the economy of the local areas. In Carlisle, my constituency, there are 8,870 people on UC, so it will take £9 million out of the local economy. I am very conscious that that money would be directly spent in the local economy. I appreciate that the uplift has a considerable cost and fully accept that the Chancellor has some challenging decisions ahead. I am a fiscal conservative and will be supporting many of the measures the Chancellor will undoubtedly have to bring forward. However, I very much believe in the levelling-up agenda, which is one of the great strategic policies of the Conservatives. I fully engage with it and want to support it, and a key part of improving the standard of living of families and individuals is levelling up. As I said at the beginning, it is about improving people’s lives, and retaining the uplift would help to improve many people’s lives. I will therefore support this motion.

14:33

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

As we have heard, the Government’s plan to scrap the £20 UC uplift is causing a great deal of worry and concern for millions of working people across the UK and thousands of my constituents in Halifax. As the Leader of the Opposition outlined at today’s Prime Minister’s questions, this cut is punishing countless essential key workers, who through the weeks and months of lockdowns performed essential and frontline roles, while remaining exposed to the economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic.

The Government may seek to present this as a post-pandemic return to normal, but only yesterday the Health Secretary made it clear in his statement that we are not yet at normal, that the need to manage the risks of the colder winter months was very real, and that further measures may continue to be sought as part of a plan B, as we all keep a very close eye on the data. Instead, this is in reality the biggest overnight cut to a benefit rate in the history of the welfare state, and it is having to be shouldered by working people.

According to analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, on average 21% of all working age families in Great Britain will experience a cut of more than £1,000 to their yearly incomes, with the midlands and the north of England hardest hit. In Halifax, it is estimated that 56% of working families with children will be affected by the cut. The relationship between this cut and the financial resilience and wellbeing of those families, and the knock-on effect for the fragile, recovering, local economy, is desperately real. Those families do not have the money, meaning it is not spent in local shops or with local service providers. This is a double blow, coming at exactly the wrong time for families and for the economy.

Universal credit is an in-work benefit, and the prevalence of low-paid work is the elephant in the room here. I have long campaigned for an end to the youth rates of the minimum wage, which devalue work undertaken by young people. The Labour party would put a stop to that injustice. A report last year from the Government’s own Social Mobility Commission concluded that there are now 600,000 more children living in relative poverty than there were in 2012. Evidence published earlier this year by the Child Poverty Action Group, also based on Government figures, revealed that after housing costs are accounted for, about 3.8 million children, nearly a third of all children in the UK, are growing up in poverty.

Do this Government believe these cuts will impact negatively or positively on these utterly depressing numbers? Polling published by Save the Children shows that three quarters of families with children on UC have a child under 10, and that 47% of UC claimants do not think they will be able to get by on a budget of £20 less a week. This cut will mean that during the formative years of children’s lives many families will have to make fraught decisions, where they are faced with making a choice about which essentials they can and cannot afford to pay for.

The comments made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about £20 being the equivalent of two extra hours of work per week do not reflect the reality of the situation in my constituency. My office has received a number of often frantic representations from people who have limited capability for work and limited capability for work-related activity, and are therefore not expected to undertake the work commitments expected of other UC claimants. These individuals are not required to work, let alone work extra hours, and yet are also having their payments cut. One constituent contacted my office, saying:

“Until I was forced on to UC, I was receiving ESA…My partner moved in with me and as he was working full time, we were moved onto UC in October 2017. However; my husband suddenly fell ill in April 2019 and was assessed as having limited capability for work. I have two teenage children who also live with us. I have heard the government discussing the withdrawal of this temporary support…today. Their response is that UC is designed to encourage claimants back to work and that they can make up the loss; but I’ve not heard anything about those of us who are unable to go to work due to ill health and what support there is in place for people like my husband and I who cannot work and who need to provide care for each other and financially support our family.”

As we have heard from so many today, the planned cut of the £20 to UC is nothing but a further development in this Government’s self-defeating attitude towards working people. Instead of lifting people out of poverty, they are content to allow the UC system to see claimants remain in a perpetual cycle of in-work insecurity.

14:38

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch).

This is not a decision anybody or any Government take lightly. Members in all parts of the House are right to raise the real-life cases to which they refer; these are our constituents and the people we are sent here to represent. I have the greatest respect for the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and for my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who I know feels strongly on this subject. He talked about the need to level up through raising real wages. I totally agree with him on that, and I will be coming back to that point.

However, I wish to start by focusing on the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). I have a lot of time for him. He puts his case in a very reasonable tone, and I am sure he feels as passionately about his views as I do about mine. His argument was, in essence, that Conservative Members do not understand the benefits system and the fact that some people in work receive these benefits. That is very far from the truth. Let me share with him my real-world experience. I have put this point on the record several times in these debates, because it is incredibly important to understand this.

Before becoming an MP, I ran a small business. We decided to award pay rises, and I was shocked when three members of staff declined: one declined the actual pay rise and the other two would not work more than 16 hours. I admit that at that point I did not know about the tax credits system—I had never claimed on it myself and I had not employed people on it—but I then discovered the hard reality of its cliff edges. When two skilled members of staff said to me, “James, I’m sorry but I just can’t do more than 16 hours because of this cliff edge,” I realised the insanity of that—of the state spending billions to put a ceiling on people’s working life and ambitions and on the limits to what they can achieve.

We should never have any ceiling on ambition; we should always seek to enable people to make the most of the natural talents with which everyone is born. That is a fundamental view that I hold, so although this issue is very difficult—I accept that people will be affected, including in my constituency—the Government are, fundamentally, doing the right thing.

We have to consider three key points, the first of which is the impact on individuals, which is the hardest part. It is a question of the extent to which one has faith that individuals can work the extra hours, and that in a vibrant economy with 1.2 million vacancies they can recover that income—and far more, over time—either by working more hours if they are in work or, if they do not have a job, by moving into work.

[David Linden]

Just short of two hours ago, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), asked the hon. Gentleman how many households in his constituency will be affected by this cut; has he been able to work that out in the past two hours? If he does not know that figure, it would be reckless for him to go through the Lobby today and vote for this cut to his constituents.

[James Cartlidge]

That was quite an odd moment because, as the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, I intervened on the shadow Secretary of State and, slightly cheekily, he then intervened on me, in a completely novel form of Commons procedure. No, I do not know that figure off the top of my head. I represent those households in this House and I know some of them, and we all know that this change will cause issues. This is not an easy decision, and, as I said at the beginning of my speech, it is not taken lightly, but I have faith in our economy. There are 1.2 million vacancies and the owners of small and medium-sized enterprises—such as me—and the owners of big businesses are crying out for labour. They are desperate for staff.

On 5 August, the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, said something incredibly important:

“The challenge of avoiding a steep rise in unemployment has been replaced by that of ensuring a flow of labour into jobs.”

What a position to be in. At the start of the pandemic, we were all fearful that we would see a huge rise in unemployment—probably one of the biggest in generations. The peak was predicted to be 2 million higher; that is an entire recession’s worth of unemployment. I am proud of what we have achieved in keeping unemployment far lower than that, because it is so damaging.

On the impact on individuals, therefore, we must look to the economy and the extent to which people can work the extra hours to make up the lost income, which I am confident people can. The second key point is the impact on the public finances. It would be extraordinary for us, who are charged with being in Parliament to hold the Executive to account for the moneys they raise, not to consider that impact. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said from the Labour Front Bench that we could use the headroom to fund the £6 billion, which basically means borrowing the money. But this commitment will be permanent. The hon. Gentleman wants to use what is potentially a short-term position in the public finances to fund a permanent increase in the welfare state.

Here is the context. Labour has said that, one way or the other, it will keep the triple lock—perhaps not the exact scheme, but it would cost several billion pounds more than the cost of the decision we have made. Labour has also said that it would keep the overseas development spend at 0.7%. Those commitments amount to more than £10 billion, and possibly to £15 billion. It is not good enough simply to say, “Use the headroom.” We know what happened when we had a Labour Government who were irresponsible with public money: we had the great recession and all that that meant for people’s livelihoods and for the poorest in society in particular.

The third key point is the impact on the wider economy. As the Governor of the Bank of England said in the quote that I read out, the issue that we now have is not mass unemployment, as we all feared, but a lack of workers. In many ways, that brings its own headaches. Going back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, the upside is that we could be moving into a new era in which those on lower wages see much higher real-terms pay growth than they would otherwise have had. That is an incredibly important development. The focus of Government policy should be to improve real wages, bring unemployment down even further, manage the public finances responsibly and drive the economic recovery forward. That is the correct thing to do.

14:44

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Like many MPs, I have heard from many constituents who are dreading the day, in less than a month from now, when they will lose the uplift they are relying on to feed themselves and their families and to pay their bills. The £20 a week is the difference between them holding their heads above water or not. The people who have written to me—some single parents, some living with a disability, but all struggling to manage despite working long hours—struggled to make ends meet even before the pandemic struck.

Analysis by Centrepoint shows that the cutting of benefits next month will hit young people the hardest. The charity has warned that there will be more homelessness when people will have to choose between eating, paying their rent, feeding themselves or feeding their children. It is truly shocking that so many people in the UK and in my constituency are grappling with the reality of these cruel choices every day.

A single mother wrote to me to say:

“It cannot be right for the Government to take away £20 a week from the precarious incomes of families like mine. Instead, it should keep it and ensure that families on legacy benefits are no longer excluded…While I realise some of these measures have to stop now life is returning to normal for many people, there will still be a high number of people like me who will be left struggling to get by. I am very stressed about the prospect of facing a financial crisis and possibly even destitution and homelessness due to this cliff edge in support.”

When the Chancellor announced uplifts to universal credit and working tax credit in March 2020, it was an admission that welfare levels were not adequate to protect families from poverty after a decade of cuts and freezes. In Great Britain, 4.3 million children are living in poverty. That is a shameful number, and I fear that sometimes we do not visualise the trauma, pain and everyday struggles behind such numbers—parents whose bank accounts are emptied on payday, once bills and rent or mortgage costs are covered, leaving the long month ahead over which to stretch the pittance left to cover all other costs.

I would like to know which living costs are going down to mitigate the loss of the uplifts, because we are all experiencing the costs of this Government’s policies. Prices are going up. Food retailers are fighting to keep their prices down as far as possible, but mounting pressures from rising commodity and shipping costs, as well as Brexit-related red tape, mean that their efforts will not be sustainable for much longer, and food price rises are here to stay.

The cut to universal credit and working tax credits will be the biggest overnight cut to the basic rate of social security since the foundation of the modern welfare state. Cutting them now, when all other Government support nets that were introduced to help us through the pandemic are also ending, and when some of the poorest in society will disproportionately bear the Government’s new tax levy, is illogical and will be unnecessarily devastating to many of my constituents. It is short-sighted and should be reversed.

14:48

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

At the start of the pandemic, the Government were right to move very fast, without any prompting, to introduce the £20 uplift to universal credit. Now that we are hopefully in the tail end of the pandemic, it would be wrong to hastily remove the uplift. Yes, there is a need to be fiscally responsible and balance the books, and thus policies are being introduced in this September sitting that sit uncomfortably with many of us. However, at the same time we have a duty and a responsibility to protect those on the lowest incomes and the most vulnerable in society. All the evidence shows that a sudden reduction in income of this magnitude will hit a lot of people very hard.

Before the introduction of the uplift, the annual uprating of universal credit had been frozen for four years. Now, looking forward, families are faced with rising costs on all fronts: food up; fuel up; rent up; childcare costs up; and getting to work, particularly in East Anglia, a real challenge. The rise in housing costs in particular is driving in-work poverty. For those in work, for those unable to work and for those between jobs, universal credit should allow people to live with some dignity without descending into spiralling situations of poor mental health, debt and poverty.

The introduction of universal credit over the past 10 years has been incredibly challenging, but, when it was really needed during the pandemic, it worked incredibly well. No sensible voices are now calling for it to be scrapped. What we now need to do is to complete the task of welfare reform. The best way to do that is to retain the uplift, which is targeted at the poorest, helps people to stay afloat and then enables them to make positive decisions to improve their circumstances and to improve their lives.

We are fortunate, as we have heard, that there is a strong jobs market at the moment, but, unfortunately, there are people who are too far away from the labour market to take immediate advantage of these opportunities. Our welfare system should provide them with stability and security so that they can acquire the skills to move into work and then to climb up the ladder to rewarding and better paid jobs.

Universal credit has been the flagship of the Government’s essential work to reform welfare. The scale of the task means that there are still many challenges to overcome to ensure that it works for everyone. The pandemic has put the system through the sternest of tests and it has worked well. We now know that it can cope under crisis and, with an increase in support, it is a system that can better protect families when they face hardship.

At the current time, we face challenges unprecedented in peacetime. In economic terms, these are: building back better from the pandemic; levelling up, so that all corners of our four countries can share the proceeds of growth; and eliminating that stubbornly wide productivity gap.

Investment in infrastructure is important, but what transcends that, and what is absolutely critical, is investment in people. Retaining the uplift will help prevent many people from falling into poverty and despair. It will also provide the platform from which families can plan for better futures and then realise their aspirations. As a society, and as an economy, we will all be better for that.

14:52

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I suppose £20 a week may not seem like a great deal of money to many Members on the Government Benches. It is the sort of sum they might spend on a bottle of wine or leave as a staff tip in a fancy restaurant, but for 8,923 people in my constituency of Edinburgh East, it is a very great deal of money indeed. I am talking about people like Nicola, a 33-year-old mother of two, whose partner is in work but does not earn enough to get by without the support of universal credit. The £20 uplift over the past 18 months has been vital for her. She has used it to buy formula for her newborn baby. Then there is Megan, a single mum, who works 24 hours a week as a cleaner and cannot get by without universal credit. She wrote to me to explain that the uplift for her meant that she could stop using the local food bank. If it is taken away, she will have no recourse but to go back to it.

I know that it is probably difficult for a Cabinet made up of so many spivs and millionaires to empathise with people like Megan and Nicola, but it has a responsibility to do so and it shirks that responsibility if it does not pause this policy and reconsider its impact—an impact that will reach to almost 6 million families in every part of this kingdom. I agree with the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) who spoke earlier when he pointed out that this long, difficult last 18 months has not been a situation where everyone has borne the misery and the burden of the pandemic equally. There are some indeed who have done quite well. I know the wealthy were fearful at the beginning when they saw the share prices tumble, but, perversely, the share prices are now at record levels and dividends have never been better. For those without capital, this has been a very, very difficult time.

I want in particular to look at the army of low-paid workers who have been responsible for getting us through this crisis: the people who have cleaned covid away; the people who have cared for our sick; and the people who have delivered and maintained essential lifelines during this pandemic. These are people who have not benefited from the furlough scheme; they have been working every day. They are people who have not had business grants or rates relief, and, such is the shameful wage inequality in our society that many of them are in receipt of universal credit and the only thing that they got was the £20 a week uplift and now that is under threat of being taken away. These are people to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. The Government should give these people their applause and their thanks and give them a reward. Instead, these people are getting a kick in the teeth.

There has been a lot of talk about the cost of this. A figure of £6 billion has been suggested as what it would take if this resolution were passed. That is the maximum estimate, by the way, assuming that everyone who is claiming at the minute continues to claim. Six billion pounds is a lot of money, but it is 1.5%—one and a half per cent—of the £400 billion that this Government have deployed during the pandemic. It seems ridiculous that this should be the first thing that is withdrawn, especially when we consider that this measure was brought in as an emergency measure to deal with problems arising from the covid pandemic, because the covid pandemic is most definitely not in the rear view mirror. The covid pandemic is still with us, which is why this policy should be cancelled.

Finally, let me mention the situation in Scotland. It is particularly cruel that, just as the new Scottish Government are bringing in a remarkable ground-breaking new benefit in the form of the child support payment in Scotland to tackle child poverty, the effect of that policy will effectively be wiped out by this cut in the universal credit uplift. There is not much that the Scottish Government can do about that when 85% of all social security spending rests here, but there is something that the Scottish people can do about that: they can choose not to go on living in this state with this Tory Government. They can choose to govern themselves, and that is another reason why they will choose independence in the referendum that is shortly to come.

14:57

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak on this very important subject.

I wish to put on record my thanks to the people who work for the Department for Work and Pensions, particularly those in the Weybridge jobcentre whom I visited just a couple of months ago. The passion of the people who work there, supporting people and helping them back into work, is absolutely incredible. Before I got into politics, my view of jobcentres was as quite negative places, but that jobcentre in Weybridge is a place of real hope and opportunity, and its staff do incredible work.

The pandemic has thrown us incredible challenges. Sadly, many of my constituents lost their jobs, and people faced increased costs. They found it difficult to reduce their cost of living in response to changing circumstances because of the restrictions that were put in place, and the job market completely went under. On that basis, it was entirely right for us to impose a temporary uplift to universal credit to help people through that difficult time. Now we are in a different situation. The job market is opening up and the difficulties in reducing costs are fewer, but we do have ongoing increased costs of living, and I will come back to that later in my speech.



We are also in a very different fiscal situation. We have borrowed a lot to pay for the pandemic. That has damaged our economy and we still have an ongoing deficit. It is important to remember that most of the money that we are spending now is borrowed, and it will not be us or our constituents who pay it back; it will be their children and our children who are paying that back in years to come. That is a big problem, of which we need to be mindful.

We have limited resources, and it is right when we are using them that our first priority should be throwing everything we can into supporting people back into work. I support the Department in seeing that as its priority, with provisions such as the plan for jobs and the kickstart scheme. I support the work we are doing, as we throw everything into helping people back into work, helping people to progress in work and supporting people with disabilities into work to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a job.

However, as many Members have mentioned, there are a lot of people in work who are still struggling. Of course, I have sympathy for the calls saying that one option is to continue the universal credit uplift, but before taking such a big decision, I think it is worth reflecting on the issue and ensuring that we get the most bang for our buck regarding the money that we spend on this precious resource. We should look a bit at what is going on for people in these difficult situations—those who are really struggling and who are currently in work.

As many Members have already mentioned, the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, last week took evidence from several people on the challenges that they are facing. It is important to ask people about these issues to find out what is going on. What was really striking to me was that every witness who spoke to us was a single parent. When we started to delve into the challenge they faced, the cost of living came up big time, of course, but they particularly mentioned the cost of childcare and difficulties getting childcare. One witness, who was very impressive, explained that she pays £300 for childcare every month, which really blows out of the water the extra £100 she gets in universal credit uplift. That is in addition to all the other costs of living, such as the largely unaffordable rented housing that we have in this country.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I think that, like me, my hon. Friend would prefer to keep the £20 uplift, but we know that it is about £6 billion, which is 10% of the defence budget. Would he support the Minister pressing, in the spending review, for a sum of money—perhaps to improve the work allowance and taper rate—to help just the people he is talking about?

[Dr Spencer]

Of course, the taper rate—which essentially operates as a participation tax of 63%—is an issue that I hope the Minister and the Department look into as they put forward bids to the Treasury.

Let me return to the cost of living. The cost of childcare is really striking. Our childcare market really is broken. Despite multiple Government support and intervention schemes, people still see childcare and caring responsibilities as a barrier to getting into work and a cause of ongoing financial hardship, either because they cannot get it full stop as it is not available, or because of exorbitant costs.

I remember knocking on people’s doors many times while campaigning in different parts of the country, and people telling me that they would love to work but that caring responsibilities were a barrier to their getting into work. That is a fundamental wrong. We have to do everything we can to support people who want to work into work, and that has to be a part of our efforts on the cost of living.

As well as childcare costs, housing and rental costs in my constituency are huge issues that put people at risk of financial hardship. We really need to tackle the issue of affordable housing, and particularly affordable rents. I beseech the Minister when he winds up the debate to tell me whether he and his Department will look into affordable housing and childcare costs as part of the cost of living review, and push forward some radical reform to help all our constituents, as many Members have asked for in this important debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I would like to try to give everybody the opportunity to speak, although it might not be possible. After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. With five minutes to speak, I call Naz Shah.

15:04

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

The Government’s cut to the universal credit uplift is beyond a joke and a bad policy decision. The actions of this Government are literally going to starve families across the country. When the Government bring in a jobs tax—the highest tax rise in 50 years—they blame the pandemic, all the while ignoring the stark reality of the effect of the pandemic on the poorest families in our nation. The Secretary of State claims that it was always meant to be a temporary uplift that would come to an end, but let me tell her the reality of the consequences of her Government’s decisions.

The impact of this cut to universal credit could send 500,000 families into poverty, and research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that it will be my constituency of Bradford West that will be hit the hardest in the whole country. Some 82% of families with children will feel the pinch of this cut—and all this while food prices rise, with supermarket prices rising by 1.3% just this month, marking significant grocery price inflation as supply chain difficulties begin to affect shoppers. For those Tories who disgracefully shame poor families in this country, I am talking about the price rise not on luxury items, but on household essentials. Vegetable oil is at its highest price for over 30 years. The cost of products such as tomatoes has almost doubled in the past year.

Energy prices are set to rise, with households braced for the biggest rise in their energy bills for a decade when the price cap is lifted in October; 15 million customers protected by the cap could see a rise in their bills. Just last month, wholesale electricity prices in the UK soared to record levels, stoking concern that more families would be pushed into fuel poverty this winter. Research from the Trussell Trust on this cut to universal credit found that 1.2 million people say that they are “very likely” to skip meals, and 1.3 million people say that they are “very likely” to be unable to afford to heat their homes this winter if the lifeline is cut.

The story under this Government is not rocket science. It is pretty simple: food prices are rising; energy bills are rising; electricity bills are rising; living costs are rising; the number of families reliant on food banks is rising; child poverty rates are rising; the number of people without jobs is rising; wages are frozen; and this Government are cutting a lifeline to the poorest in our society. This cut is going to hit not just those who are struggling to find work, but those who are already working. Many nurses, primary school teachers, postal workers, retail workers and care workers—our key workers throughout the pandemic—could see on average a loss of £1,790 compared with the past 10 years, according to Action for Children. Single mothers working part-time will be hit by this cut, such as Sophie, who told The Guardian:

“This has felt like my rock bottom”.

At this point, we would expect a Government to support their citizens to get back up, and to provide a safety net, not to burden them further. The same party that dragged its feet to feed hungry children during the school holidays is now taxing working families and taking away the lifeline to the poorest in my constituency. I will not let the Government get away with that.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. She mentions taxes. I agree that taxes are always going to hit people hard, but in order to keep the £20 temporary uplift, taxes will surely have to rise. If she wants to keep the £20 uplift, which taxes would she like to raise?

[Naz Shah]

We have had that debate for hours in this Chamber; I am not going to regurgitate it. It is clear that Members on the Government Benches do not agree and are happy with the tax hike. The tax rise affects those at the bottom end of the scale in terms of work and wages. It does not affect Government Members, as many colleagues commented earlier. The truth is that my constituency is the worst affected in the country—that means the children of Bradford West. When children do not get a healthy meal, they do not learn. When mothers have to make the choice between feeding their children and putting the heat on, that is an absolute shame for our country, which is the eighth or sixth richest in the whole world. That is what we are talking about.

We will not let the Government get away with the gesture politics of clapping for key workers last year during the height of the pandemic, while they now rush through inhumane reforms to the tune of scraping spoons on empty dining tables across the country. That is the reality if this £20 cut happens. I urge the Minister, and not just for my constituents in Bradford West: please do not take this lifeline away from those who rely on it and who have to make the stark decision between food and heating for their children and families.

15:09

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I thank the people who work in the DWP down here in London and in Thorne in my constituency. I have spent quite a lot of time there and they are doing some fantastic work.

I am proud of many of the schemes that the Government have brought in through the pandemic, including furlough, the self-employed income support scheme and the temporary £20 uplift—and it was temporary, to help people through the pandemic, and it was on universal credit, which is a transient benefit in that people are not meant not to stay on it for a long time; this Government are trying to get people off universal credit and into work.

I know that many people want to keep the £20 uplift, including many of my hon. Friends, but that would cost us £6 billion. I have not shied away from this issue. I have knocked on doors in my constituency and spoken to many groups. I have put myself in the mix with people who really pushed for keeping the uplift, but the question that I have always asked them is, “Where do we get the £6 billion from?” I have asked and asked, and no one is able to come back with an answer. There are places that we can get it from. We can get it from increasing taxes, which affects the people we would end up giving it to anyway. We could end up with further borrowing, but if interest rates go up, we would end up with even more problems. We can take it from another Department. I have asked, “Which Department do you want us to take it from? Do you want to take it from education? Do you want to take it from the police? Do you want to take it from the council?” Nobody comes up with an answer. They want to shake the magic money tree and they never, ever want to give us a proper answer.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Member talks about a magic money tree, but does he not think that some of the money could be found if this Government were more aggressive on tax evasion, which they estimate at £70 billion?

[Nick Fletcher]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will come to other issues regarding similar things towards the end of my speech.

This Government are trying to help people to get back to work and get into work. I cannot stress how important it is that people work. This debate is about the money, but it is also about the value that it gives an individual when they go to work. We need to take down the barriers to get to work that have been put in people’s way over the years. We need to incentivise people to get to work, which is what the Government are doing with the kickstart scheme, the restart scheme and JETS—job entry targeted support.

[Alexander Stafford]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about getting people back into work but about getting people back into high-quality, high-paid jobs, and that is what this Government are focusing on?

[Nick Fletcher]

I completely agree. We need to get people into work so that they start feeling valued and they are contributing to society, which is what most people in this country want to do. Then, with the lifetime skills guarantee, we can educate them more so that they bring more value to the companies they work for and to the state, and we can increase wages and increase the growth of the country in GDP, so that we can probably lower taxes while still pulling in more money. There will be more people working and so maybe we can get more targeted help for those who really need it.

I have some asks to put to the Government. As I say, we really do need to have some targeted help, because there are people who are going to be particularly hit by this decision. As we have heard, the problem may not be the £20 cut but the benefits system as a whole. Certain demographics really struggle and we need to home in on them as we move forward over the next few months and years. Single people are hit particularly hard. The tapering needs to be adjusted so that it pays to do the extra hours’ overtime that many people need, and want, to do to increase their standard of living. There should be no block on that at all. We need to give some targeted help, and it is important that we look at that, but overall the Government have the right policy. Moving forward from this, we should hopefully see the growth and start getting people into these quality jobs, as the Government want.

15:14

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

Our benefits system in the United Kingdom has gone through many changes and iterations since it was first devised in the Beveridge plan back during world war two. It was felt essential, if there was to be a people’s war against fascism and if people were expected to make the necessary sacrifices, that there would be a fairer future—something that should be borne in mind given the challenges we face with coronavirus at the present moment. Even Winston Churchill was prepared to accept that logic. The system came in with supplementary benefit and the national insurance contributions scheme. It was assumed that supplementary benefit would simply catch a few folk who would fall through the gaps in the system: there would be employment and those who fell from employment would have paid in and would be able to take out before they returned to employment.

There have been significant legislative changes, and there have also been changes to our society and our economy, but the fact is that the system is not working. Some of those who are receiving universal credit are unemployed, but, as many speakers have said, nearly half—certainly 40%—of universal credit claimants are in work. They are the working poor. I accept the logic of what many Conservative Members have said—that the route out of poverty is normally through employment. I have always believed that the best way of increasing wages is to create full employment and that would be the solution, but it is certainly not working at the moment. That has proved to be a mirage and that is the challenge.

I am a child of the ’60s who grew up West Lothian and I now represent East Lothian. There is not just a similarity in name but a similarity in heritage—a coal mining heritage. I lived in a prosperous part, but all around there was poverty as the economy and society sought to transform. However, let me be clear: back then I never saw the poverty that I see today. None of it existed. Were there kids who got free school meals in the 1960s? Of course there were, but there was not the hunger and the queues at food banks. Were there people who huddled next to a two-bar electric fire in winter trying to keep warm? Yes, but not people who would have to make a choice between being able to feed their children, feed themselves and heat their home this winter. Yes, there were kids who went to school with holes in their jerseys or, as we said in Scotland, their gutties—you might describe them as black sandshoes—even in winter, but we did not need to have the clothes banks and we did not have kids unable to go to school because they did not have the clothes to put upon their back. That is the society we now have.

Just last week, I saw a satirical website where there was a spoof: the Secretary of State had declared the majority of Paralympians fit for work. It was caustic but witty. Perhaps it may be reviewed and some may find that they are facing more than a doping test in years to come. That may have been fiction, but the fact has been put on the screen. As Ken Loach has stated, our benefits system is institutionalised cruelty. That has been disclosed on the screen in his movie “I, Daniel Blake”, which won a Palme d’Or. It showed the hardship and cruelty that are inflicted by the system that we possess. That was in 2016, although the film was indeed scripted in the years long before.

We are now in 2021. Our society has never been richer. Some have never had more wealth. Inequality has never increased at the pace that it is today. Yet the level of destitution and despair that exists in some parts is shameful—it is something that we have to oppose. On that basis, I have no hesitation in supporting the motion. The uplift needs to be preserved because poverty is being imposed not by some misfortune but by a political choice, and that is unacceptable.

15:18

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

We have heard the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) absolutely eviscerating this disgraceful Government and the way that so many of our young people, whatever corner of the country they live in, live under the brutal face of Tory Britain. This Government are willing to give tax breaks to their rich pals in the City and blow billions on often failed covid contracts, at the same time condemning the young and lowest paid to a lifetime of hardship and debt.

In my constituency—these are shocking statistics—almost 19,000 households are now in receipt of either universal credit or working tax credits. Let me repeat that figure: 19,000. That is bigger than the majority of most Conservative Members. It is an enormous figure. It constitutes 35% of all the households in my constituency and more than 50% per cent. of the families with children. That clearly demonstrates the importance of universal credit, which helps to maintain people putting food on the table for their families and prevent them from being plunged into total and abject poverty. It is grim and it is shocking.

A significant number of claimants are already in work, in poorly paid, insecure, zero-hours jobs. That includes many of the frontline heroes who carried on working throughout the pandemic—nurses, porters in hospitals and people working on buses—while everyone in this House could work from the safety of their own homes. Is this how we repay them, by slashing £1,000 from their pay cheques? Indeed, research by the TUC has revealed this week that 2.3 million low-paid workers will be worse off as a result of this cut, increasing the already record-high poverty levels, and the move will do nothing to address in-work poverty, which is so important and which we should be addressing. Many of my constituents in Ilford are already holding down multiple jobs and doing all they can just to keep their heads above water.

To give just one of the many stories I have heard on the doorsteps of Ilford South, a young woman called Emily told me that she receives universal credit and uses it to support her young son. However, due to a change in her health circumstances, she was eligible to receive further support. She was told to wait three months for a telephone appointment, at which point she was informed that she had to have an in-person assessment. That was despite having doctor’s notes confirming her medical condition, and despite the fact we were in the midst of the second covid lockdown. Now, 15 months on, she is not only still awaiting confirmation of her case, but she faces losing a further £86 from the Government’s proposed universal credit cut.

Emily is understandably struggling to make ends meet. In her latest correspondence, she told me:

“I’m going to be losing £86 a month and I really don’t know how I’m going to survive.”

She speaks for millions of people across Tory Britain and others in similar circumstances. It is a disgrace that the Government are willing to abandon her and millions of others to their fate.

There is now universal opposition to these plans. It comes not just from charities, third-sector organisations and campaign groups—not to mention millions of the Government’s own voters—but six former Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions from their own Benches, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), whose constituency is not too far from Ilford, being just down the road in the other corner of Redbridge. They all agree that this money must remain in place. It would appear that the only thing that is truly universal about these plans is the opposition to them.

The Government must think again about their decision to make low-income families pay for the Government’s chronic mismanagement of the pandemic and economic recovery. They are completely and utterly out of touch with ordinary working people’s lives and reducing salaries now risks not only further worsening the impact of the recession, but plunging these people into a lifetime of misery and poverty. The £20 uplift must remain in place at least until after the pandemic is over and the economy is on a stable footing. It is moral, it is just and the Government should get a backbone and do it right away.

15:22

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I cannot claim to be surprised we are here debating the scrapping of the £20 uplift to universal credit. As the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) alluded to earlier, the fact that universal credit had to be uplifted is surely an admission that the provision afforded to those falling on hard times was not nearly adequate in the first place. Yet in this moment, when we are told that our economy is on the road to recovery, this Government shamelessly pull the rug from under the feet of millions of decent people. It is morally reprehensible and also bad economics. In my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, it translates to 11,500 households, affecting more than 6,000 children. That number includes the more than 33% of UC claimants in my constituency who are in work.

We on the Opposition Benches are the party of work and workers. We do not make work pay through a low-wage economy subsidised by Dickensian social security systems, no matter how many times the Government employ divide and conquer tactics through the false dichotomy of strivers and skivers.

I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here to listen to how this cut will affect my constituents. She grew up in my wonderful city, and it obviously left a very poor impression on her if she is prepared to turn her back on the 62,000 households affected in the city of Liverpool alone, never mind the many more in towns and cities across this country. Let us say it clearly: this is a grotesque act of levelling down. It is levelling down, not levelling up. Indeed, what is “levelling up”, if her Department is prepared to remove £12 million from the pockets of those in Liverpool, Wavertree, £12.5 million from the pockets of those in Heywood and Middleton and more than £10 million from those in Darlington?

As the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) did not know the figure for his constituency, for the record it is just over £5.5 million, affecting 5,340 households and 4,008 children. It is shameful. I am sure the penny pinchers on the Government Benches are perfectly aware of those sums, but then of course there are those other sums trotted out by the Secretary of State. For someone with a PhD in chemistry, I thought she would have a good grasp of detail, such as how many hours it would actually take to make up the £20 loss in income. It is obvious, considering the bluster and false rhetoric, that she has no coherent strategy to make work pay on the back of this £20 cut. Ultimately, it represents an act of war on the low-paid and the unemployed. The consequences for ordinary people will be grave: more food banks and hunger, more homelessness and more destitution in our communities. I am sure it will provide ample opportunity for the regular circus of Tory MPs taking selfies at the very food banks their policies helped to create.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes in an attempt to give everybody a chance to speak.

15:26

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to be called in such an important debate. The controversial plans to withdraw the universal credit £20 a week uplift are regarded as the biggest single welfare cut since world war two. Anti-poverty campaigners and children’s charities have warned that the cut will be devastating for millions of families already facing the financial cliff edge we have heard so much about.

We have also heard from former Tory Ministers—I am surprised by that, but we have—who have written to this Chancellor, urging him to make the £20 uplift permanent to avoid sending thousands of families further into financial crisis. If these plans go ahead, the cut will hit nearly 6,000 people currently in receipt of universal credit in my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. Thirty-eight per cent. of those who will see their income hit are already in employment. They are hard-working people—key workers, food producers, shop workers, security guards and cleaners—thrown on the scrapheap. Some 16% of that number are under 25. It is another hit for the next generation by this Conservative Government.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that 6 million will face an income loss equivalent to £1,040 a year. Citizens Advice has warned that a third of people on universal credit will end up in further debt. One hundred organisations, including charities, children’s doctors, public health experts and even a Tory think-tank have co-signed a letter calling on this Government to do a U-turn on the planned universal credit cuts. We have seen plenty of U-turns from this Government—let us have one on this issue please. It comes after a month-long campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the SNP for the UK Government to maintain the £20 uplift and extend it to legacy benefits. It follows a letter signed by six former Work and Pensions Secretaries condemning the cuts.

The Scottish Government remain committed to doubling the Scottish child payment to £20 a week by the end of the Parliament. In contrast, the Tories are still planning to go ahead with slashing the £20 despite warnings that it will plunge 20,000 children in Scotland further and deeper into poverty. In my constituency, 26% of children live in poverty. It is a disgrace to allow that already shameful number to grow even further, but the Tories do not care.

On top of that decision, we have another hike in national insurance in Scotland that will most hit those who have least, to pay for a healthcare crisis in England. If that is the Union dividend, for Scotland the Union is a dead end. The youth of Scotland will know that. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor should know that, given the number of U-turns they have had to commit. I will support the motion and hope that everyone else will do so, too.

15:29

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Low-paid workers are facing not a double whammy but a triple whammy, with prices and bills going up, national insurance contributions going up and now a £1,000 cut in universal credit. Ministers are creating a cost of living crisis for low-paid workers. I do not understand how they think people will manage. On what planet do Conservative Ministers think that that is fair?

One of many emails that I got last week said:

“I am unemployed, 65 years of age and my sole source of income is universal credit. My income will drop from £715 a month (just keeping head above water) to £612 a month (drowning!). When my rent and all other bills are paid, this will leave me with £89 for food, clothing, bus fares for job interviews and everything else for the month. We need help.”

A constituent in Pontefract who is working to support himself and his disabled partner, on universal credit but paying off rent arrears, talked about the pressure that he is already under. He said:

“I don’t know what to do. I have been crying. I have just half a tin of beans left for us.”

In Normanton, Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, 10,000 families—nearly half of all families with children in the constituency—will be hit, losing £85 a month or more than £1,000 a year. That means £10 million will be taken out of the five towns’ economy that would have been spent in our local shops when, frankly, our town centres are under real pressure. Care workers, factory workers, warehouse staff, teaching assistants and hairdressers are all being hit.

Ministers say that the answer is for people to work harder and work longer, but they are already doing that, and care workers doing 14-hour shifts do not have any hours or extra days that they can work. Ministers claim that the £20 must go because it was only ever supposed to be temporary, but why? Price rises are not temporary; they are getting worse. The debt that people have run up because of covid is not temporary; it still has to be paid off. The hardship and hunger that children face is not temporary; it is getting worse. Even before the £20 came in, families had lost nearly £2,000 a year because of previous Government cuts. Why do Ministers want to go back to that? That is not building back better.

There is a huge gap between Conservative Ministers’ words and the reality of working people’s lives. The bottom line is that millions of people will be worse off next month because of the Government’s decisions. Some people made more profits during the crisis, and some on higher pay made real savings, but the key workers who kept us all going through the crisis, on the lowest pay, doing the most important jobs, are being hit. Ministers clapped them in the streets; now they are cutting their family income. It is not just a kick in the teeth; it is a complete betrayal. Ministers should have some shame and cancel the cut.

15:32

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Government give the impression that they do not think £20 is a lot of money. Although having and spending income is important, it is vital that those who do not have to count the pennies do not forget about everyone else. For many people, £20 is not a box of biscuits from an organic store in west London but what is spent on an entire week’s food shop. The Facebook group “Feed your family on a budget” was set up last year by one woman who managed to do just that on a £20 budget, and that group alone—it is not a unique initiative—has more than 340,000 members. The real impact of taking £20 away from 5.5 million households across the UK is people skipping meals, unable to feed their children, and even more reliance on food banks, which are being used more than ever before—more even than before the pandemic.

On Monday, the Secretary of State suggested that people could make up £20 by working two extra hours. The Government consistently demonstrate that they do not understand that, for many, universal credit is an in-work benefit and that work has other expenses, such as transport and childcare, which mean that claimants will need to work at least another six hours a week to make up for the cut, not two.

Some of my constituents will face a £30 a week loss or even more, because, as we have seen so many times before, the Government have failed to understand the impact of their policies on the devolved nations. Parents who receive any amount of universal credit in Scotland—even as little as £20—are entitled to Scottish child payments, best start grants and best start food payments. Altogether, the cut could mean a loss of more than £1,700 a year. The Scottish Affairs Committee report on welfare published earlier this year noted that there appears to be “a good working relationship” between the Governments, but this cut suggests otherwise.

Of course, “just work more” is never as easy as this Government seem to think it is. There are 1.1 million single parents eligible for universal credit, many of whom need to work part time. I have raised this issue before by asking the Secretary of State to explain the disparity between universal credit and legacy benefits for young parents, where the former benefit acknowledged the additional burden of parenthood and provided the higher rate of payment usually given to those 25 and over. She has failed to provide an adequate explanation to me or 100 charities from around the UK, and indeed other hon. Members, who signed the letter I wrote about this.

The bottom line is that reducing an already inadequate safety net is not going to get more people into work. Research by the Trussell Trust shows that 900,000 people say they will not have enough money to travel to work or essential appointments, and this is a particular concern in rural constituencies such as North East Fife. If people cannot afford to get to work, how are they supposed to get those extra hours? It is a vicious cycle, only worse. Indeed, figures from Fife Council today suggest that crisis applications to the Scottish welfare fund have rocketed since the start of this financial year. This cut is taking place while the effects of the pandemic are still being felt, and we need to make sure that those people and families are supported.

15:35

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the 17,296 adults in claimant households in my constituency who are about to be hit by the universal credit cut, nearly 40% of whom are in work. Before the pandemic, the majority of local universal credit claimants were working, due to the high levels of low-paid work in Hounslow borough and its environs. Many of my constituents who are now unemployed worked in live events in the arts or at Heathrow airport, and the downturn in international aviation since covid has exposed the over-dependence of our local economy on Heathrow. This means that Hounslow has gone from being an area of very low unemployment to having one of the highest levels in the UK.

Behind every one of the 17,296 local claimants there is a person, often with children, and for them the proposed cut will have a very real impact on their households—households already living in poverty. Many have told me what it will mean. One said that the payment makes

“a lot of difference and helps us to eat”.

“Helps us to eat”, in the 21st century in the UK, is disgraceful.

On the one hand we have had Ministers’ weak attempts to defend this cut, but why do they not also mention the countless acts of wasteful spending we have seen over the last 18 months, such as a test and trace system that does not really trace and unusable PPE? We should also not forget the wider context of this cut. As the Government push through this £1,000 cut per claimant, they are also increasing taxes on working people through the national insurance hike and forcing councils to increase council tax, while today we hear of the rise in inflation to 3.2%. Furthermore, in high rent areas such as my constituency, the benefit cap and local housing allowance levels mean that many of my constituents are using the money from their standard allowance, which should be for food and utilities, to pay the rent. As the Leader of the Opposition highlighted at PMQs today, a full-time worker on the minimum wage will need to work for nine more hours to make up for the £20 cut.

Cutting UC on top of all this is not only cruel, but economically incompetent. Some £15 million will be taken out of our local economy in my constituency. We know from research that when there is more money in poor people’s pockets, it goes to local businesses and local shops—businesses that themselves employ people and pay tax. It is such a shame that the Chancellor and his Ministers are not here to lead for the Government in this debate rather than the DWP team, who we hear privately share our concerns about the impact of this cut.

15:38

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On the final night of the Tory party conference, as the Government wine and dine their billionaire donors, the same Ministers have decreed that millions of our fellow citizens will face the biggest cut to social security benefits since the 1930s. On 6 October, the Government will ram through their plan to scrap the £20 uplift to universal credit, at a stroke leaving 6 million households more than £1,000 worse off a year. By next April, 2.5 million will be £1,300 worse off because their national insurance tax contributions will rise by 10%. In Wallasey alone, more than 10,000 households will lose £10.5 million in support. That money provided a vital lifeline to those struggling throughout this pandemic, many of them key workers. This callous Government have made a political choice to withdraw that support. This is money that is currently spent in our local economy but which will disappear overnight.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that these cuts threaten to push 750,000 people into poverty and 500,000 further into deep poverty, which is defined as being more than 50% below the poverty line. There are 6,000 children whose parents are reliant on UC in my Wallasey constituency. This callous cut will be the difference between them putting food on the table or not in the coming months.

Analysis by Action for Children found that almost 30% of children in Wallasey already live in poverty after housing costs. In supporting this cut, every Conservative Member is voting in full knowledge of its effects. The Government’s own leaked assessment has described the cut as “catastrophic”.

So egregious is this cut to UC that six of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions’ Tory predecessors have spoken out against it, yet she has pronounced herself “happy” that it is going ahead, and yesterday she was being either disingenuous or ignorant when she claimed that just a couple of hours of extra work would make up for the cut. We know that is not true, and we know that while 40% of those on the benefit are in work, some claimants cannot work for various reasons ranging from illness to child caring responsibilities.

In Wallasey 36% of people claiming UC are in employment, and nationally one in six working households cannot make ends meet already. The last decade of benefits cuts has left working families worse off than they were 10 years ago. The pandemic uplift has acted as a vital buffer, and now even this is being taken away.

To govern is to choose; the Conservatives have chosen hardship over hope, and poverty over support. As they sip their champagne and hobnob with their millionaire supporters at their conference, we will never let them forget that.

15:41

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

If this debate was a boxing match, those opposing the motion would have thrown in the towel a long time ago, but I do want to praise all those supporting the motion today including on the Government side. I am, however, sad that some on the Government side treated us to their usual Marie Antoinette routine, saying that somehow people are not trying hard enough and have got themselves into these difficulties.

Some of the contributors from the Government side have said “Let’s talk about jobs.” Yes, let’s talk about the public sector jobs this Government have cut in the last 10 years. They praise DWP staff and I agree, but in the next breath they say, “Let’s talk about pay.” Yes, let’s talk about the pay freeze for public sector workers in the last 10 years and pay restraint, and how many, and why, people working in the public sector are having to get support from the UC system because their wages are too low and the Government have taken that position. Let’s talk, too, about tax avoidance. If the same number of people employed by the Government to tackle social security fraud were tackling tax avoidance and evasion we might get more money in tax and perhaps we would get that £6 billion that we keep hearing about. I believe that the social cost of cutting £20 a week from claimants is far more important, and there will be an explosion in food insecurity in this country. When asked, every food aid provider will explain how nervous they are if the cut goes ahead and what that will mean to the people they support.

The uplift was set by the Government to pay for essentials such as food, energy and fuel. Those essentials have not suddenly disappeared, and claimants were never told this was to be temporary: those who applied for UC during the pandemic were never told at any time, “By the way, some of the money we’re giving you is only a temporary payment.” It is very concerning that those of us on the Select Committee were told by claimants that they had not yet been informed that the £20 was to be removed. If that is the case, I think the parliamentary ombudsman is going to be very busy. This might be WASPI 2. We talk about putting people in jobs; the ombudsman may have to employ many people to deal with all the complaints from universal credit claimants who have not been told that this money is being cut. I will be proud to support the motion and to support my constituents.

15:44

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is frustrating once again to have to plead with the Government not to take a key financial lifeline away from my constituents and working families across the country. As so many of today’s contributions have shown, for many hard-working families, the £20 a week universal credit uplift has been the difference between children going hungry and having food on the table, or between turning the electricity off and topping up the meter.

If the Government push ahead with this cut to universal credit, it will affect 6 million families across the country, and it has the potential to push 700,000 more people, including 300,000 children, into crippling poverty. In my constituency of Manchester, Gorton, the cut will directly affect 12,000 children.

This cut will be utterly devastating for my constituents. It will be the single biggest overnight cut to the basic rate of social security since the creation of the modern welfare state. Not only that, but for all the Government’s talk of levelling up, the north will bear the brunt of the cut’s impact. This cut is not necessary; it is a choice that this Tory Government are making. They are choosing to take money out of the pockets of working families struggling to make ends meet. It is a disgrace.

If the Government will not listen to me, my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, their own colleagues, six previous Conservative Work and Pensions Secretaries, numerous all-party parliamentary groups, or endless charities and campaign groups, then perhaps they will listen to the powerful words of one of my constituents. He is an NHS worker claiming universal credit to make ends meet, and he wrote:

“My morale has gone, my head has gone, my heart has gone. Ripped out by a system that doesn’t care for those of us who worked so hard to keep the country together during one of its darkest hours.”

He is not the only one to have contacted me; hundreds of constituents have written to me desperate for the uplift to be maintained. The hard-working families of Manchester, Gorton do not want this £20 a week; they need it. Will the Government listen to them?

15:47

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Last Friday, a blue plaque was unveiled in memory of Rev. Don Robins, who was appointed vicar of St George’s church in the heart of Leeds at the time of the great depression. Looking around his new parish, he saw the homeless, the hungry and the destitute, and he decided that he must do something. He had an old crypt below the church, and he resolved that it should be used for the living and not the dead, so he turned it into a soup kitchen and night shelter. Since that day, the St George’s crypt has been serving those for whom life has been hard. I sit here and wonder, if he was still with us, what he would have to say about the choice facing the House today. Although the great city of Leeds has seen much prosperity and development in the intervening years, poverty and inequality and hunger have not gone away. They continue to bear down on our communities.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) talked about shame. It is shameful that three in 10 children in my constituency live in absolute poverty. It is shameful that in the three or four miles from the most prosperous to the least well-off parts of our city, life expectancy declines. It is shameful that some children come to school too hungry to learn and that the number of people who have to go to a food bank—that is, after all, going up to a complete stranger and saying, “I know we’ve never met, but can you help me to feed my family this weekend, because I cannot?”—has risen in the last decade.

There is only one conclusion we can reach. The former Work and Pensions Secretary was absolutely right. There are too many households in our constituencies where the money coming in is insufficient to feed, clothe, shelter and look after a family. That is why it is completely unforgiveable that even though Ministers know this—even though they are well aware that poverty and hunger have got worse during their time in Government—they are still determined to go ahead with the cut to universal credit on which so many of our constituents rely, as we have heard today. One woman put it to me like this:

“It may not seem like a lot, but it is absolutely vital to me and my family.”

I am sure there are many Government Members who, as they vote to make the cut today, will know in their hearts it is wrong. But it is what we do, as Don Robins showed, that counts. He committed himself to be where the work is hardest. It is really hard work to raise a family when you want to do your best but do not have enough money. This cut is wrong and the Government should think again.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am going to make every effort, and I am determined to get everybody in. That may mean that at some point in the very near future I have to reduce the time limit to two minutes, but if we help each other and take less time we might be in with a better chance.

15:51

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that the best route out of poverty is to work. If only that were true. When I came into this place, I knew there would be Tory Members who believed that poverty was a self-infliction, or a “personality defect” in the words of Margaret Thatcher herself in 1978. But I also naively hoped that there might be one or two good people on the Tory Benches who understood that the struggles of many people’s lives were not self-inflicted, but imposed upon them by an economic system that was simply stacked against them and that possibly, just possibly, they might stand up when the time was right.

So I ask Tory Members today: what kind of Tory are they? Are they one who understands that 40% of the 15,000 universal credit claimants in Salford and Eccles are actually in work, work that pays so little they have to rely on Government support to top it up? Are they a Tory who would help my constituent who wants to work, when she says:

“With the amount I would get from Universal Credit coupled with the childcare costs and my potential wages, what I would have left at the end of the month will leave myself and my husband very tight on finances. The £20 uplift makes a huge difference in our finances and my ability to work”?

Or are they a Tory who simply dismisses her, and indeed analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that shows the majority of families that lose out will be working families who were already suffering before the pandemic hit?

For those unable to work, the situation is even bleaker. The reality is that the basic rate of universal credit is only a sixth of average weekly pay, and many on legacy benefits did not even get the uplift at all. Frankly, rather than being cut, universal credit should be increased to at least 80% of the level of the living wage and the temporary £20 top-up extended to those on legacy benefits.

If the Tories mean it when they say that the best route out of poverty is work, then I say to them: do something about it. Outline an ambitious agenda to tackle in-work poverty, including a higher minimum wage, collective bargaining, secure work, a ban on zero-hours contracts, progression opportunities, and affordable childcare and housing costs. Tory Members, prove to me today that my naive hope that there is some semblance of common decency on the Government Benches is true, and stop this cut.

15:53

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak against the cut to universal credit, which is cruel, illogical and unnecessary. It is cruel because £20 a week makes all the difference to those on the lowest incomes, many of whom are already working all the hours they can but simply cannot make ends meet. Norwood and Brixton food bank, which serves many of my constituents every week with love and care, has been warning for many months that if local people on universal credit are subjected to this cut, the need for emergency food support will increase, placing even more pressure on its staff and volunteers. Our welfare state was established to provide a security safety net for people who cannot make ends meet, yet this Government are taking us back to Victorian Britain, where people forced into appalling hardship by the Government’s failures are reliant on the good will of our communities in ever-increasing numbers.

This cut will cause unspeakable hardship. Parents will go without food so that their children can eat. People will suffer in cold, damp homes because they will not be able to afford the heating. Debt will increase and physical and mental health will deteriorate. This cut is illogical, because at a time of fragile economic recovery, when high streets up and down the country are struggling and shops are closing, it makes no sense to be taking millions of pounds of expenditure out of every single constituency in the country. And this cut is unnecessary, because it is a political choice.

There are many ways in which the Government could lift people out of poverty. They could raise the minimum wage to the real living wage, make housing more affordable, make childcare more affordable and ban zero-hours contracts, but they have failed those on the lowest pay for more than a decade and now they are punishing the same low-paid workers. These are the same people who have been at the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic: social care workers, shop workers, childcare workers, delivery drivers, hospital porters, bus drivers and others. This is no way to treat those who have seen us through the greatest crisis since the second world war.

It does not take a degree in engineering to know that if the screws are too tight, the pressure will buckle and break even the strongest of materials. Make no mistake, this cut will break people who have already faced so much pressure from the cruel policies of this Tory Government bearing down on them. Government Members have a choice: they can live with this cruellest of cuts or they can join us in the Lobby and vote against it, because it is wrong and unacceptable.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to two minutes, but that is because I want to get everybody in. I call Zarah Sultana.

15:56

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“I will not have enough money to buy food or heat my home…I don’t know how I will eat...I am afforded no dignity...I am thrown on the scrap heap”—

those are the words of Joan, a woman in her 60s who wrote to me about the effects of the cut to universal credit. She said:

“I am ashamed to be in this situation”.

Another person who wrote to me was a single mum who told me about her beautiful daughter. They escaped domestic violence but now, even

“with the uplift... life is crushingly hard”,

she wrote. She continued:

“But losing 20 pounds a week will send us spiralling down.”

She said that she does not know

“how the Conservatives can do this to people”.

That is a tiny snapshot of the correspondence that I have received about the cut to universal credit and working tax credits. “How can they do this to people?” was the question. It is the single biggest overnight social security cut in the history of the welfare state, hitting more than 6 million families, including around 10,000 households in Coventry South. It is expected to push 700,000 more people, including 300,000 children, into poverty, with more than 500,000 pushed into extreme poverty.

Let us look at who is pushing this through. In the words of Amy, another person who wrote to me:

“I truly wish the Conservatives understood the impact of this cut. I don’t want to be on benefits”.

But what makes it “really humiliating”, she said, is

“that we have to prove we’re worth an extra 20 pounds a week to people who say they can’t survive on 150,000 pounds a year.”

That is the truth. The Conservative party is from a different world from those who are being hit by this cruel cut.

In one of my first speeches in Parliament, I called for an end to the inequality in opportunities that exists between working-class children and those born to wealth and sent to schools like Eton. For that simple demand, a Government Member accused me of “class warfare”. But if there is class warfare in Britain, this is it: led by an old Etonian, a Chancellor who is the richest member of the House, a Cabinet that is two thirds privately educated, and funded by the super-rich. The Conservative party is launching one of the biggest ever attacks on the living standards of the working class in this country, pushing millions more into desperation and misery. If Government Members have even a single scrap of decency, they will vote against this cut and instead, at the very least, extend the uplift to all legacy benefits.

15:59

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Some 10,406 of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, where one in three children lives in poverty, will be negatively impacted by the cut. The Government are willing to impose such a cruel cut when they know the severe consequences that it will have for those on whom it will fall.

That tells us the vision that the Tories have for society. It is a vision of a society in which the disabled should be punished for having an extra bedroom through the bedroom tax, which the Scottish Government fully mitigated; a society in which the local housing allowance is frozen, which is why the Scottish Government invested £80 million in discretionary housing payments; a society that is relaxed about child poverty, while the Scottish Government introduced the Scottish child payment for those on the lowest incomes.

But the Scottish Government, with their limited powers, cannot mitigate every single cruel cut imposed on Scotland by a Tory Government who were roundly rejected by the people of Scotland. That is why we need all the powers of an independent country: to protect our people from Tory Government cuts that we did not vote for and that we reject. When the time comes, soon, the people of Scotland will make their voices heard. They will make their own decision, take their future into their own hands and look after their own families—and they will vote for independence.

16:00

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

There are 14.5 million people living in poverty. The Government’s cut to universal credit at the end of this month will cast more than half a million people, including 200,000 children, into poverty. Let us digest those figures, the human cost that they entail, and how they shame one of the richest countries in the world and shame this Government.

I ask again the question that the multimillionaire Chancellor failed to answer last week:

“what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the cut, and how many…people in Liverpool, West Derby”—

where 20% of my constituents are on universal credit—

“will be forced into poverty”.—[Official Report, 6 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 145.]

I also ask whether the Minister has considered whether the cut is a violation of international human rights obligations.

In Liverpool, Fans Supporting Foodbanks fed 4,000 people last month. Next month, it is looking to expand that to 8,000 people. That is where we are at the moment. That is where we are under this Government. I remind them that it is 2021, not 1821.

I ask the Minister to digest this list: Manchester, Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Liverpool, Liverpool city region, Rotherham, Totnes, Brighton and Hove, Haringey, St Helens, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Durham, Preston, Sheffield, Coventry and Birmingham. All those places have declared themselves Right to Food towns and cities in response to the humanitarian crisis of food poverty in our communities before the cut. I say to the Minister: end this immoral plan to cut universal credit, extend the uplift to legacy benefits, and, instead of attacking our communities, focus your energy on addressing the injustices of inadequate Government support, low pay and insecure work.

16:02

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I got into politics in 2013 because I saw the devastating impact of the bedroom tax on my community, my friends and my neighbours. In 2013, we were angry and we were tired of three years of public sector cuts, but never for a minute did I think that I would be here, eight years and billions of pounds of cuts later, asking the Government not to implement the biggest welfare cuts in the history of the welfare state.

It is not only the universal credit cuts that will hit low-income families; those cuts are combined with the 3.2% rise in inflation, the national insurance rise, the end of the furlough scheme and the resumption of evictions. It is not the Tory party’s billionaire donors, who have increased their wealth during the pandemic by more than £100 billion, who are paying the price; it is key workers like my former colleagues in social care, shop workers and teaching assistants.

For many of the families I represent, £20 is the difference between eating and not eating. International law is very clear that cuts should not occur if human rights violations would occur, so is the Secretary of State still “entirely happy” with a cut that will plunge 730,000 children into poverty? What does she have to say to the 14,250 families in Nottingham East and the six million families across the country who will lose £1,000 per year? I do not want to hear about incentives to get people into work—the Conservative party knows full well that the cut hits people who are in work, because work does not pay. Cancel the cuts, introduce a real living wage and scrap the benefit cap.

16:04

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

It is abundantly clear that Conservative Members do not care about or understand the human cost of the decision that they are about to make. Far too many in this House live, and have always lived, lives that are miles away from the reality of life for constituents of mine—constituents like Sara, who is petrified of what impact losing the £20 uplift will have on her and her family. How will she pay the rent? How will she feed her family? How will she pay all her bills? She is afraid of losing what little she has, and of losing her dignity.

To a member of that exclusive club of millionaires, property owners and bankers to which so many Tories belong, this must seem like another country, but it is not. It is our country, the fifth richest nation in the world, and Sara, like other constituents, is one among millions throughout our country whose lives will be devastated by this cut. In my constituency, 43% of families with children are receiving universal credit or working tax credit, and our community will be particularly impacted by this cut.

However, the cut in universal credit is not just cruel; it is economically unsound. The Bevan Foundation, a Welsh think-tank, has calculated that it will take approximately £286 million out of the Welsh economy, potentially damaging the economic recovery. Talk of levelling up is cheap. This cut does nothing to aid any levelling-up process in my constituency. It actually does the opposite. It is clear to me that the Government are pursuing an economically illiterate policy. The cut will have catastrophic consequences for millions of people across the country, and will cause immeasurable hardship to millions.

I implore the UK Government to do the right thing and cancel the cut; to go further and extend the uplift to people on legacy benefits; and even to take more radical action such as trialling a universal basic income.

16:06

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

In my two minutes, I want to make a couple of key points.

The Conservatives’ planned £20 cut in universal credit is truly callous, but it is also economically illiterate. I am astounded that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should agree that she is “entirely happy” with this decision. Five million households, including 3.5 million children, will suffer a cut of £1,000 a year, and that personal impact will be exacerbated by the damage to our recovery, as local economies are stripped of vital money that would otherwise be spent with local businesses. In Luton, we face an estimated £16.5 million being stripped from our local economy. That will impact on local businesses trying to recover after the pandemic, as we have heard from other Members.

Luton has been particularly exposed to the economic fallout of the pandemic, because it has one of the highest proportions of workers in sectors that are vulnerable to lockdown and restrictions, notably aviation, retail, hospitality, food and accommodation. As a result, it has seen one of the biggest claimant count increases anywhere in the country. With furlough ending next month and no sector-specific financial support package for the aviation industry, I cannot but foresee more people having to rely on universal credit.

In Luton South, 16,000 households may have to choose between heating and eating. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, one in six working households cannot make ends meet. I recently met representatives of the citizens advice bureau in Luton, who told me that one of the biggest concerns they have will be the increase in personal debt as a consequence of the cut in universal credit.

Fundamentally, the Government should listen to the families who need this money, listen to key workers who are struggling to make ends meet, listen to the charities and civil society organisations, and cancel the cut.

16:08

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

The points that I was going to make have already been made eloquently by other Members on these Benches, so I will make my remarks very brief.

I draw attention to the adverse effect on people who are disproportionately affected by this, particularly the WASPI women, who have already been robbed of their pensions. I also suggest that this is an opportune time for the Secretary of State to consider introducing a universal basic income.

The hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) asked how retaining the £20 could be paid for. I would say to him that we could get rid of Trident and HS2, neither of which Scotland wants or benefits from. It is disgusting that the six Scottish Conservative MPs are absent from the debate today. That shows a total disregard for the views of their constituents. The only way to ensure justice for the people of Scotland is for it to be independent and to have full control over the levers of the economy. This is the opportunity for Scotland to be independent.

16:09

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Late last night on social media, I invited my constituents who will be affected by this cut to write in and explain how they would be affected by it. I tell you what, my phone was buzzing all last night and all this morning with messages from distraught constituents, and it is no wonder, because 14,000 families my constituency will be affected by the cut. Two thirds of people in my constituency who work and who have children will be affected by it.

I want to use the time I have today to read from just one of the messages I received, a message from young woman who wrote to me and said:

“Hello Richard, I’ve seen your tweet about you hopefully speaking to parliament about the cut and just thought I’d like to say how it’d affect me.

I was homeless from the ages 16-20 almost as I left an abusive home from my father and lost all my family and most friends I had. I finally got my own flat this year and the amount that I have been living on has the increased boost from coronavirus payment. After this has been cut I am not going to be able to afford food, phone bills, electricity/gas/wi-fi, council tax and the odd few bills like Netflix here and there. After all these payments have come out I will have about £5-£10 to live off for the month and that’s not even enough to travel for places I need to be or in case of emergencies. My mental health is at an awful place at the moment and I’m trying to attend counselling for it but my anxiety and depression are so bad that I can’t work right now.”

[Interruption.] I hear chuntering and I see grinning from people on the Government Benches.

I think it lets the Tories off the hook to say that they do not know the reality and that they do not live in the real world. In a way, they do. They know that this is the effect, but they are not bothered. They are taking the immoral choice, the shameful choice to stick the boot into the people we as a society should be supporting. That is a disgrace in one of the richest countries in the world. This is the choice that they have made. Don’t make this cut.

16:12

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

South Belfast is a relatively prosperous constituency. It is one of those that would be described as “leafy” in political commentary, along with the presumptions and generalisations that mask the economic diversity and substantial need that exist in the community I represent. It includes the highest levels of universal credit claimant rises in Northern Ireland throughout the pandemic, and those reduced earnings are in the context of higher utilities costs—gas prices have risen by a third in Northern Ireland, as was announced last week—and higher food costs, as well as an acute crisis in the availability of affordable rented accommodation.

Colleagues on this side of the House have rightly countered some of the myths that still persist about the reasons that people claim universal credit and, with a number of honourable exceptions, it has been helpful to hear some of the speeches from the Conservative Benches, as well as the interventions from former Ministers. However, some of the commentary that we have heard betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the lives that the people in all our constituencies are living, of the work that they did during the pandemic and of the fact that it is not always as simple as just getting on your bike.

The SDLP has always been critical of the universal credit system. We refused to rubber-stamp it when others in the Assembly adopted it. We saw its inadequacies and the flaws, particularly in the context of insecure work and of Northern Ireland’s completely underfunded and inadequate childcare system. Yesterday, the Northern Irish Economy Minister came to my constituency and announced a high-street voucher spending scheme. Every adult in Northern Ireland will be given £100 in vouchers to prop up our beleaguered retail offerings. That is what one hand is giving while the other is removing £7 million in universal credit money from my constituency alone. We know that those funds are spent promptly and carefully on the local high street. This cut is not progressive, and this is not joined-up government. This is not doing the economy any favours, but it is not too late to change course.

16:15

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

This cut to universal credit is perhaps one of the most callous and cruel policies this Government have proposed, and we have a long list to choose from. After more than a decade of brutal austerity measures and chronic Tory mismanagement, absolute poverty and child poverty were soaring even before the devastating impact of the pandemic. In my Liverpool, Riverside constituency, where child poverty, relative poverty and absolute poverty already soar above the national average, it amounts to more than 3,200 families and nearly 6,000 children.

This draconian Tory Government are dangerously out of touch with the reality of millions. They have no comprehension of the reality of poverty, of missing meals and going cold. They claim that the need for fiscal responsibility overrides the need for just and fair policies, as if the two are mutually exclusive and as if economic prosperity cannot exist without inequality and poverty. The cut of £1,000 from the pockets of those most in need is the ugly face of that ideology of class warfare—let us call it what it is.

As a black, working-class woman born and raised in Liverpool, I know full well the impact of this class warfare. Thatcher’s policies of managed decline in the 1980s threaten to pale by comparison with the cruelty of this Tory Government. The bare, honest truth is that this cut is not fiscally competent. Hitting workers’ spending power with cuts to universal credit, a rise in national insurance contributions, a public sector pay freeze and a personal income tax freeze is not the economic competence that the Tories claim. It is the opposite.

Instead of taking money out of the pockets of those most in need, the Government must wake up to the reality facing millions of families who will be pushed into Dickensian levels of poverty and misery. I call on Members on both sides of the House to cancel this cut.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Front Benchers, I should say that they have agreed to cut down their contributions to allow everybody to get in.

16:16

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

I thank so many of my hon. Friends for their powerful contributions to today’s important debate. Time is short, so I apologise that I am not able to mention them all personally. I also acknowledge the small number of Conservative Members who called on their own side to think again on this issue.

This debate has been rich in statistics, which reflects both the scale of the mistake the Government are on track to make, and the horror so many of us feel at the simple evidence of the numbers affected and that the impact on each family seems to bear such little weight on the Government’s decision making.

This debate has also been rich in powerful stories about what £20 each week, £100 each month, means to families right across our country. It means enough food to get through the week, it means being able to keep the house warm as the nights grow longer and it means growing children having clothes that fit them properly and warm clothes to see them through the winter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), in opening the debate, set out powerfully that the cut to universal credit hurts families in work, as well as those out of work. It is no solution to tell people who are about to be clobbered by this cut that they need to go and get a job when so many are already working all the hours God sends. Nor is it any solution for those who, by reason of disability, illness or caring responsibilities, simply cannot work.

This decision to cut the incomes of millions of families is a choice, but it is a choice that sadly fits with so many recent decisions made by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Last November, the Chancellor chose to put up council tax for the very families we are talking about today. He chose to freeze the pay of millions of frontline workers. In March, he chose to freeze income tax thresholds. Last week, he had a brand new tax on working people and their jobs. And today we are debating cutting universal credit.

Again and again, this Government look first to working people, rather than looking across the piece at our tax system. There was a stamp duty holiday for buy-to-let landlords and second home owners, but they have taken £1,000 a year out of the incomes of working people who are doing all that is asked of them.

The most recent figures show that GDP growth is stalling, and this morning’s inflation figures show us that the weekly shop is getting more expensive. Now is not the time to be sucking demand out of our economy. The Government are taking away £20 each week from budgets that are already stretched and from our high streets and local businesses that are getting back on their feet after a tough 18 months.

When I talk of universal credit as a meal on the table for families, heating for homes and coats for children, it is because I know the difference that the money makes. For me, this is more than political—it is personal. Growing up in the north-east in the 1980s, I was one of those children. Not long after starting school, as the winter drew in, my mam could not afford a new coat for me. She was a single parent, money was tight and we did not always have much. I was kept warm by the generosity of a neighbour, who himself did not have much, who saw me and put some money through our door in an envelope marked, “For Bridget’s coat”. I never forgot that kindness.

I thought, and hoped, that more than 30 years later we had moved on. I thought that as a society we would never again allow children to grow up in poverty, never again allow families like my own to be so dependent on random acts of kindness from others. As I grew up, I saw a Labour Government lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I saw that poverty is not inevitable: it is about the choices politicians make. Poverty is not about coats or food in and of themselves—it is about the power to make choices for yourself and to have control over your own future. Today, we are seeing a Government about to plunge hundreds of thousands of children back into avoidable poverty.

Today’s debate is not about me. It is about the worried families in my community and across our country starting to think about the same horrible, painful decisions that my family faced all those years ago. At tables across this country, in every constituency, those discussions, those calculations, will be happening this evening and in the weeks to come. They are not decisions I would wish on anyone. They are not decisions Conservative Ministers should be forcing on anyone. That is why I urge all Members to make a different choice this afternoon. I urge Conservative Members to abandon their plans to take away £20 each week from struggling families, and to remember the common decency and compassion that should unite us all. I urge them to support our motion and join us in the Lobby this evening. It is time to cancel the cut.

16:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

Let me begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate, and I will endeavour to respond to the points raised in the short time left available to me.

This debate has been wide ranging, and there is no question but that the last 18 months have brought unprecedented challenges. We have all had to change the way we have lived and worked, but in the face of adversity this Government provided an unprecedented response and delivered support to families across the country in response to this crisis.

We have heard how the £20 per week uplift to UC has made a difference to households facing economic shock and financial disruption as a result of the pandemic, and we have heard calls for the uplift to be made permanent and extended to those on legacy benefits. But I have to remind the House that the Chancellor has always been clear that the UC temporary uplift was a pandemic response, and he ensured that the support was in place well beyond the end of restrictions and reopening of our economy.

Not one Member of this House wants to see anyone in our constituencies in poverty. It is incumbent on all of us to work together to tackle the root causes and drivers of poverty. No one Member of this House has a monopoly on ideas and solutions to tackling poverty, and I have no doubt that everyone taking part in today’s debate wants to achieve the same outcome, but via differing means.

As we have heard in the debate, there have been significant positive developments in the public health situation since the extension to the uplift was announced: the vaccine roll-out is progressing well; restrictions have been eased; and our economy is opening up. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her opening speech, job vacancies are currently above pre-pandemic rates. They are sitting just below a record high since the series began in 2018. There are more than 1 million active vacancies in our labour market and hundreds of thousands are moving into employment every week. That is a very promising sign that our economy is recovering, and quickly.

Universal credit provides a safety net, but it is not designed to trap people on welfare. Fundamentally, we recognise that work is the best route to prosperity and it is therefore right that the Government should now shift their focus to supporting people back into work and to progress in work. We have a comprehensive plan for jobs to help us achieve that objective.

Several Members called for the uplift to be made permanent. I want to tackle head-on the suggestion that this is a cut. I have to say that this is what turns people off politics and politicians. The removal of a clear, time-limited measure for a specific purpose is clearly not a cut and to describe it as such is disingenuous. There is no saving; in fact, it is quite the opposite: a further £6 billion would need to be raised through taxation just to maintain the uplift, let alone to extend it to legacy benefits. To my knowledge, not one Opposition party called for an uplift to the standard allowance of universal credit 18 months ago. In fact, when the Labour party was last in Government, it did not increase the rate of unemployment benefit above inflation because it was concerned about work incentives.

Several Members raised the annual cost of the uplift, which I can confirm would be £6 billion. The Chancellor has been absolutely clear that new day-to-day spending must be funded through savings or taxation, as part of a return to living within our means. This all has to be paid for. As hard as these decisions are—and they are hard—we have a duty to be fiscally responsible and to ensure that we have a welfare safety net that is there to support those who need it, that incentivises work, that is fair to taxpayers and that is sustainable for the future.

It was precisely because of our fiscal prudence since 2010 that this Government were in a position to put in place an unprecedented support package during the worst stages of the pandemic, to protect people, jobs and livelihoods. For context, it may assist the House to know that to raise £6 billion in taxation would require the equivalent of adding 1p on the basic rate of income tax in addition to a 3p increase in fuel duty. That would be a significant tax increase for hard-working families next year.

Several Members expressed concerns about poverty, which of course concerns me too. As I have said, universal credit provides a safety net, but it is not designed to trap people in welfare. All the evidence suggests that work, particularly full-time work, is the best route out of poverty and to prosperity. In 2019-20, there was only a 3% chance of children being in absolute poverty if both parents worked full time, compared with a 42% chance for two-parent families with only part-time work. Whether it is kickstart, restart, JETS or the 13,500 additional work coaches, this Government have a comprehensive plan for jobs to help us to achieve our objective.

In 2021-22, we will spend more than £111 billion on benefits for working-age people. On our support for those who are struggling, there will be £670 million in funding for local authorities, to help with council tax support; nearly £2 billion to increase the local housing allowance and maintain it in cash terms; £140 million in discretionary housing payments; and £220 million to extend the holiday activities and food programme. We have increased Healthy Start voucher payments from £3.10 to £4.25, and we have increased the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91 an hour and extended it to all those aged 23 or over.

In conclusion, as we have demonstrated during the pandemic, the Government are committed to supporting the poorest, the lowest-paid and the most vulnerable in our society and to ensuring that people have the support that they need. Now is the time to be positive and ambitious and to look to the future. The expected rise in unemployment during 2021 has not materialised. The unemployment rate is now around half a percentage point lower than it was at the start of 2021. Vacancies are up to record numbers and now stand at more than 1 million, which is more than double the number this time last year. The number of furloughed workers is falling each week and the number of payrolled workers is up by nearly 1 million since the start of the year. Everything is moving in the right the direction, so our focus is rightly on continuing the implementation of our multibillion-pound plan for jobs. After all, a working Britain is a Britain that works. That is a pillar of our agenda as we build back better and fairer for our whole United Kingdom.

Question put.

16:29

Division 74

Ayes: 253

Noes: 0

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to cancel its planned cut to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit which from the end of September 2021 will reduce support for many hard-working families by £1,040 a year.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a disgrace that the Government have developed this habit of abstaining completely from Opposition day votes because they do not have the guts to oppose in the Lobby the things that we suggest, and they are frightened of the effect that it will have in their constituencies? It was once the case that when Governments lost Opposition day votes they put into effect the will of the House. This Government are showing such contempt for the House that they cannot even be bothered to take part in these votes. Is that not a disgrace? Is there anything, as a House, that we can do to prevent this despicable behaviour?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has expressed itself very clearly in saying that there are concerns about the £20 of universal credit being taken away from the people who need it most. That being the case, how can we ensure, legislatively, that we turn that into a victory for the people we represent in this House and for those who want that universal credit money to continue for at least a period of time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman for their points of order. How the Government choose to vote is not a point of order for the Chair, but it might be helpful if I remind the House that on 26 October 2017 the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), set out the following:

“Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate.”

I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard that. To address the hon. Gentleman’s point directly, the resolution on an Opposition motion is not a binding resolution, hence my drawing attention to the fact that we assume that a Minister will come to the House within 12 weeks to respond.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that if the Government do not take action on the universal credit cut, in 12 weeks that £20 a week will be gone from the constituents who we all represent. On a broader point of consistency, the Government have clearly abstained on the vote on the first motion of this Opposition day. The subsequent motion is essentially a motion about House business and would instruct Mr Speaker to set up a Committee. How can the Government claim to have consistency when they abstain in the vote on the first motion and will almost certainly vote against the second motion this evening?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid I am not really answerable for whether there is consistency in the choices that are made. Every Member has the right to decide whether they want to vote or not vote. I assume that these issues could well be addressed later in the debate, to which we now come.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind hon. and right hon. Members that I will only call those who are here at the beginning of the debate. It is important to keep bobbing to show that those who have put in for the debate still wish to speak. All Members must be present at the end of the debate, too, so Members should bear that in mind when considering whether they definitely want to speak.

16:46

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

(1) That it is expedient:

(a) that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed for the remainder of the current session to consider:

(i) Government policy on Afghanistan from the Doha Agreement in February 2020 to the conclusion of Operation Pitting on 27 August 2021;

(ii) The intelligence assessments made of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan during this period, the extent to which those assessments were accurate, and the decisions taken by Ministers in response to that intelligence;

(iii) The ARAP scheme, including eligibility for the scheme, and policy towards civilian resettlement;

(iv) The planning of the Government, including any contingency planning, the crisis management process of the Government, and planning for the availability of Ministers if the situation deteriorated;

(b) that the Chair of the Committee shall be a backbench Member of a party represented in Her Majesty’s Government and shall be elected by the House of Commons under arrangements approved by Mr Speaker.

(2) That a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with any committee to be appointed by the Lords for this purpose.

(3) That the Committee should publish its first report no later than 31 March 2022.

(4) That the Committee shall have power:

(a) to send for persons, papers and records;

(b) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(c) to report from time to time;

(d) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(e) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

(5) That the quorum of the Committee shall be three.

(6) That, in addition to the Chair elected under paragraph (1)(b) above, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and the Chairs of the Defence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, the International Development Committee and the International Trade Committee shall be members of the Committee.

This has been a painful few weeks. The chaotic end to 20 years in Afghanistan left hundreds of British citizens and thousands of Afghans behind. Two decades of work, the transformation of the economy through landmine clearance, the improvements to healthcare, media freedom and the education of millions of girls are now at risk as the Taliban regime returns. A generation of young Afghans are watching the future they were promised disappear before their eyes. We owe it to them, to the 150,000 brave military personnel, to the families of 457 British soldiers who never made it home and to our diplomats and aid workers who fought for a better future, to tell the truth about what went wrong over the past 18 months and what is still going wrong at the heart of Government, and to do everything in our power to support the people of Afghanistan and secure the safety of British people.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I fully agree with the hon. Member that we need to get to the bottom of what has happened in the past 18 months, and I agree with the motion. Does she also agree that we need to look at the past 20 years and how we even got to where we were 18 months ago? That means looking at why we went in, how the objectives changed over the years, who supported the Taliban and who kept them strong in Afghanistan and enabled their resurgence. Does she agree we need a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of that?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and say to him that I absolutely accept that lessons have to be learned from the experience in Afghanistan over the past 20 years. There are a range of views in this House about the decisions taken over two decades by successive Governments on different sides of the Atlantic. All of us in this House should approach that inquiry with a level of humility and introspection. That does not mean we cannot learn the lessons right now from what has happened over the past 18 months, and learn them quickly.

In 20 years, not a single attack has been launched against us from Afghanistan. Those gains must be protected. We need to learn lessons and chart a course for the future. We deserve to know why for years successive Conservative Governments have dragged their heels over the resettlement of Afghan interpreters. One of my hon. Friends still has an interpreter who is in hiding and is being hunted door-to-door by the Taliban. We deserve to know why, when the Government had 18 months to plan, they were so completely unprepared that troops had to be sent into danger to pull people through crowds and on to planes.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Many of us on the Opposition Benches and across the House will have constituents who have family members in Afghanistan—for example, I have a mother whose husband and two of her children are in Kabul, left behind in the chaos. While I pay tribute to the bravery of people who were working on the frontline, does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have heard so little from the Government over these weeks? Those desperate families are simply not getting the information or advice that we all need.

[Lisa Nandy]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on behalf of her constituents and their family members in Afghanistan. Members across the House have been working tirelessly to raise cases with the Government only to be told suddenly—despite the Prime Minister’s promise that we would all receive answers by last Monday—that we should not send emails and that not a single one would receive a response. It is disgraceful.

We deserve to know why, when the Foreign Office’s own assessment warned on 22 July that the Taliban were advancing rapidly, no action was taken, and why the Foreign Secretary appeared not to be aware of the report when it was raised with him by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). We deserve to know why the Foreign Office crisis centre was set up after Kabul had fallen, why crucial papers identifying local employees were left abandoned on an embassy floor and why thousands of emails from Members of this House addressing urgent cases are sitting unopened and unread in inboxes.

Ministers still come to the Dispatch Box unable to answer basic questions such as how many British nationals have been left behind, Departments are still unable to pick up the phone to each other to resolve basic issues, and the Prime Minister pledges that all cases will receive a response within hours but, weeks later, it has not been done. It is disgraceful. Lives are at risk.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions the plight of British nationals still stuck in Afghanistan. I have 11 such constituents, including an 18-month-old baby, yet the Government refuse to respond when we email them. Does she agree that that is completely unacceptable and that they must put a plan together urgently to get these British nationals home?

[Lisa Nandy]

I completely agree. I am aware of that case and how hard my hon. Friend has been fighting on behalf of her constituents. How on earth are we supposed to trust that the Government are dealing with the serious security threats we face or the evacuation of thousands whose lives are urgently at risk if they cannot even keep a promise to reply to emails? Quite simply, it is Parliament’s job to get answers to those questions, and the Opposition believe that we need proper tools to do it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Is there not another issue? Lots of the people about whom many hon. Members have been writing to three Departments—let us hope that, as I think the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa said last week, we will get the reply from the Foreign Office, which will apparently be by the end of tomorrow—will now need consular support from somewhere, either in country or out of country. However, as I understand it, the Government have done nothing to make that provision available to them. Unlike what the Americans are doing, it feels like we have given in and surrendered.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for saving me a bit of time in my speech. I hope the Minister heard that and will provide us with answers today.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

These are all important questions, but, notwithstanding the bravery of 70,000 Afghans who gave their lives over recent years and against the background of the howl of the loss of rights, opportunities and futures for women and everyone, is not the burning question about the failure of strategic policy and how, in the recent conflict, the Taliban walked into Kabul without having to fight for it? We must answer the question of why that happened.

[Lisa Nandy]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have many disagreements, but I think we can agree that, over 20 years, our troops played an incredibly important role in supporting the work of the Afghan forces and that we should all honour and respect that. We should also learn the lessons from why the withdrawal ended up in such chaos, why our troops had to be sent into danger, why so many people were left behind, why the Taliban were able to advance so rapidly and why the morale of the Afghan security forces collapsed so quickly. What were the intelligence assessment failures that meant we did not see that coming? We need to answer all those questions relatively quickly. That is why Labour proposes this motion.

The motion would create a Committee of Members from across the House, with a Chair chosen by the whole House, drawing on the knowledge and experience of the other place. Its remit would be to examine the full story of the last 18 months from the Doha agreement to the conclusion of Operation Pitting and provide for the inquiry to be done in a timely manner so that this Parliament ensures that responsibility is taken and lessons are learned.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

rose—

[Lisa Nandy]

I will take one more intervention and then try to get on with my speech.

[Adam Afriyie]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. It strikes me, having been in this place for some time, that it is the role of Select Committees to undertake such inquiries. Is it not up to Select Committee Chairs to make that judgment?

[Lisa Nandy]

A number of Select Committees—I pay tribute to their Chairs and members—have announced their own inquiries, but the failings we have seen most pressingly in recent months have been the failures of co-ordination between different Government Departments, and it would be a serious mistake to replicate the siloed approach that has failed so badly in the work this House does to ensure that lessons are learned and mistakes are put right.

If the Government do not learn from these mistakes, they will repeat them. The problem is that the failures over Afghanistan are indicative of a wider pattern—a foreign policy that is reactive rather than strategic, and improvised, not planned. Setting up a crisis centre after Kabul had fallen, ignoring phone calls in the build-up to the crisis and then rushing on a hastily organised regional tour, and cutting aid to Afghanistan only to have to restore it—this is a foreign policy of negligence that is careless about the consequences for people’s lives. It is disjointed and incoherent when we need principled and consistent leadership. We need a Government who can build consensus with international partners and who are trusted and credible on the world stage.

We must look forward as well as back to understand not just where Government policy has gone wrong, but to confront the reality of Taliban rule. This requires action on several fronts, starting with those left behind. We are so grateful to the soldiers, diplomats and civil servants who flew into danger to evacuate thousands as part of Operation Pitting—they remind us what courage looks like—but they are heartbroken at how many people were left behind. MPs and staff from across this House have been working around the clock to escalate the cases of British nationals and Afghans who were left behind. Many of them are still being hunted from door to door because of their connection to Britain and their support for our efforts. How on earth could it be that, when I asked the Foreign Secretary how many British nationals are in contact with his Department seeking help with evacuation, he did not know? Can the Minister tell us how many people that is today?

It is not just about the numbers; it is about the complexity of the cases. We are in touch with British nationals who are wheelchair-bound, while babies and one-year-olds have been left by themselves. One man is on dialysis, and he cannot follow the Defence Secretary’s advice to try to get to a border. Every Government have a duty above all to protect their own citizens. That there is still no advice for them is a first-order failure of Government, and it must be resolved.

We were infuriated and dispirited to learn that thousands of our emails had not even been opened by the Department. The Minister told MPs they would get a reply by tomorrow about British nationals stranded in Afghanistan. Will he respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and make sure that those replies are forthcoming? I did a ring around before I left the office, and I could not find a single MP who has had a substantive reply to those emails from the Foreign Office yet.

Is the Minister going to do that, or is he going to follow the appalling example of the Home Office? In a letter to MPs this week, it told us that we must

“deal with the circumstances as they are, not how we wish them to be”.

The letter confirmed that it is just

“logging the cases we have and considering how this data will be used in the future”,

and it asked MPs not to “pursue cases” any more. This is utterly shameful. For the Prime Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he is moving heaven and earth to sort this out, promising responses by close of play over a week ago, and then leave it to a junior Minister to tell us that the Afghans who supported and helped us—they went into the crowds and pulled people into the airport in the face of gunfire—are on their own is an absolute disgrace, and the Minister has to set it right today.

I know the Minister has made some limited progress with keeping the borders open, but there are immediate practical steps he must take now. Countries in the region tell me they need far more support with covid testing facilities for new arrivals and a greater UK presence at the borders. Because many of those travelling are considered special cases under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, there is no guarantee of onward travel to the UK, so they are not being admitted.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

There are 100 people with a connection to my seat in Reading who are still stuck in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently about the plight of these people, who urgently need our help. Does she agree that the Government should have taken much earlier action to secure access at land borders to get these people out?

[Lisa Nandy]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I want to pay tribute to Lord Ahmad for having, belatedly, rolled into action to try to overcome some of those difficulties, but I say to those on the Treasury Bench that far more can be done. I have a list of Afghan women MPs who need paperwork to cross the border to neighbouring states and onward travel to the UK. I know Lord Ahmad, the Minister for South Asia, has this list too; can the Minister replying to this debate assure me he will work with me so this can be resolved in the next 24 hours?

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we only have to look around these Benches to see the powerful and important role women play in the political arena, and that we must therefore do all we can to support and protect the brave women who served in the Afghan Government?

[Lisa Nandy]

I could not agree more and am sure we can find cross-party consensus on this, but those women need practical help now. There is a way to get them to the border if we can issue them with the paperwork, so will the Minister commit to working with the Ministry of Defence, which is represented here today, to make sure that paperwork is issued within the next 24 hours?

Beyond the help for those left behind, we need urgent action on the humanitarian crisis. There are 37 million Afghans now living under a Taliban regime. The pledging conference was a start, but there are practical challenges. I was very concerned to speak to aid workers in Afghanistan recently who have been told that women aid workers cannot return to work. They are understandably unwilling to operate under those conditions; what discussions has the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office had with our allies and with the Taliban to ensure that that work can begin again without conditions?

We need a global agreement to deal with the refugee crisis, as the Minister knows, but we also need to make sure the UK plays its part. Pakistan is, for instance, home to 3 million Afghan refugees already and is being asked to take more when the UK has capped its contribution at 5,000 over the next year. Can the Minister see the problem? If we want to keep the borders open he will have to pick up the phone to the Home Office to see what more can be done, and while he is doing that perhaps he will mention to the Home Secretary that this warm welcome looks pretty chilly indeed when families are being dumped into overcrowded hostels and hotels without local authorities even being notified that they are there.

No one in Government has yet been able to outline a political strategy. We need clarity on how the Government intend to try to influence the new Taliban regime, a clear assessment of the financial and economic leverage available, and clarity on the Government’s approach to conditionality. We are now in the unpalatable position of being dependent on the Taliban’s promises that they have changed; I am sure I am not the only Member who is deeply sceptical about their assurances. Whatever the PR operation in Qatar is telling us, on the ground there are daily reports coming into my office of journalists being beaten, women being hunted and minority groups being tortured and killed, so how does the Minister intend to use our leverage, particularly financial and economic, to ensure the Taliban keep that promise?

Finally, on national security we must have assurances that effective security checks are applied to those coming to the UK, and that there is clarity on the threat assessment and a plan to strengthen our intelligence coverage of Afghanistan now that the UK is no longer present on the ground. As well as the reality of those left behind in Afghanistan, what keeps me awake at night is the unknown security risks we now face. There are ways to address this, but one consequence might be that we become more reliant on countries that are not our natural partners. When we went to the UN, we were reliant on China and Russia in order to establish a joint international approach. What does this mean for Britain as we enter the next few weeks or the great strategic challenges that will become apparent in just a month’s time at COP26?

It did not have to be like this; we could have used the last 18 months to plan our exit and to recommit to the aspirations of the Afghan people for a peaceful democratic country. Although we are withdrawing troops, we should not walk away from the people of Afghanistan. The alternative to chaotic exit is not endless war, as the former Foreign Secretary the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) suggested, but the endless, tireless pursuit of peace that shows leadership on refugees instead of simply lecturing other countries, and that invests in friendships and alliances so that when we most need them we find willing partners who stand with us and readily answer our call. That was the spirit shown by our troops, our diplomats, our civil servants and the Afghan people over two decades. We owe it to them to learn the lessons, we owe it to them to do better. I commend this motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister, I have further news in relation to the points of order that were raised earlier. Initially, the Government committed to making a statement in response to any such votes as took place earlier within 12 weeks. However, in 2019, the Government reduced that deadline to eight weeks. I thought it would be helpful for the House to know that so that it is clear about the position. If there are any further concerns, I am sure that Members will consider raising them with the Leader of the House at business questions tomorrow.

There is pressure on time in this debate, so there will be an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches. It may be five minutes, but it might be four, depending on the length of the Front-Bench contributions. Just to reiterate, if anyone stands who was not here at the beginning of the debate, they will not be called.

17:05

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for calling today’s debate on an incredibly important issue.

In response to the crisis in Afghanistan, we have delivered the largest and most complex evacuation in living memory. In the space of just two weeks, we evacuated around 8,000 British nationals, around 5,000 Afghans under the ARAP scheme, and around 500 Afghan special cases, including judges, Chevening scholars, journalists and women’s rights activists. That is in addition to the 1,978 Afghans evacuated through the ARAP scheme between April, when we started the scheme, and the end of August.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

In her statement on Monday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said:

“Family members of British citizens or”

Afghans settled in the UK

“who do not qualify for the ACRS”—

the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme—

“can apply to come to the UK”—[Official Report, 13 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 685.]

under existing “family routes”. The majority of our cases, I suspect, are those family reunion cases. What priority will be given to those? She also said that

“we will not be able, therefore, to respond to colleagues with specific updates on individuals.”

Does that mean that the 160 letters that I am waiting for a reply to will not get any reply at all?

[James Cleverly]

I will come on to how we intend to inform Members about cases that they have raised with us. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will address that.

We also repatriated an estimated 500 British nationals who left Afghanistan in accordance with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office travel advice when that was changed. In total, from April this year to August, we helped over 17,000 people get to safety. I pay tribute to the troops and civilian staff who helped to make that possible, and I pay tribute once again to all those who served in Afghanistan over the last 20 years, whether in the armed forces or in other roles.

In this next phase, we are working to secure safe passage for those British nationals and eligible Afghans who remain in the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the then Foreign Secretary, visited Qatar two weeks ago to discuss efforts to re-establish flights from Kabul airport and the wider international approach to the Taliban. International flights have now started. We secured places for 13 British nationals on the first Qatari flight from Kabul on 9 September, and 21 British nationals were on the second flight the following day. We will continue this work to help evacuate British nationals via that route.

[Chris Bryant]

I have two quick questions. First, how many British nationals does the Minister think are still in Afghanistan? Secondly, if other people—Afghan nationals—are going to be helped out, some of them will still need consular support because they will need visas or permits to travel. How do we intend that that support be given? Are we doing that through another nation state? Are we going to be able to do that from out of country? What is the plan?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman asks about the number of people in Afghanistan. He will understand that the British Government do not demand British nationals overseas register with us. We do not demand that when they cross borders, so it is incredibly difficult—this is one of the challenges we are facing—to put a precise figure on the number of British nationals in Afghanistan, particularly, as I say, because there is no requirement necessarily for people to register with us when they cross borders.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Cleverly]

I am conscious that there is huge interest in this debate and I really do want to make some progress.

We are working closely with Afghanistan’s neighbours to ensure safe passage through those countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, the then Foreign Secretary, visited Pakistan after Qatar and saw for himself the situation at Torkham on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He also had discussions with the Foreign Ministers of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Iran.

Our diplomacy is paying off. Over the weekend, we helped to secure safe passage for Afghan nationals, including the staff of the Nowzad animal welfare charity, which I know is of huge interest both to hon. Members and the British people more widely, after they made their way to the border. We also dispatched a rapid deployment team comprising 23 staff to the region last week to support our embassies in processing those cases, which goes to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about where they would be processed. Those cases will be processed wherever is most appropriate, although the main ambassadorial team which served in Afghanistan is currently based in Doha. We are sending further rapid deployment teams to bolster those efforts, with additional staff being sent to Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Members on both sides of the House are fighting the corner for deserving Afghans whom we want to save. The Minister has just said that the Nowzad animal charity staff, who were not ARAP people and not British citizens, have been given safe passage, having got to the border. Does that mean that the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is now up and running, because we have all got good cases that qualify just as much as those worthy people do for immediate help and rescue?

[James Cleverly]

I will address that point shortly.

In addition to that deployment of staff, we are providing £30 million to Afghanistan’s neighbours to provide lifesaving support for refugees. Meanwhile—this touches on the point my right hon. Friend mentions—the Home Office is currently in the process of fully launching the resettlement programme, providing a safe and legal route to the UK for up to 20,000 Afghans in the region.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[James Cleverly]

I really do have to make some progress. There are a lot of points that I wish to cover. I am sure Members will be able to bring that up in the forthcoming debate.

The FCDO team in London and internationally continue to work around the clock to support processing and responding to the correspondence that has been sent by Members of this House. During the evacuation operation alone, the FCDO received, as I have said previously at the Dispatch Box, over 200,000 emails. Approximately 30,000 of these emails were from MPs. That volume reflects the concern and passion of the House, and we completely understand that. However, working through that volume of emails has been a Herculean task.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[James Cleverly]

I am going to make progress.

Hundreds of civil servants are being assigned to work through that case load each day, working in multiple shifts through the day, seven days a week. The FCDO aimed to complete the triage of cases to the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office, and notify hon. Members by tomorrow. It has become increasingly clear, as we work through cases, that both the volume and their complexity mean that we will have to take longer than we had originally hoped.

What we have learnt is that some individual pieces of correspondence contain very large numbers of highly complex cases, which means that it is not always obvious which Government Department is the most appropriate recipient for the email and makes predicting how long this work will take very difficult. However, I can tell the House that, by tomorrow, the FCDO will have contacted more than half the hon. Members who have written to us to, letting them know which Department their cases have been sent to. We will endeavour to complete that process for all but the small minority of MPs with the most complex cases by the timelines previously communicated to Members.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and particularly for his update on his discussions with other countries, including Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which are a very important part of the puzzle. I want to make two specific points. First, there is a new form on the Foreign Office website for British nationals in Afghanistan to register, but when I asked the Foreign Secretary about whether that form needed to be completed again by British nationals who have already notified the Foreign Office that they are still there, he said he did not know and suggested I ask the Minister. So I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on whether British nationals still in Afghanistan—this is a very important point—have to fill out another form to be on the Foreign Office’s register.

Secondly, I want to ask about Afghan nationals who are at risk. A particular example is someone who worked as a BBC journalist who is in hiding at the moment with her children. What advice should I be giving her right now? She is a relative of a constituent and at serious risk at this moment.

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s desire to get information to at-risk Afghans. It is not possible for me to give credible advice based just on the information that she has sent through. She makes the point about the website. While it is not necessarily the duty of Members of the House to understand the machinery of government, it is worth while them understanding that, when the Foreign Office has received emails, sometimes with the details of hundreds of individual cases, it is very difficult at times even to double-check to see whether those details have already been passed to us. Even in the case of British nationals, we have received cases that have been a mix of British nationals, potential ARAP scheme Afghans and other Afghans who are likely to come through in the Home Office scheme that has been announced. Working through them—triaging and distributing them—is an incredibly time-consuming and complex process, which we have to do with care.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is obviously right that we crack through this casework as soon as possible, particularly in relation to UK nationals and those who come under the scope of the ARAP scheme. That is a UK responsibility and we will be faced with a refugee crisis—of that there is no question. We will therefore need a much bigger programme to take as many people as is reasonable, with our partners. The expert in this matter is the United Nations, which has of course provided triage, relatively recently and contemporaneously, in the Syrian resettlement programme, so what discussion has the Minister had with the UN about how to manage this situation, particularly in relation to those who have now fled Afghanistan?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend and I will come on to that point shortly.

As we work through this process, those MPs who have particularly complex cases will ultimately be contacted directly by the ministerial team—they will be phoned by a member of the ministerial team—to update them on the progress of those cases and, where necessary, to establish further information to allow us to process them.

A crisis of this magnitude demands a wider strategic response from the international community, as my right hon. Friend said. The UK is very much leading in that response. We are galvanising actions around four key priorities: first, preventing Afghanistan from ever again becoming a haven for global terrorism; secondly, preventing humanitarian disaster and supporting refugees; thirdly, preserving wider regional stability; and fourthly, holding the Taliban to account for their conduct, including their record on human rights. We will be at the UN General Assembly next week to take forward those priorities with our international partners. Working with the international community, we must set credible tests to hold the Taliban to the undertakings that they have made.

Turning to the motion before the House, I note that there is already a comprehensive range of scrutiny of the Government on the issue. The Select Committees on Foreign Affairs and on Defence have already launched inquiries on Afghanistan; further scrutiny will no doubt come from the House of Lords Select Committee on International Relations and Defence, and possibly from other Committees of this House or the other place. It is not clear what additional value a Joint Committee of both Houses would add.

The motion states that the proposed Joint Committee would

“consider…Government policy on Afghanistan from…February 2020 to…August 2021”.

In fact, the Government’s policy on Afghanistan during that period has been clear and there have been many opportunities to question Ministers and the Government on their approach.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Cleverly]

No, I will conclude, because otherwise I would steal time from hon. Members who wished to contribute to the debate.

The motion proposes that the new Committee

“consider…intelligence assessments made of the…situation in Afghanistan”.

The Intelligence and Security Committee already has statutory responsibility for oversight in that area; it is the proper vehicle for such scrutiny.

The motion then stipulates that the Joint Committee would scrutinise eligibility for the ARAP scheme, but the eligibility criteria have been known to every Member of this House for months and there is no need for a Joint Committee to debate them now or in future. Of course, the overriding challenge that we have faced has not been eligibility per se, but the difficulty of implementing a scheme in the rapidly changing and deteriorating security situation that we have observed in Afghanistan.

Thanks to our brave servicemen and women, no terrorist attack has been successfully launched from Afghanistan against this country in the past 20 years; I am grateful that the hon. Member for Wigan recognised that point. It is painful to watch what has gone on in Afghanistan, but we should remember that 10 million more children have been educated and 8 million landmines have been cleared because of our intervention. In the new reality that we face in Afghanistan today, it will be challenging to preserve those gains—of course it will—but we must do all we can with a concerted new international approach.

The Labour party supported the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. As yet, we have not seen the Opposition putting forward a credible alternative set of policies or strategic approach to this incredibly challenging issue.

As I said, the relevant Select Committees are already looking into the recent events in Afghanistan and providing scrutiny, as they should. The motion would therefore create an unnecessary process and would inevitably duplicate the work of those Committees and divert the Government’s resources from what should be our priority: addressing the needs of those people currently in Afghanistan whom we need to help. I therefore urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject the motion.

17:23

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party supports the motion. I am very glad that the Opposition tabled it, because there is a great deal to learn from the debacle, the failure, the ignominious defeat that we have seen in Afghanistan. We have expressed a preference for an independent judge-led inquiry and we are still very open to that option, but let us consider the motion that stands before us.

I would quibble slightly with the scope of paragraph (1)(a)(i), which would start the timetable from the Doha agreement; we think that previous events need to be properly considered in the round. I would also quibble with paragraph (1)(a)(ii), because I think that there would be quite a lot of overlap with the Intelligence and Security Committee, a point that has been dealt with already. Nevertheless, we support the motion. While taking due cognisance of the Committee inquiries already under way, we think, as Labour does, that the matter is of such significance and magnitude that it must be properly ventilated.

There is a lot to learn from the past few months. One thing that has struck me personally is that, in all our discussions and urgent questions on Afghanistan during and since the emergency recall, not a single person—on either side of the House, actually—has said sorry. Four hundred and fifty-six service personnel lost their lives. We have not said sorry to the veterans and their families. We have not said sorry to the Afghans who believed our promises and whom we collectively—all of us—failed. We have not said sorry either to our taxpayers, who funded this to the tune of many billions of pounds. There is a real need for more collective humility on all of this. I myself am sorry, because I think we have all let the people of Afghanistan down, and I think we need to learn the lessons from that.

I have to say, even to the Minister, that while I pay tribute to the intelligence personnel, the defence personnel and everyone else involved in Operation Pitting—and to everyone who has spent time in Afghanistan keeping the people of the country safe—to present Operation Pitting and recent events as some sort of herculean triumph is out of tune with the reality of the situation. I pay tribute to all those who have achieved so much over recent months, but we must learn the lessons of this collective huge failure. I would counsel a little more humility from the Government Benches and a little less hubris when we are discussing this issue.

There are also lessons for the conduct of the House’s business, because the responses that Members received from the Government were not as they should have been. We are reasonable people. We understand that things were stretched, we understand that things were unprecedented, and we understand that things were moving very fast. We would have taken all that in the round, but it was particularly galling to have a breezy assurance from the Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary that everything would be dealt with, and that everyone would receive a response “by close of play”.

There is a world of difference between a response and an answer, and the inquiries of many Members, on all sides of the House, were not properly dealt with and still have not been. That is something of which the House should take due cognisance. I think that the distinction between those words was cynically abused by the Prime Minister himself—not by this Minister, who is far more credible on the issue. I think that there has been a collective failure of government. It was suggested earlier that the duty of the House is not necessarily to understand the administration of government. I thought that that was precisely the function of the House. We fear that there has been a failure of collective responsibility in this regard.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

When the Minister was on his feet, I hoped to ask him this question. I myself have tried to obtain a copy of the call logs for each Minister for each day during the month of August, so that we can map what Ministers were doing as the Taliban were advancing across Afghanistan. The Department refuses to publish that information, which it holds. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Department will not even do that, it explains why we in the House believe that greater transparency, not less, in government and ministerial actions is what is needed?

[Alyn Smith]

My hon. Friend has made a very sensible point. I would add gently to the Government that perhaps there would not be a call for a specific inquiry if we felt that the inquiries had been dealt with properly thus far.

What we need to do, as a priority—all of us—while learning lessons is get people out and make people safe. I pay tribute to the work that has been done on that, but we need more. The House needs to scrutinise the ARAP scheme itself, but we also urgently need the details of the new scheme so that our constituents can be informed. We in the SNP already think that it needs to be expanded. We do not think that 20,000 is remotely sufficient for the scale of the trouble ahead.

We would also like clarity on the actual timescale. If, as we have heard, “in the coming years” means more people coming in, does that mean that, if 20,000 people apply in the first few months of next year, the scheme will close—in which case it is wholly insufficient—or does it mean that there is a quota for how many people can actually get in? These are basic questions that are as yet unanswered, so we need more details urgently.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

We have another issue, and that is family reunion. The family reunion visa will not be suitable for the situation that we face. There is currently a 12-year-old girl in my constituency who was separated from her parents in the chaos at Kabul airport, and we cannot get the parents out. Surely we need to look very carefully at how we are going to operate family reunion in cases such as that.

[Alyn Smith]

I strongly agree; in fact, that was going to be the next line of my remarks. Indeed, a number of Members across the House have been pressing for details on family reunion. There is also the question of funding for local authorities to keep people safe. I have met three families from Afghanistan who have already been settled in Stirling in the last couple of weeks, and they were particularly concerned about friends and family who were still in the country and still very much in harm’s way. I pay tribute to Stirling Council and to Forth Valley Welcome, who have done so much to make these refugees feel safe and secure in the Forth Valley. I say, in a genuine and constructive offer to the Government, that we can do more: the Forth Valley can do more and Scotland can do more. We need the details of the scheme and particularly of the funding, because we are not going to make promises that we cannot keep, but we are willing to play our part constructively.

There are wider and longer-term implications to the Afghanistan situation. It is not just about Afghanistan. Where is your global Britain now? After Afghanistan, it is clear that the UK cannot operate significant independent engagement and that it has precious little influence on US engagement. This was a collective failure of the US, the UK and others; many countries have failed in this. The world is less secure than it was, and the bad guys are now feeling more confident than they should be. That is something we should all be deeply concerned about.

Domestically, the integrated review is out of date within six months of its publication. We also see that the UK’s Indo-Pacific tilt looks even less credible than it did—and frankly that was not much, from our perspective. Global Britain is not the SNP’s project. That stands to reason, as we have a different world view. We believe that Scotland’s best future is as an independent state within the European Union, but we do not wish global Britain harm. The UK is always going to be our closest neighbour and our closest friend. The SNP submitted constructive suggestions to the integrated defence and foreign affairs review, and they are even more relevant now than they were. We will continue to work constructively, from our perspective, to help our nearest friend and neighbour to learn the lessons of the last few months, but that needs to be done on the basis of humility and reality. Learning lessons would go a long way to support the motion put forward by Labour today, which we are very pleased to support.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are going to try to get everybody in, but I am afraid that the time limit forthwith is four minutes.

17:31

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow several hon. and right hon. Friends. I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with the Opposition and agreeing with those on the Government Benches, which, as many Members will know, has a touch of novelty for me. I think I have been doing my best to hold this Government to account on matters of foreign affairs, but Members might feel that I have not been quite as rigorous on this matter as I should have been today. Could I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to check whether the phone signal is working properly in the Chamber? My phone seems remarkably unable to ring.

[Carol Monaghan]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would share his contact list with me, because he seems to be able to contact the Home Secretary directly while many of us cannot. We have similar cases to his, and I congratulate him on having success with his case, but it might be helpful if he could do that.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I would be absolutely delighted to. As many Members of the House will know, I share any Member’s phone number with other Members once I have got their permission to do so, and if the hon. Lady would like to ask me, I would be very happy to do exactly that.

I share much of the criticism that I have heard from various Members about how the relief and evacuation operations have been handled. I have been pretty critical of the ways in which questions have been answered and co-ordination has been conducted. I think I have also been pretty robust in expressing how that should be improved.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

On the matter of responses, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Government about a friend of mine and a group who were trapped in Afghanistan. The friend of mine, who I worked with 10 years ago at the US Department of State, was an adviser to the Afghan Government. Not only had he fled Afghanistan with his family and gone to Turkey because he saw the writing on the wall, unlike our security services, but he had key expertise to offer. Yet I was not even able to get a response from the Government to acknowledge the name of my friend and the group of human rights defenders. I got a standard response. Luckily my friend has been given passage to the US, but is it not a disgrace that the hon. Gentleman’s Government will not even acknowledge the individual cases and lives that we are raising with them?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady will know that, in all manner of ways, I support this Government, but on this single issue of foreign affairs it is my job to criticise and attack the Government where I feel they are lacking, and I have done so. I will not add to her comments. She has made her point extremely powerfully.

I was pretty clear with the last Foreign Secretary that this is a problem that needs addressing, and needs addressing now. The Foreign Affairs Committee has been pretty robust. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) does not know this yet, but I have just written to the new Foreign Secretary asking for a list of all phone calls. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), will be giving us the information for which we ask. We have asked for the contacts between the Government and other people, and for any number of documents, in order to conduct the inquiry. The hon. Member for Glasgow South will be sitting on the Committee and scrutinising those documents.

The Foreign Affairs Committee appreciates the urgency of which the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) speaks. We appreciate the troubles that many people around the world are facing by not having contact with family and not being able to get family out of Afghanistan. We appreciate the real challenges due to the abject failure and defeat we have seen in Afghanistan. That is why, bizarrely, I find myself on the other side of this argument. The Foreign Affairs Committee is literally doing the job that the Opposition are asking us to do. We started even before Parliament returned with a hearing with the then Foreign Secretary, who I do not think felt that it was a particularly easy ride. I certainly do not think the hon. Member for Glasgow South gave him a particularly easy ride. The Committee has been working as one to interrogate the Department very robustly, which is exactly what Select Committees need to do.

The truth is that the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) has a point. Not unusually, she has got the core of the matter right, which is that we need a much more strategic approach to foreign policy. We need an all-encompassing approach to how we scrutinise it, and we need a much more integrated approach to how Britain approaches the world.

I would like to see the new Foreign Secretary taking on the mantle of overseeing Britain’s foreign strategy in a global sense. I would like to see her speaking about not just foreign policy but also trade policy, defence policy, education policy and justice policy as they affect Britain abroad. Unless there is a Department bringing together Britain’s foreign policy, and unless there is a strategic approach to the kind of integration and interaction we are going to have with other countries, we will find ourselves constantly salami-sliced.

I would like to see that, and obviously I would like to see a supercharged Foreign Affairs Committee scrutinising it, but what I would really like right now is for us not to mess around with the structures of the House but to get on with allowing the Committees that have already started the work to deliver as quickly as possible. Then, if we cannot get the answers, we need to look at a judge-led inquiry, not just another super Committee.

17:38

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Never has the old saying been more true: a failure to plan is a plan to fail. This Government failed to plan and these Ministers are now failing. They are failing people in Afghanistan and their loved ones here in this country.

I put on record my heartfelt thanks to those who went in to serve, to help and to aid those in need, and I put on record my thanks to all our caseworkers and staff, my own included. My staff are now supporting 1,400 people in Afghanistan, the loved ones and family members of people in Birmingham, Hodge Hill constituency. The stories they have heard have been heartbreaking, yet the Government cannot and will not even give us the courtesy of updates on that trauma. Worst have been the cases where family members here in Birmingham have had to listen to their loved ones screaming in terror down the phone and having nothing to do, nothing to say, no update, no comfort to give. One constituent said:

“I literally am on the phone...hearing them scream and cry and beg for help. I have no other choice but to listen and cry dreading if they will be found by the Taliban…they have already executed his brother. I’ve tried calling various immigration numbers, but still of no help.”

Another constituent talked of the cold fear that comes as the Taliban go door to door, hunting those who worked with the fallen regime. One told us how their father was a high-ranking colonel and former Afghan national army instructor, and their sisters were helping women to become literate and learn their rights. We were told:

“This threat is directly facing all my family”.

Another let us know that they had already received a warning letter from the Taliban and they were now in fear of going out to find food. A constituent said to me, “How is that family going to feed their children when they dare not venture into the street to get food?” She said to us that their siblings

“can’t even go outside to provide food for their kids because…Taliban is after my whole family”.

All of us in Birmingham are extremely proud of the way in which our city has stepped up—we are a city of sanctuary and we are very proud of it. Some 1,600 refugees are currently being supported in our city, and I want to put on record my thanks to Councillor John Cotton and his team for their extraordinary work. I have to say that that is in contrast to the council in the constituency of the Minister with responsibility for Afghan resettlement, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who was in her place a moment ago. I am told that that local authority has supported just one asylum seeker since 2016. Can that really be true?

We have no details of the new scheme. We have no updates on the 1,400 cases we have filed for. We have no clarity on the resources that our city needs to provide help. We have no leadership to pull together councils in this country to provide proper support. We have no notice of the so-called “contingency hotels” that are popping up at very short notice. We have no answers to the challenges we put to Serco. We have no strategy, no updates, no clarity, no leadership and nothing to say to our constituents, citizens of this country about to lose the people they love most. These Ministers are not only risking the lives of those abroad; they are breaking the hearts of their family members here at home. The good people of Afghanistan stood with us and it is about time we stood with them.

17:42

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

That harrowing account by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) puts me in mind of what happened to my family in Nazi-occupied Poland for 20 months during the second world war, when they could come out from a bunker under a barn only at night, to be fed by the Polish family who risked their lives to save them. This debate ought to be about what the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), rightly summarised when he said, “Get people out and keep people safe.” That is why I am a little disappointed that I do not feel that I can concentrate on cases such as the ones I have raised before, those of the 16 academics being supported by the Council for At-Risk Academics. These people have places—visiting fellowships and research studentships—in British universities. A dozen of them are still in Afghanistan, three of them have made it to Pakistan and one has even made it to the Netherlands, preparatory to coming here. I do not feel that I can concentrate on that because, unfortunately, the Opposition motion is framed in terms of setting up a:

“Joint Committee to Investigate Withdrawal from Afghanistan”

I am reading from the Annunciator there.

With the greatest respect to the Opposition, may I say that that was a mistake? Late last month, it was announced on the website of the Intelligence and Security Committee—that is the hat I now have to wear—that we had

“requested from the Government any intelligence assessments which covered the outlook for the regime with regards to the final withdrawal of US and coalition forces from Afghanistan”.

When such assessments are received, we shall consider them carefully and then determine any future action to take. Until that has happened, the ISC will not be commenting on what such intelligence may contain, as it is not our role to prejudge the situation on the basis of media speculation and in the absence of primary factual material.

In recent months, the official Opposition have been very supportive of the right of the ISC to fulfil its role, set out in statute and in an associated memorandum of understanding, as the only Committee of parliamentarians cleared and equipped properly to deal with highly-classified intelligence material. If other Committees seek to do this, they will, for a start, require secure premises and specially vetted staff comparable to our own. There are very good reasons for safeguarding the role of the ISC against such interference, and they were spelled out in detail and strongly supported by the Opposition parties during the lively debates in both Houses on the National Security and Investment Bill. Colleagues will be relieved to know that I do not propose to reiterate those arguments today, but the argument for letting the ISC get on with its work steadily and objectively, without being undercut by other bodies not equipped to do it, is as irrefutable now as it was when it was deployed in the context of that Bill earlier this year.

It is entirely up to Select Committee Chairmen to decide whether they want to mount a joint inquiry or join a Joint Committee, but what cannot be part of any such joint inquiry is the adoption by another Committee of the ISC’s raison d’être: namely, scrutiny of the activities of the intelligence community and the classified material on which those activities were based.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for the advice he has given me about cases. On intelligence and security, one of my constituent’s relatives is in Afghanistan. He worked for the intelligence services and has information on intelligence and the armed forces here, but he has not been supported to leave Afghanistan and is now being sought by the Taliban because of what and who he knows. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s view on how we should handle that situation from the point of view of our own security?

[Dr Lewis]

I would have thought that it should come within the compass of the existing Government schemes to classify someone, providing the Government can satisfy themselves that what that person says he has to offer is genuine, and to activate a plan to take advantage of any real intelligence material that someone in that position might be able to offer. Unfortunately, of course, as a result of the chaotic departure that has been forced on America’s allies by successive American Presidents, the wherewithal to secure the safety of anybody inside Afghanistan, and particularly someone whom the Taliban are actively hunting, will be very difficult through any overt scheme. It would have to be done by some form of covert means, on which I hope the Government are working but on which I would not expect them to comment publicly.

To conclude, the position is perfectly clear, according to law, and we shall continue, gently but firmly, to hold the Government and the intelligence agencies properly to account.

17:48

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The relatives of my constituents who are trapped in Afghanistan are precisely those people who for the past 20 years have organised their lives around the future that we promised them: a future of a democratic, rights-based Afghanistan where education and equality were to be entrenched. It is for that reason that they became teachers, lawyers, police officers, judges and doctors. They believed that it was possible to build a new Afghanistan where women, religious minorities like the Shi’as, ethnic minorities like Hazaras, and LGBTQ people were all treated with equal dignity. They did not abandon that promise; we did. Now it is my constituents’ relatives who have been left vulnerable to reprisal. They are in hiding. They are being hunted. They are being executed, and women are being captured and given out as a prize of war.

When Kabul fell a month ago, Members of Parliament and their staff worked round the clock to assist British citizens and their Afghan partners and children, and tried to get them safe passage back to the UK, but everything had started too late and the American deadline governed everything. We need to assess the utter failure of intelligence that had insisted that the Afghan Government would hold Kabul for a further three months. We need an inquiry into why, after 20 years of occupation, our military had not prepared a plan B for an emergency evacuation.

My case against the Government today is that, for many weeks, they engaged Members of Parliament on a fool’s errand. They gave us telephone numbers and email addresses where we should send all the details of our constituents’ loved ones. We were asked to point out how they might be particularly vulnerable because of the work they had done or the religion they professed. This, we were told, was necessary so that they could be “prioritised” and provided a “route to safety”. And we did just that. We took the Government at their word and our staff gave their all, day and night and through weekends, to provide just that information. Now we are told that all that documentation of thousands of desperate lives has gone into a black hole.

The Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), wrote to us to say:

“We cannot provide to MPs assessments or updates on those individuals who remain in Afghanistan and whose cases they have raised.”

In what must count as the ministerial understatement of the year, she said:

“We appreciate this is difficult news to deliver to constituents who are desperately worried about family members and friends.”

She concluded:

“With great regret, we will not be able, therefore, to respond to colleagues with specific updates on individuals.”

This is an extraordinary abrogation of responsibility for those to whom our country owed a debt of honour.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting and for giving the hon. Gentleman an extra minute. If he feels so strongly about this, why is the Opposition motion to have an inquiry? Why is the Opposition motion not to ask for more resources to be put forward to help in this situation?

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not think that anybody can be under any illusion about the fact that all of us who have been dealing with this would want more resources put into the situation.

We were engaged with these people for 20 years in a common endeavour—one that we said reflected our values. Well, where is the value of loyalty? Where is the value of commitment and trust? What we have projected to the world is that we do not care about the lives that are left in ruins or the vicious reprisals that will now be taken against our former friends.

One of my constituents has two brothers. They were in hiding, but were found by the Taliban. One of them was taken out and executed on the spot, the other beaten to a pulp and left for dead, but the Government will not be able to respond to me

“with specific updates about his situation”.

The fact is that, despite what the Minister says, the Government are not “prioritising” these people on the at-risk scheme. They cannot give them priority when they do not know where they are, when there is not even an application form that can be filled out to secure them a place on the resettlement scheme, and when they do not tell these people the most vital information: namely, that they have been prioritised.

The Minister’s letter is full of language that is designed to conceal the fact that nothing is being done for these people. All of this is objectionable, but nothing more so than the unspeakable arrogance of the Minister’s request that MPs should cease to present their constituents’ cases to her Department. It is so very far beyond extraordinary that a Minister of the Crown should actually request that MPs do not stand up for their constituents that I feel I must quote the letter:

“Please signpost individuals to gov.uk to check for the latest information...rather than seek to pursue cases on their behalf.”

The Minister should be absolutely certain that I will not obey any such instruction to stop advocating for my constituents. The Government may choose not to respond, but I will continue to do my duty as a constituency MP.

17:53

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

This is an interesting motion to have to speak against, because I work with a number of Opposition Members on a range of foreign affairs and development issues. To find myself on the polar opposite side from them on an issue that I care deeply about is somewhat frustrating. As has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, if there is the ability for Select Committees to take the decision unilaterally to carry out an investigation or an inquiry into Afghanistan, then that opportunity is already there. I meant no disrespect to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) by intervening and suggesting that point, nor am I giving advice to the Labour party, but the suggestion in the motion seems at odds with what we really want to do. Members across the House have raised their legitimate concerns and spoken about what they want to do to help constituents and their families who may be in Afghanistan. I want to concentrate on that.

As the Minister said in his opening remarks, we have to focus on the diplomatic levers at our disposal in the form of the G7, NATO or the UN. Failing that, we should look to see how we can co-operate with others in the region or others who may have a vested interest in helping out in these circumstances—a D10+, perhaps. That is what we should be looking at and focusing on, because inquiries will not help the people of Afghanistan now, when we most desperately need to do so.

I was surprised that the shadow Foreign Secretary, who makes incredibly powerful speeches, did not pay more attention to the support that we can give to NGOs, the only western organisations that are still on the ground—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she is more than welcome to.

[Lisa Nandy]

I have written to the Foreign Secretary three times on that very point and not received a response. Perhaps the Minister, who has heard this exchange, will respond to that point today.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I very much hope so. I was making that point about the hon. Lady’s speech this afternoon, not about private letters that I would not have seen. I have had conversations with the Minister, including last night, about what extra support we can give to the NGOs. The House needs to think very carefully about how we integrate and operate with, and support, the NGOs, because it is in the Taliban’s interest that those organisations stay there.

My second point is one that I have made before in this Chamber, regarding the reopening of our embassy. A set of parameters will clearly have to be met to allow us to reopen the British embassy, but doing so will allow us to have a diplomatic network and a presence in Afghanistan again. I hasten to add that we have the most extensive diplomatic network in the world, which most of our allies rely on, including in places such as North Korea. These are the things that we need to think about so that we can help the people of Afghanistan—not through inquiries, but through delegated action and the achievement of helping to bring people back to and over to the UK.

My last point is about preventing sexual violence in conflict, as I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) raised the point about women in Afghanistan, and rightly so. We have to think about how an initiative such as that can be emboldened to help those who are most likely to be at risk under one of the most despotic regimes in the world.

Concentrating on those suggestions would do far more than calling for inquiries, which will give no hope or peace of mind to the people of Afghanistan.

17:57

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I wish to speak in support of this motion to establish a Joint Committee to investigate the withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is essential that we learn as much as we can. As the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said in her opening remarks, if we do not learn from our mistakes, we will repeat our mistakes. I do, however, wish to make some comments on the proposed narrow remit of the committee and on its ability to get to the truth.

First, let me turn to the proposed Committee’s remit. It is obvious—from the questions asked during the debate when Parliament was recalled, the questions to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary last week, and the questions to the Minister responsible for Afghan Resettlement this week—that Members are concerned not simply about a backward-looking review, but about what is happening in the here and now, and how we move forward. However, I recognise that an open-ended inquiry would be difficult, and I am content that working on a timeline up to the completion of the evacuation makes sense at this time. I am also sure that if this Committee is established, many of the practical issues that Members are concerned about can be addressed under an examination of the policy towards civilian resettlement.

I have concerns, though, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), that if the Committee is established to explore UK Government policy on Afghanistan only from the time of the Doha agreement in February 2020, the timeline may be too restrictive. In particular, it is difficult to see how a Committee could fully analyse whether UK Government policy was consistent with the reality unfolding on the ground—based on political and military events in Afghanistan, intelligence assessment, or the actions and comments of our allies leading up to the Doha talks—or, indeed, whether Government planning, including contingency and crisis management planning, was really informed by the actuality of the situation in the country, particularly in relation to the weakness of the Afghan Government and the strength of the Taliban.

Let me explain why I think that is important. The resurgence of the Taliban did not start on the conclusion of the Doha agreement. As early as 2009, President Obama had to send 17,000 more troops to counter that resurgence. The frailty of the Afghan Government did not only become apparent on the conclusion of the Doha agreement; they were described by the US Justice Department in 2018 as

“largely lawless, weak, and dysfunctional”.

Notwithstanding the bravery of many Afghan soldiers and police, the failures of leadership were apparent and documented for years prior to the conclusion of the Doha talks. I am therefore not sure it would be possible, if the starting point is as late as February 2020, to fully judge the effectiveness of UK Government planning when many of the problems that plans must have sought to overcome had their genesis long before that.

It is also the case, as the Chair of the ISC said, that much of the information that the proposed Committee members would find most useful is intelligence assessment. Notwithstanding the proposal that he may be on the new Joint Committee, it simply would not be possible for that committee to receive secret intelligence or assessments. However, there is a great deal of good open-source material and other expert opinion regarding the situation on the ground over the period. The fact that the proposed Committee would have the power to compel Ministers to attend means, on balance, that it would be possible to have detailed consideration of UK Government policy on Afghanistan by the proposed deadline of March 2022.

18:01

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the members of our armed forces and diplomatic staff who have worked tirelessly over the past months in Afghanistan. The shambles lies with Ministers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said. We have to scrutinise this and ensure that lessons are learned. We have some very difficult and unpalatable choices to face in Afghanistan, and some people to speak to whom we do not want to speak to, but those choices will have to be made if we are going to avoid any humanitarian crisis and rescue the people who have been left behind.

The lessons do need to be learned and Ministers need to be scrutinised, but I have a problem with this motion. As outlined by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Intelligence and Security Committee is the only Committee of this House that can have access to the highest grade of top secret information. The motion covers intelligence, but it would be very difficult for the Committee to have access to that. Its members would have to get the highest level of security clearance, and staff would also have to meet those requirements. There would have to be new accommodation to ensure that that information could be discussed. The ISC has its own dedicated accommodation. Computer systems would have to be put in place that could deal with that intelligence. That would simply not be possible, and that is a good reason why the Committee should not be set up in this way.

The Intelligence and Security Committee was set up under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and its powers extended under the Justice and Security Act 2013. We have already asked to see the intelligence that informed Government decision making. Once we have seen that intelligence, we will then wait to see the next steps. It would be wrong to prejudge that. Not only would it be impractical to set up this Committee and take forward some of the things in the motion, but it would undermine the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We are already having a battle with the Government on trying to get access to information in areas that intelligence has now seeped into—for example, the National Security Strategic Investment Fund.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the very difficult practicalities around setting up an inquiry and the intelligence that has to go with it. There is also a limitation on how much intelligence we are able to get out of Afghanistan because there is no network there. Does he agree that there has to be a period of time before any substantial inquiry could ever be looked at?

[Mr Jones]

No, I do not agree, because the intelligence will be there—the Joint Intelligence Committee report and others—and we will be able to see that. We have not publicly announced that we are going to hold an inquiry, because that would be wrong before we have seen the intelligence. The Minister has assured us today that the Committee will get that information, which will be important before we make those decisions. I understand the good intentions with the proposed Committee, but the motion has been fatally drafted by the inclusion of the intelligence element.

As a long supporter of the Select Committee system in this House, I share some of the concerns of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I sit on the Defence Committee, which has already instigated an inquiry looking at the military’s involvement in that short period.

This is a mess, and it is right that the Government are held to account. I share the anger that many Members from all parts of the House feel at having been ignored in trying to do their job representing their constituents and trying to get people out of very desperate situations. The Minister’s blasé approach does not help. We are elected to represent our constituents here. This situation has created a huge amount of pressure on many Members of Parliament who have large numbers of individuals involved, as well as on our staff. The Foreign Office has to learn lessons. One of the biggest mistakes was dividing the issue between three Departments. Those lessons need to be learned, and Members of Parliament have to be listened to. Our emails and letters cannot just be ignored and treated as other representations to the Foreign Office.

If those things are done, that will improve the situation, but the lessons have to be learned, and the actions and the scrutiny have to be done. In terms of intelligence, the only Committee that can do that is the ISC. We will wait to see what the intelligence assessment says, and then we will take those decisions. That is why I feel I cannot support this motion tonight.

18:06

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I start by paying tribute to all those who served in Operation Pitting: the armed forces personnel who served so bravely and the civilians who were also present in country doing such an excellent job in very trying circumstances. I also pay tribute to all those who gave their lives during the whole Afghanistan campaign. My thoughts are with the families of those people and with those who returned with life-changing injuries.

I would like to speak in favour of this motion. I think we can all agree that the past few weeks have been dreadful, with the chaos around the fall of Kabul, the lack of planning, the effects on people who have served this country, the effects that we have seen with people applying for help through our offices and the chaos of the Government response. I mentioned earlier that we have more than 100 people with links to Reading East in need of help. Just one of those individuals has been evacuated from Afghanistan. That is clearly not good enough. I fully appreciate the difficult circumstances, but I hope that Ministers can reflect so that we can learn urgently the lessons of this dreadful period.

A wide range of evidence is already emerging, and it clearly makes the case for a proper and immediate inquiry, carried out in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) set out. First, however effective it was on the ground, the lack of planning and support from senior leaders in the Departments involved was apparent in the response. There is the fact that Ministers were sadly away on holiday, and the permanent secretary was away at the same time, and did not return urgently to respond.

There was a range of other factors. There was the lack of anticipation of the need to get people across the land borders at an earlier stage, when other countries had started to make preparations for that. As far as I understand it, both Germany and the United States took much more urgent action at an earlier stage in the crisis to secure safe passage at land borders for people leaving Afghanistan. There is the fact that internal assessments also indicated, from what we understand from the Chair of the Select Committee, that there were serious problems at a much earlier stage than Ministers admitted. All those things point to the need for an urgent and serious inquiry.

The effects domestically in the UK may also be subject matter for that inquiry. As Ministers may know themselves, many of the facilities that those arriving to the UK from Afghanistan are put in appear to be substandard or poor quality. That is a serious issue. We need to provide better support for Afghans arriving in the UK who have so nobly served the UK.

Moving forward, we must also consider a range of other points urgently, such as the effect of the refugee crisis on neighbouring countries—my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan made sensible points about the effects on Pakistan and other countries in the region—and the need for covid support and testing as well as logistical support. As several hon. Members said, we must also think about the wider effects on UK foreign policy, our relationship with the Indo-Pacific region and our relationship with our closest allies. All those are highly pertinent and important areas for discussion and investigation by the type of process that my hon. Friend proposes.

In conclusion, I pay tribute once again to the forces and civilians who helped with Operation Pitting and the wider Afghan campaign. However, it is quite clear to those of us who have followed the issue in detail that Ministers have shown a lack of leadership and that, crucially, there was a lack of planning. There is an urgent need for a serious and thorough investigation.

18:10

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

At a juncture such as this, we are forced to think about what could have been done better and whether such a large-scale intervention could ever have resulted in the establishment of a functioning polyarchy in the rocky soil of Afghanistan. If we want to get into such a question, we have to follow the money.

We have all seen news reports of the massive sums that the United States, the UK and other western allies invested in Afghanistan—eye-watering amounts that no doubt could have been put to better use in many ways. Many Members will have seen various images of Taliban fighters entering the gaudy palaces of former Afghan Government officials, generals or businessmen—some appeared to be all three at once—in which they are playing on gym equipment, marvelling at the décor or sitting in vast empty banqueting halls. Such venal officials make an easy target for scorn, but while they must share their part of the blame for the plunder of Afghanistan, we, too, must ask how they were able to get away with it for so long.

While it is easy to put the worst excesses of coalition control in Afghanistan down to an inherently corrupt culture—an accusation that we know to be orientalist, discriminatory, racist and ultimately wrong, regardless of how many times it is levelled inside or outside this House—we need to consider the fact that corrupt officials needed ways to get their money out of Afghanistan and into bank accounts or assets abroad. So too did the Taliban: they needed need a way to finance their campaign, converting the money they made from opium production or donations into liquid cash that could evade the clutches of security officials in third countries. In the case of both the Taliban and Afghan Government officials, Dubai seems to have been where the alchemy took place. Money came in, money went out; our armed forces were killed, and schools and hospitals went unbuilt.

The questions we need to be asking in this place, however, are about how many financial institutions with links to, or even head offices in, the City of London played a part in the merry-go-round of corruption. Quite frankly, I do not care whether that is looked at by a Joint Committee of the House, the individual Select Committees or—more importantly—a judge-led committee. Whether we like it or not, while much of it took place elsewhere, it could well have been in London—[Interruption.] With due respect, the Minister might listen to what I am saying than have a discussion with my colleagues.

London remains the centre of networks that facilitate corruption and graft on a large scale. London property prices remain inflated by investments—large and small—by global elites looking for a safe haven for all their ill-gotten gains, something most memorably demonstrated by the anti-corruption expert Oliver Bullough in his book “Moneyland”. No matter how many times my SNP colleagues or I raise the issue of corruption, we must understand that we need to tackle it, no matter what. I say as a member of the Defence Committee and as someone whose brother served twice in Afghanistan—the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), was his commanding officer—that our armed forces’ will never be applied adequately as long as we allow corruption to flourish at home and abroad.

18:14

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I will be brief because I have no choice in the matter.

This has been the

“greatest foreign policy disaster since Suez”

in 1956. They are the words of the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who has left the Chamber, hopefully to change his mind, but he was accurate when he said it. It sounds slightly clichéd, but in this case it is accurate. This is the biggest disaster since 1956.

The motion directly calls for a Joint Committee investigation because we need to know who said what to whom, who made the decisions and what conversations have taken place over the past few weeks. For example, we do not even know if any representations—any representations—were made by British Ministers or civil servants to their American counterparts on the speed and timetable of the withdrawal. That question has not yet been answered.

I personally, like many of us, have dealt with in excess of 200 cases, or 200 individuals rather—not so many cases, but over 200 individuals, many of them British nationals. We have been able to get some of them out of Kabul, where they were concentrated, but many are still stuck there. I have had many reports of rapes, abductions, murders and attacks on Hazaras; many of the cases I have happen to be Hazaras. There are stories of young men and boys threatened with “Either you join the Taliban or we’ll shoot you”, and of girls and young women—we have heard these stories before—forced into sexual slavery or forced into marriage against their will. Journalists and academics, with absolutely no connection with the American and British forces—no connection—are still being threatened into silence and threatened with death and torture.

I am sometimes slightly hesitant about calling for inquiries, because we gets calls in this place and outside for inquiries almost weekly, on a variety of issues, but of all the problems, catastrophes and crises that have occurred since 1956, this case requires a full, public, judge-led inquiry more than any other. Just as importantly, we ought to make it clear, as my hon. Friends have made it clear, that whatever the strictures of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Members of this House have a duty to represent their constituents and make their cases. We have that duty, regardless of what we are told, particularly when we are told to be quiet by a Government Department, which is effectively what the FCDO has done.

18:17

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Sometimes one name, one person can focus the mind tremendously. Linda Norgrove was born in Altnaharra in Sutherland, and she was an aid worker in Afghanistan, helping women and young girls. In 2010, she was kidnapped by the Taliban and killed. Her parents, John and Lorna Norgrove, very bravely set up an aid charity in Linda’s name. The Linda Norgrove Foundation was set up to fund education, health and childcare for women and children affected by the war in Afghanistan. It was desperate to get these people out of Afghanistan and that is why I became personally involved, but I am sad to say, like so many others, that the Government failed to facilitate these people being brought out. They are females and they are Hazara. Working for a foreign NGO, they are at a risk that is almost unbelievably high. I made a number of representations, but they did not come to fruition. So I think about the foundation in Linda Norgrove’s name and find that the fact that the Home Office does not seem to be able to help points to some kind of malaise. I am not one, as I think Members know in this place, to go about blithely and glibly calling for Ministers to be fired or to resign, but—and he has gone now—for the Foreign Secretary to continue in office was utterly unacceptable to me. So there has to be a lesson learned here. I hope it will be and I like to believe in the best of things.

I am going to keep my contribution short, but I will just return to Linda Norgrove. None of us can bring her back, but in a personal way and as a tribute to the braveness of her parents, she is now on the record, she is going to have her name in Hansard and it will be there for a very long time. But she is only one person; there are so many other people. That really is why, because I know the family, I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the motion. I do not glibly call for inquiries either—I think you know me well enough, Mr Deputy Speaker—but that is why I support the Labour motion today.

18:20

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We have a large and thriving Afghan community in west London and I have been proud to get to know many of them in the past few decades as constituents and friends. Many came here because of persecution—because they are from the Hazara community—or because, frankly, they shared our values in terms of democracy and human rights, rather than the Taliban’s. I am afraid that the Government have let them down badly, from the intelligence failures that led to the rapid abandonment of Kabul, to the chaos—it was chaos—that ensued.

On the experience of MPs who have many Afghans in their constituencies, my young casework staff were working 24/7. They were traumatised because they were dealing with death—hearing about people being blown up and killed—or the real fear of death. All the time, all the work they were doing was going nowhere; it was going into a void, as we have heard. I can only say with any certainty that there were two families who got out of Kabul who would not have done so without our intervention, despite those hundreds of hours of effort. In one of those cases, four of us—I and three of my staff—were talking to different people at the same time to get the family on a plane. I was trying to get the FCDO to give them documentation. Somebody else was talking by WhatsApp. I absolutely praise what our armed forces did there, because they went out after the bomb to rescue people and bring them to the airport, only to find somebody from Border Force there telling them they could not get on the plane. It was completely surreal. That family got out. A member of that family and his brother have British citizenship because of the service they gave to us and the threat to their lives in Afghanistan. One of them got their family out and the other did not; they are still there. It was chaos, it was completely arbitrary and it was a disgrace, frankly.

Of the 162 cases I have had, I have had replies on four, one asking for more information and three saying “not eligible”. I have not even had answers to my earlier questions, one on the issue of family reunion—many of these are family reunion cases—and the other on whether we are going to get individual responses to those remaining inquiries, generic answers or nothing at all. I really want to know the answer to that.

Where we are now in this country? I found out—because no information was given to me—that 300 Afghans had been unceremoniously left at a quarantine hotel in Shepherd’s Bush and confined there after their quarantine period ended. Although some of them had legitimately put in homelessness applications, they were told by security staff, “Get on a coach and travel 300 miles to somewhere you’ve never heard of.” At the same time, another 100 Afghans were being put into a bridging hotel with no money and no assistance whatsoever. Were it not for the help of local charities such as West London Welcome and my council giving them emergency money, they would have no help whatsoever.

Something needs to be done, and done quickly, to sort this situation out. I am sick of listening to these statements from Ministers that tell us nothing and give us no further information, and no help or hope to the Afghans in our constituencies.

18:24

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Since 14 August, I have looked with dismay and apprehension at the collapse of Afghanistan into the hands of the Taliban, and I am worried sick about the fate of so many people there.

Let us remember that, on 8 July, President Biden said that

“the likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.”

At the time, this Government did not seem to disagree with that analysis. It did not have to be like this if the UK and US Governments had considered worst-case rather than best-case scenarios. Our Government are in part responsible for the speed of the collapse of the Afghan Government. There is now a duty on our Government and the international community to offer support to the people of Afghanistan—those who have arrived here, those in third countries and those still trapped in Afghanistan who want to leave.

There will be time in this Chamber to further analyse the more than 40 years of strategic and tactical failures that led to this position, including the 2001 invasion. I opposed the 2001 offensive. Although the horrific destruction of the World Trade Centre was a gross act of terrorism, I did not feel that the war met the Aquinian principles of casus belli; we needed to use security and intelligence rather than a ground war to tackle al-Qaeda. But that was 20 years ago, and it must not hold up the efforts now for the Afghan people. We need to prioritise a human security approach. All NATO countries, including the UK, have a responsibility towards Afghan citizens.

I want to concentrate on two issues: the duty of care we have to Afghans who have arrived in the UK, and support for those still trying to reach us. Like everyone else’s, my office has been inundated by constituents concerned for the lives and wellbeing of their relatives trying to reach the UK. Around 250 are still trapped in Afghanistan. My office has lodged email after email with the Government and received just five auto-responses—that is it. Our most urgent cases were sent to the Secretary of State for Defence after he advised us to do so on a briefing call, but I have had no response of any kind to those emails.

Those cases include those of two Afghan MPs who are the brothers of a constituent, and people who worked for NGOs. We received one response in August stating that a British national stranded in Afghanistan would be contacted by the FCDO. He was not. One constituent, who is a British national, is in a hotel in London. He has serious mental health issues and no support. His wife is in Afghanistan, and he is desperate to go and get her via any route. I am concerned that he may vanish at any moment and try to go and get her. He has had no official advice or support.

With regard to Afghans who have arrived in the UK, I will keep my remarks to hotels, particularly those used for dispersal. Last week, I was put in touch with two Afghan MPs who were dispersed to a hotel in Yorkshire. I was informed of their presence there by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, with which the MPs had been in contact. I have been liaising with them and their family ever since, and what they have told me has been shocking. They were brought to the hotel by the Home Office, which did not tell the relevant local authorities. Basic necessities, such as nappies and sanitary towels, were not provided until we organised delivery, alongside the local authority. They still have not been assessed or registered for their health needs, and there are significant health needs at that hotel. Many have no access to finance, as the Taliban have cut off access to their bank accounts and the Home Office has not yet provided payment cards. They have no idea when they will be housed adequately, or where.

I was told the traumatic story of that family. They had been stopped at a roadblock by the Taliban, who took control of their car and drove them to the middle of nowhere, where they thought their lives would end. They only escaped as the Taliban drove away in their cars and they fled. They then had to wait for two days in a storm drain outside the airport in horrendous conditions, surrounded by human excrement and rotting detritus. They may be safe here, but I cannot in good conscience say that the Government have looked after them. That is why we need to hear their voices in an inquiry.

18:28

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

“It’s like the entire country is being held hostage.”

That is how my constituent Abdul Bostani, the chief executive of Glasgow Afghan United, described the situation in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover. One of those trapped was his own brother, a UK citizen who had travelled back to visit his wife and children because the Tory Government’s arbitrary earning thresholds for visas meant that he had not been able to bring them to the UK for a family reunion. Thankfully, they were among the lucky ones who got out in the airlift, but they should have been here years ago.

Likewise, Abdul has friends who served as interpreters for the UK armed forces who are still in Afghanistan because they were employed by a security company and not directly by the British Army. There were told that they were therefore not eligible for schemes to resettle in the UK. The Minister for the Armed Forces offered to look into that earlier this week, but again, they should have been here years ago.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

There is also a great deal of confusion over the treatment of British Council staff. It is still unclear why they were excluded from ARAP; they should certainly be here. It is unclear what will happen to those staff in the future, how many were special cases, and how many still remain in Afghanistan. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another issue that really needs to be clarified?

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is right and the Minister should respond to that.

I fully support the Labour motion for a Committee of inquiry. The Government have pretty thin reasoning for opposing that. Technically, the establishment of a new Committee is a House matter, so there should be a free vote for their Back Benchers tonight.

Hundreds of my constituents have been in contact with me since the US withdrawal began, distressed at the scenes in Kabul and across Afghanistan, and demanding action from Governments in the UK and wanting to express their solidarity. I have spoken to constituents who are particularly concerned about the treatment of women, girls and minority groups, as we all are. Expat constituents from Afghanistan have emphasised that Afghanistan is not a lost cause. Resistance to the Taliban remains real and the UK Government need to be aware of that.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that many constituents who have been here for years have not yet had any certainty about their status, including my constituent Ahmed who fled the Taliban as a child? He has been here for 13 years and still does not have any certainty about his status.

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. Again, I hope the Minister will respond to that.

Refugees are welcome in Glasgow. The city has shown time and again that we are ready and willing to welcome anyone from Afghanistan who needs support. No one who arrives from Afghanistan without documentation, or indeed from anywhere in the world fleeing persecution, should be criminalised under the new Nationality and Borders Bill. That legislation should be stopped in its tracks, or at the very least amended beyond recognition, so it provides a safe and welcoming environment rather than doubling down on the hostility that this Government have all too often shown.

That hostility and callousness is also evident in the decision to slash the UK aid budget. The consequences for countries like Afghanistan are now becoming abundantly clear. The Government must find a way to support those who remain in the country and try to preserve some of the progress that has been made, particularly with regard to support for women and girls. When the Government claim they are announcing additional aid, they must be clear whether that is genuinely additional to all the aid flows already committed, or whether they are still operating within their envelope of 0.5% of GNI, in which case whatever money is being diverted to Afghanistan is coming from other places that also badly need it.

This year was supposed to be about global leadership, with the UK chairing the G7 and COP26 coming to Glasgow. Instead, all we are seeing, once again, is that global Britain is so much hot air. With their actions in Afghanistan taking their lead, as always, from the United States, we see a little Britain diminishing in influence and setting examples nobody wants to follow. Constituents in Glasgow want to live in a Scotland that is better than that: where global citizenship is not just a slogan but a mindset, and where our nationalism is defined by our internationalism and our commitment to live up to global goals and aspire to the highest of values. The UK Government have to start doing the same.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We will go now to three minutes and we will hopefully get everybody in.

18:32

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Last month, when the House was recalled, I said that we needed to act. I am very grateful to the people who did act. I want to put on record my thanks to the noble Lord Ahmad in the other place and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I also want to thank our staff, in particular my caseworker, Marzia, who is a former Afghan judge. Yesterday, when she was in the House visiting the Justice Committee, she received, in the space of just two hours, 1,000 messages from judges in Afghanistan. There are 250 judges still left and they are under immense threat.

We have not seen action. I am sorry, Minister, but it is still absolutely shambolic. We do not know how many British citizens are still there. We do not know how many Afghan nationals there are to whom we have an obligation. If there was a plan 18 months ago, as we were told there was, why did it fail so miserably? Personally, in addition to the motion, I would like weekly statements on how many people are left for whom we still have to find a route out. I would also like to know what our approach will be if and when there is another international conflict. How will we ensure the confidence of the nations we will need support from?

In my few remaining moments, I would like to focus on women Afghan judges. One female judge who messaged me is the sole breadwinner for her family, with responsibility for over 10 dependants. That means we need to help, with our partners, not just the judge, but 10 additional people. The Taliban came looking for her at her house last week. Fortunately, she was not there, but what did they do? They dragged her brother out and beat him to a pulp. She says:

“Just imagine if one person from my family would be left behind. Words can’t even describe what would happen to them because of me. If one person from my family is killed because of me I will never be able to forgive myself.”

We cannot overestimate the absolute despair that people are feeling, including feeling suicidal.

I would be grateful if the Minister can say, in his closing remarks, what he will do to fulfil the requirement for better co-ordination of information. When anything goes into any of the Ministries, it is as though it has gone into a black hole. As I said, a weekly statement would be very helpful.

18:35

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Given that I have raised the Afghanistan security situation with the Government for months, I fully support this motion for a Joint Committee investigation into our chaotic and unplanned withdrawal, which has been an avoidable catastrophe—a self-inflicted humiliation, starting with the people of Afghanistan and ending with our national security interests. Unfortunately, there simply is not enough time to go into all the answers that I have received from Ministers, but even as late as 26 July, the Government were informing me in response to my written parliamentary questions:

“There is no military route for the Taliban to achieve their goals”.

How wrong they were. Only 20 days before the fall of Kabul, Ministers were telling me:

“Afghanistan now has a burgeoning civil society, with a free press and an education system”—

and that

“today women hold over a quarter of the seats in Afghanistan’s parliament.”

Where is that burgeoning civil society now, the education system and the free press? Afghanistan’s female MPs were fleeing for their lives while the now sacked Foreign Secretary was topping up his tan and what can be described only as conducting Dunkirk via WhatsApp. The situation has left Afghans who were counting on us to help build a better society feeling betrayed. We are already seeing an erosion of hard-fought rights for women, education and the freedom of faith.

[Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s real concerns about female politicians. Like many of them, as a Muslim woman, I am keen to see democracy preserved but I simply do not trust the Taliban when it comes to protecting the rights of women. Does he share my concerns about the safety of female Afghan politicians?

[Mr Dhesi]

I fully agree. Women’s rights are important and we need to preserve them.

Many may not know that Afghanistan used to be home to around 500,000 Sikhs in the 1970s, but today, that figure will be closer to 700. A community whose historical ties and presence there date back to the 15th century was persecuted first by the mujaheddin. During the last Taliban rule, in something reminiscent of fascist regimes, Hindus and Sikhs were forced to wear yellow armbands for identification and hang yellow flags over their homes. I have been asked to help many Sikhs and Hindus who remain and are at risk under this Taliban regime—as are Christians, Hazara Muslims and other religious minorities, who have already been victims of deadly targeted attacks—and I have written to Ministers. How will the Government help them?

Some of my constituents have been coming to me in tears. Their family members, many of whom are British citizens, have been abandoned by the Government and are at risk. We are talking not about six or seven but 600 or 700, and we need to get them to safety. These include numerous police officers, prosecutors, Government officials, families of UK-based journalists and judges, female professors, people who have played a leading role in women’s rights organisations, British children—some only a few months old—and many others. In fact, my hard-working team has been asked to help around 110 UK nationals or Afghans in a priority group.

MPs received a letter on Monday from a Minister saying that the Government will not be pursuing Afghan cases in the usual ways and will only be logging cases for data purposes, and asking MPs to stop raising cases on behalf of constituents—what an absolute farce! “Abandoned” seems to be the right word. The Government must instead pull out all the stops to avert a humanitarian crisis, get my constituents and their families to safety, and work with the international community to ensure that there is refuge for those in danger, especially religious minorities, and those who bravely assisted our troops in the rebuilding process. To help to create this situation is bad enough, but for the Government not to do all they can to support those impacted is unconscionable and unforgivable.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups will begin at 6.48 pm.

18:39

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the motion and to speak for those vulnerable people who have endured and are suffering the situation that we, as a major occupying force, have left behind. During the past few weeks, we have all been inundated with cases from constituents desperately seeking whatever help they can find for family members in Afghanistan. My office has been no exception.

Like other hon. Members, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my staff, and staff across the House, who have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Anyone who knows anything about this House knows that we are nothing without our staff; the past few weeks have been a testament to that. From British nationals trapped in Kabul to young children seeking to be reunited with their parents, siblings or grandparents, to former UK-contracted personnel stuck in hiding in fear for their lives, our offices have been presented with some of the most harrowing cases. Listening to them and reading them have profoundly affected people.

While those who are carrying out Operation Pitting on the ground are to be commended, it is worth noting that the Government received intelligence about the worsening situation in Afghanistan in July. We knew for a year that the withdrawal was happening. Glaring mistakes with neglected case inboxes and sensitive documents are a reminder that this could all have been prevented and that all blame is to be laid right at the Government’s door. We may never know the true effect of all the mismanagement, but the suggestion that 9,000 eligible Afghans entitled to settle in the UK have been left behind does nothing to ease the worried minds of my constituents.

I was appalled to read the Home Office letter. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has quoted from it, but it is worth quoting again: it says that

“we cannot provide to MPs assessments or updates on those individuals who remain in Afghanistan and whose cases they have raised.”

What exactly are we supposed to do with that? For weeks, our offices have done exactly as instructed when raising cases. We have endured the different email addresses, the briefings with few answers, the helpline numbers published wrong or with a digit missing, and all the failures in between. We did absolutely everything that we were asked to do by the Government—and now, nothing. To say that that is not good enough is a complete understatement. That is no way to run a Government, no way to treat colleagues, no way to treat our hard-working staff and certainly no way to treat vulnerable people who have been left in Afghanistan.

To add further insult to injury, the Government with their damaging legislative agenda seem hellbent on punishing people seeking refuge from war, violence and persecution. The hostile environment has meant that in the past decade the UK has deported more than 15,000 Afghan asylum seekers on the basis that Afghanistan was a safe place, yet we are meant to clap our hands for the Government saying they will repatriate 20,000 here over the next few years. There will inevitably be a rise in Afghan refugees, and the Nationality and Borders Bill, that disgraceful piece of legislation, will do nothing to alleviate it. I do not understand why the Government have not—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

18:42

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Last week, I held a special meeting in my constituency for my Afghan community. Dozens and dozens of worried and distressed residents came to meet me, all wanting help for their relatives in desperate situations; I wanted to share a few of their stories in this Chamber, especially as the Government were not responding to any emails and were not listening to our requests. To protect their identity, I will use their initials only. Because of time, I will read just a couple of the situations that were brought to my attention.

SE’s brother was a driver for a British translator and was therefore one step removed from direct employment with the British. I have not received any clarification of whether he is eligible for ARAP; I have received no answer from the FCDO.

BS’s mother is a single woman whose husband was murdered by the Taliban for working as an interpreter for British troops. Again, I have received no answers to any inquiries.

My constituents who came to meet me cannot sleep. Many have anxiety problems. One person was highly suicidal. People are crying as they speak to me—the situation is devastating for them and their families. The Government need to get a grip on what families here are going through.

What about the families in Afghanistan? The Government have had 18 months to evacuate people from Afghanistan, but they keep on getting it wrong. Why? They got it wrong when they said that the Taliban would not take over, they got it wrong when they said that lives would not be at risk, and they got it wrong in not being able to manage a safe emergency evacuation. Delays have been putting lives at risk, and their ability not to say what the resettlement scheme really means is causing further frustration, anxiety and annoyance to people in this House, but more so to our communities and to people who are left in Afghanistan.

We need more from the Government, and we expect more from the Government. I ask the Minister, for the sake of my constituents, to help those who need protection from being raped, from being kidnapped, from experiencing barbaric treatments, from hunger, and, ultimately, from death. I support the motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Sarah Owen, to resume her seat no later than 6.48 pm, with no time limit.

18:45

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There have been so many sobering scenes over the last few weeks: families separated, Taliban soldiers ripping through villages, people so desperate to flee that they clung to planes and died falling from the sky. Any situation in which we see a mother hand a baby over barbed wire to a soldier in the vain hope of escape is one that demands the attention of our country, as a responsible member of the international community.

At the last count, 69 people in Luton North had been in touch with me about relations in Afghanistan trying to escape war. We have had a handful back, but no response from the majority. People have called me in tears telling me about Taliban fighters going from door to door and killing their relatives’ neighbours. These cases will stay with me forever—particularly one involving the family in Luton North of an Afghan doctor who had been on the frontline of the former regime’s vaccination programme and women’s rights campaigns, and who is now stranded and terrified for her life. Ministers knew the details of her case, but she was turned away at Baron Hotel. I should be grateful for an update on her case.

Like all other Members, I have received vague stock responses. This simply is not good enough when people’s lives are in danger. The best advice that the Government could give our staff was to manage the expectations of people escaping a war zone, but it should not be left to our caseworkers to manage a response to a crisis of this scale. They needed leadership from the Government, and it never came. Leadership is about taking responsibility, and ultimately the buck stops with the Prime Minister. If he does not want to lead our country during a crisis, he can stand aside for someone who does.

The response from this Government shamefully abandoned British nationals. It abandoned our armed forces and civil servants, and abandoned the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan. Our standing in the world under this Government has already been defined by the decision to cut aid to the most vulnerable people in the world, and by the UK’s continued inaction over human rights atrocities in Russia, Xinjiang, Tigre, Kashmir, Palestine and now Afghanistan. We need a Government who stand proud on the world stage, and do not stand back from our responsibilities as a country.

18:47

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

Let me start by echoing the heartfelt sympathy expressed throughout the House for the thousands of Afghans who have been forced to flee tyranny and oppression.

As shadow Armed Forces Minister, I was pleased to hear well-deserved recognition of our armed forces, diplomats, civil servants and civil society organisations from a number of Members this evening. I also want to recognise the efforts of colleagues on both sides of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), my hon. Friends the Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and many, many others who have been working hard to assist those on the ground where they could.

The Government have woefully mismanaged the unfolding crisis in Afghanistan. Ministers had 18 months to prepare for the withdrawal from the country, but their complacency, mismanagement and diplomatic ineptitude intensified a crisis in just six short weeks. The world watched in horror as the gains of 20 years’ hard work and sacrifice from our armed forces and officials were rolled back, with tragic consequences for the people of Afghanistan—particularly those who do not conform to the Taliban’s barbaric, medieval world view.

The Government’s handling of this crisis has damaged our international reputation, weakened our national security, and jeopardised two decades of hard work and humanitarian progress. The Labour motion would establish a cross-party Joint Committee to investigate the withdrawal from Afghanistan, from the Doha agreement to the conclusion of Operation Pitting. The Government have systematically failed to anticipate and mitigate the biggest foreign crisis we have seen since Suez. It is vital that we understand what went wrong and why, so that we can not only learn lessons and be better prepared and protected in the future but keep the promises that we make to others, be they our service personnel, veterans and their families or the people of Afghanistan.

As the crisis began, Labour called for the Government to step up diplomatic efforts to stabilise the situation and for more resources for the ARAP scheme, to get as many people out as possible. Meanwhile, the now former Foreign Secretary was on his holidays. The Prime Minister said on 8 July that there was

“no military path to victory for the Taliban.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 1107.]

However, just 36 days later, the right hon. Gentleman and the Defence Secretary were forced into an emergency military deployment to secure the safety of British nationals and those who supported our operations. The country had fallen in less than two weeks. At best, the lack of preparation represents a systemic failure at the top of Government. At worst, it was ministerial indifference. That is why we need an open and transparent inquiry to understand what Ministers knew and when, what actions they took as a result and why the speed and scale of the country’s collapse took the Government by surprise.

Whatever we think about the political handling of this crisis, no one can doubt the extraordinary efforts of our service personnel during Operation Pitting. Our armed forces evacuated 15,000 people in just 14 days in the largest airlift since the second world war, and many right hon. and hon. Members were right to recognise that in the debate today. I look forward to the Minister’s response to Labour’s calls for their efforts to be recognised with a medal. But they were lions led by donkeys, sent to do damage control for a Government who were asleep at the wheel. Despite the heroics of our forces, it is painfully clear that the Government have left many behind. Meanwhile, hundreds of British nationals and ARAP-eligible Afghans remain on the ground.

The fundamental question for Ministers now is: what is the plan? Hundreds are now facing an impossible choice between living under oppression and attempting a dangerous border crossing. The flight from Kabul on 9 September carrying 13 UK citizens was obviously welcome, but it is not a substitute for a clear diplomatic plan with regional partners to keep land routes open and protect the gains of the last 20 years. And there is still precious little practical guidance for those ARAP-eligible Afghans. We made a promise to these people as British citizens and as brave Afghans who supported our forces, so why was the scheme so poorly resourced prior to Operation Pitting?

The Defence Secretary said that he knew that “the game is up” in July, but according to the Government’s own figures just 188 people were evacuated through ARAP that month. Between April and June, just 25 people got out through the scheme. Why were some who had been accepted to ARAP not called forward for flights, and why did some never receive any response at all? These questions need answers, and that is why we have tabled this motion today.

Finally, I want to turn briefly to those who were lucky enough to make it out. Members from across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the hon. Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith), the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen) have made it clear that those people must be welcomed and supported. I could not agree more.

[Ellie Reeves]

Five British nationals from my constituency were evacuated from Kabul along with their families. They have reported degrading treatment in quarantine hotels, with limited access to even basic supplies. Upon release, they faced homelessness and destitution because the Home Office and the local authorities could not decide who was going to house them. If it had not been for the food bank and the Lewisham donation hub, they would not even have nappies and other vital things such as baby milk. Does the shadow Minister agree that this is very far from Operation Warm Welcome?

[Stephen Morgan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why this motion is so important. Labour has brought together councils that stand ready to assist, yet we have already seen the first failure of the Government’s Operation Warm Welcome. The Times and The Guardian have both carried worrying reports that those who have arrived and cleared quarantine have not been allowed to leave their hotels for fresh air. The Government must set out a clear and consistent pathway of support if they are to keep their promises to the Afghan people.

It is clear that a cross-party joint investigation of the withdrawal from Afghanistan is now essential, but there are wider questions for the Government to answer about what this means for the people of Afghanistan and Britain’s place in the world. The Prime Minister’s poorly articulated concept of global Britain looks utterly hollow, and claims in the Government’s integrated review that the UK can turn the dial on international issues look embarrassing.

Members on both sides of the House have the opportunity to place on record their concerns by supporting Labour’s motion this evening. We owe it to our armed forces and veterans who bravely served in the bloodiest conflict of the past 50 years, and we owe it to the diplomats and officials who have worked so hard to secure the gains of the past 20 years. I urge hon. Members to vote for the motion this evening.

18:55

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

I am pleased to wind up this important debate. I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive remarks.

I start by putting on record our gratitude to all those who served in Afghanistan over the last 20 years. Our veteran community should know that it was worth it. It was worth it to go to Afghanistan in 2001 to get rid of al-Qaeda, it was worth it to spend the long years of hard sacrifice and service in Helmand province to expand education and security alongside our courageous interpreters, and it was worth it when the rising tide of geopolitics meant that we had to leave Afghanistan. It was worth it when Operation Pitting extracted, under huge pressure, 15,000 civilians in the largest humanitarian airlift in living memory. My message to veterans tonight is, “Be proud of what you did in Afghanistan and hold your heads high.”

Operation Pitting has given way to Operation Warm Welcome, and we will energetically welcome the Afghan families who have come to this country. I am delighted that this cross-Government effort is led by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is sitting on the Front Bench this evening. We will bring a spirit of compassion, comradeship and community to the welcome we extend to those who helped us when we were in their country, and we will help them now they have arrived here.

I was pleased to meet some of those families on their arrival in Birmingham, and I saw the relief on their faces. That joy is tempered by the fact that not everyone got out. Some 300 people who qualified for ARAP were left behind, which brings great sorrow, especially to those hon. Members who, through personal experience, have an understanding of the value that interpreters brought to our military operations.

It is clear to everyone that the case for the Opposition motion has not been made, but I will touch briefly on some of the comments that have been made. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for pointing out that his role as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee basically makes the motion pointless, and we very much welcome his scrutiny, which I hope will continue with his characteristic vigour.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) spoke movingly about the barbarism of the Taliban, and we share that concern. One of my constituents was among the fatalities on the Thursday of the last stage of Operation Pitting, so we have all been touched by that tragedy.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) spoke about the limitations of the motion with regard to the handling of intelligence, which was supported, in welcome fashion, by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East brings great knowledge to his position, and he touched on the central importance of Select Committees, which essentially make the Opposition motion entirely pointless. I am grateful to him for pointing that out.

I was pleased to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). We do not agree on any policy at all, but he has a sustained interest in this field and he shares his brother’s good sense of humour.

Finally, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) raised the case of the Linda Norgrove Foundation, and he must keep trying. We would be pleased if he wanted to raise the case with Ministers personally after this debate, and that stands for all Members in the Chamber tonight.

I will conclude by saying—I am watching the clock and it is not a problem, Mr Deputy Speaker—that we must reject this motion tonight. We must express confidence in our ability to project power around the world, to fulfil our national security—

[Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

18:59

Division 75

Ayes: 222

Noes: 292

Business without Debate

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Cultural Objects)

That the draft Introduction and the Import of Cultural Goods (Revocation) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 19 May, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

19:13

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Arundel and South Downs, particularly those in Storrington, Sullington, Washington and West Chiltington. More than 580 people—nearly every resident in the Rock Road area—have signed. I present this petition on the proposed Heath Common development.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of Arundel and South Downs,

Declares that the proposed site of Heath Common by Clarion Housing Group is inappropriate for the development of residential housing; further that this site was not designated in the democratically mandated Storrington and Sullington and Washington joint-neighbourhood plan; further that original permissions granted for the land were indicative only of tree-felling.

The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to offer support to residents against the proposed development at Heath Common, Storrington, by Clarion Housing Group and formally acknowledge its inappropriateness for a residential development.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002687]

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

In just a week, my constituent Alison Livesey has collected over 4,300 signatures on her online petition calling on the West Midlands ambulance service to abandon its proposals to remove the Rugby Community Ambulance Station. Such a large number of signatures in such a short space of time is a clear demonstration of the depth of local feeling over these proposals.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Rugby,

Declares that the last remaining Community Ambulance Station in the town of Rugby is essential for ensuring the safety of local residents; and further that West Midlands Ambulance Service’s intention to close it puts the health and welfare of Rugby residents at risk.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the West Midlands Ambulance Service to abandon the proposals to close the Community Ambulance Station in Rugby and to ensure that the residents of the town continue to receive the level of emergency healthcare which they demand and deserve.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002689]

Demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

19:16

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The proposed demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria is the first proposed demutualisation of a major financial services business since the financial crash. If the demutualisation goes ahead, it will see controversial United States private equity giant Bain Capital given ownership of a British customer-owned business with considerable financial assets. The tidal wave of private equity money apparently available for purchases of British firms prompts the inevitable question of whether this proposed demutualisation is a one-off or whether it is the start of another wave of demutualisation.

The all-party parliamentary group for mutuals, which I am fortunate to chair, conducted an inquiry into the proposed demutualisation earlier this year. We interviewed Mark Hartigan, who is the current chief executive of Liverpool Victoria, as well as Matt Popoli of Bain Capital, the regulators, the Association of Financial Mutuals and representatives of other mutuals, and we received submissions from individual consumer-owners of Liverpool Victoria. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the noble Lords Curry and Wrigglesworth, and Viscount Trenchard for their assistance and support. We have written subsequently to the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, and I have also written to the Pensions Regulator.

We concluded that it was very difficult for an individual member of LV= to be able to assess whether the proposed demutualisation was in their interests, given the scarcity of information with which they had been provided. We agreed that, on the basis of the evidence available to us, the leadership of LV= had not been open and transparent with members about its intentions for their business. Indeed, we felt that there had been a notable disregard for the interests of members and a cavalier attitude towards the member governance of the business.

We concluded, too, that the plans would damage the diversity of financial services providers in the UK, and that there had been insufficient policy attention on mutuals in recent times, particularly on the need to be able to raise capital. Lastly, we concluded that regulators needed to have a fundamentally different approach to the threat of demutualisation. Indeed, we were staggered that no lessons had been learned from the pre-crash wave of building society demutualisations.

I believe now that Alan Cook, the chairman of Liverpool Victoria, has a series of questions to answer about the proposed demutualisation and sale to Bain Capital. Earlier this week I formally invited him to Parliament to enable him to do just that.

Since our report was published, and despite many invitations to do so, the leadership of Liverpool Victoria have thus far refused to provide a more open and transparent explanation of their motives and their intentions. First, there has never been a clear, easy-to-understand explanation as to why demutualisation is needed. The business is well capitalised—indeed, it recently sold its general insurance business for over £1 billion—and it has raised significant sums on the capital markets. Both the chairman and the chief executive were arguing that the business was in very good financial shape right up until their plans for putting Liverpool Victoria up for sale were leaked to the media.

So why, really, is this plan being pushed? Why can Liverpool Victoria not survive as a stand-alone business in its own right? Its members, I believe, have a right to know. If, for a moment, we take at face value the idea that the new chief executive spotted a major flaw in the business model of his predecessor, so great that significant investment was needed for Liverpool Victoria’s customers to continue to enjoy the fruits of their investment with LV=, then why did they not choose another mutual? Indeed, there are persistent rumours that a major mutual offered more money than Bain Capital offered. The consumer-owners of Liverpool Victoria have a right to know whether that is true and why, if so, it was turned down.

Secondly, it is difficult to see how the members or owners of Liverpool Victoria will benefit from the demutualisation. Previous demutualisations have always been driven by the chair, chief executive and board, who usually benefit from significantly enhanced remuneration packages. It is time for the board to be honest. For example, by how much more will the chairman and chief executive benefit if this deal goes ahead? Thirdly, the way in which Liverpool Victoria’s chairman and board have gone about the process of demutualising raises the question as to whether—I say this gently—they knowingly misled the regulator and their customer-owners about their plans.

The board of Liverpool Victoria successfully persuaded their members to approve Liverpool Victoria’s conversion from a friendly society to a company limited by guarantee. At the time, they proposed this to their members, the chairman, Mr Cook, explicitly assured members that this would mean no change to the mutual status of Liverpool Victoria. With that assurance, the consumer-owners of LV= approved the conversion to a company limited by guarantee in May 2019. The real significance of that change in legal governance only emerged much later. In LV=’s rulebook, to demutualise, it needs a 50% turnout of the membership in any such vote and 75% of those voting to vote in favour. In short, practically, it is impossible—deliberately so. It was a rule put there to protect future consumer-owners of LV= against the greed of carpetbaggers and directors.

Given the assurances of Mr Cook, the board and the chief executive, one might have assumed that LV=’s mutual future would continue, notwithstanding the change from a friendly society. Under the rules governing companies, however, boards can approach our courts to ask for a scheme of arrangement for permission to ignore a particular rule in their constitution. That is not currently within the friendly society rules. Assuming there is even a small majority voting in favour of demutualisation, this is what LV=’s leadership are now determined to do. Revealingly, in February this year, in a webinar for LV= customers, Mr Cook noted that his plan to demutualise and sell to Bain Capital would not have been possible if they had not converted to a company limited by guarantee. It appears—again, I say this advisedly—that Mr Cook, the chairman of LV=, has been determined to demutualise for some time and has not been straight with the consumer-members of LV=.

What has added to that sense is that the previous chief executive of LV, Richard Rowney, left the organisation in December 2019, and it is difficult not to think that he was fired for not wanting to demutualise. His replacement, Mark Hartigan, was announced just 10 days later, and within less than three months Liverpool Victoria was up for sale—this at a time when assurances of Liverpool Victoria’s continuity as a mutual were being given. Frankly, it is stretching credibility to believe that the decision to sell was the unexpected decision of a strategic review landed by an incoming chief executive with no experience of working for a mutual and after less than three months in the job. What is also remarkable is the decision of the Financial Conduct Authority not to investigate whether members of LV= were deceived into supporting the conversion to a company limited by guarantee.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent speech he is making. Benenden Health is a significant mutual in my constituency, and it has serious concerns about the ramifications of this demutualisation for the whole mutual sector and its reputation. How does he believe that regulation could be tightened to avoid this kind of situation occurring again?

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend and Benenden are right to be concerned about whether there are wider implications and we will see other businesses demutualising. The current vice-chair of Yorkshire Building Society sits on the board of Liverpool Victoria and appears to have been actively involved in the demutualisation plans, prompting a rather obvious question about the future of Yorkshire Building Society.

The conversion to a company limited by guarantee and the decision to pursue demutualisation are both fundamental to the treatment of Liverpool Victoria’s consumers. The FCA is refusing to consider both decisions together and to investigate, as I have indicated, whether the chairman in particular and other members of the board knew much earlier than they have been willing to admit thus far that demutualisation was their desired end point. The failure to consider interlinked business decisions in a holistic way was a fundamental failing identified by Dame Elizabeth Gloster in her devastating report on the London Capital & Finance debacle. This appears to be a clear repeat of that mistake, albeit with a very different business.

There are other concerns about the performance of the regulators, the PRA and the FCA. Together, they have admitted that they have had nearly 60 meetings to discuss the demutualisation with the board of LV=, but not one with LV=’s consumers and owners. The FCA should at the very least require the so-called independent experts who have been appointed by LV=’s board, who have been briefed by LV= and who will be paid by LV=, to set up meetings to explain the background to what one presumes will be their inevitable decision to recommend to members a vote for demutualisation and sale to Bain. Will the Minister ask the FCA to make that happen?

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is being generous. I also want to ask about the impact the proposals will have on staffing levels. We know that staff are fearful that many could lose their jobs at this time. What guarantees have been given to staff that their jobs will be safe?

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend will know that when we saw the last wave of building society demutualisations, there were large numbers of job losses. I gently warn those who work for Liverpool Victoria to be wary of any assurances they have been given about their jobs if the sale to Bain and the demutualisation go ahead.

After the financial crash, there was recognition across the House that the wave of demutualisations of building societies had been, at best, a dismal episode, that corporate diversity needed to be encouraged, and that financial mutuals in particular had a crucial role to play in maintaining competition and the interests of consumers. For the Government and this Minister in particular—I welcome him to his place, as I know he is diligent in his interest in the mutual sector—I hope that the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria will be a further wake-up call to look more seriously at the needs of financial mutuals and specifically their ability to raise capital, and to put into law disincentives to demutualise. We need protections for legacy assets, and we need a review of how financial mutuals are regulated under the Financial Services Act 2012. Certainly representations we had from the Association of Financial Mutuals suggest an urgent review to modernise that Act is overdue.

I hope that the Minister will also ask the chief executive of the FCA to revisit the question of whether the owners of LV=—its consumers—were misled when the conversion to a company by guarantee took place.

This demutualisation is proof that we need again to celebrate and enhance the position of mutuals in our markets. After all—I say this gently and reluctantly—what is being proposed in the demutualisation of LV= is the looting of nearly two centuries of legacy assets. Of course, it is being dressed up as something different, but that is money built up from the working capital of the business over years of transactions, starting with small contributions from the working people who were the original members of the Liverpool Victoria Burial Society, who set the society up to avoid the Victorian scandal of a pauper’s funeral. Over time, those small contributions became a substantial sum, and they were augmented by the funds transferred into the friendly society from a series of mergers with other mutuals. In good faith, those other mutuals brought their assets to share with a broader membership for their common purpose.

Today, we have the spectacle of a demutualisation that looks to be driven by the simple desire to appropriate this money. None of the promoters of the demutualisation has made any contribution to the accumulation of the assets, yet they want to take advantage of them. It seems that the attraction of the assets means that the executives, the board members and the private equity players will do whatever is necessary to appropriate them. Token windfall payments to members in exchange for their vote will, just like in every other demutualisation, transfer the value from those who contributed and their descendants to those who did not. I gently suggest that that can never be fair, and it is wrong that, to date, our legislative and regulatory regime not only permits that to happen but actively facilitates it.

19:31

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on securing the debate. He is a strong and sincere supporter of the mutuals sector, and he has regularly raised issues with me in the, I think, 44 months that I have been in post. I very much value his knowledge and insights on these matters and welcome the opportunity to discuss his concerns.

During my time as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I have seen the clear benefits of mutuals both for the economy and for society as a whole. In essence, these businesses focus on service, and their frequently innovative nature means that they provide a unique, distinct offer to both their customers and their communities as well as a much-valued degree of service. The Government recognise those benefits, which is why, over the years, we have shown ourselves to be a supporter of the mutuals sector.

That support has manifested itself in a wide variety of ways, including, first, in engagement. We think it is vital that we understand the sector’s needs, so two years ago the Treasury held a mutuals workshop dedicated to understanding the challenges facing the sector and how they can be overcome. We have tried to take on board the points raised in that workshop, and we continued the conversation. As a result, my officials have been working hard to raise awareness of the mutuals model across Government to ensure that other Departments are equally focused on supporting it.

Secondly, we are helping the sector to be ready for the future. That is why at the Budget we committed to amending the Credit Unions Act 1979 to allow credit unions to offer a wide range of products and services. Finally, we have ensured that mutuals have also received financial support throughout the covid crisis, recognising their vital contribution to communities up and down the country. Mutuals were able to benefit from the furlough scheme and other forms of Government financial help. In addition, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced new insolvency support mechanisms for businesses, including many in that sector.

I would now like to address the subject of this debate in more specific detail. The hon. Gentleman has set out in some detail a range of observations about what has happened over recent months. As he is aware, the sale of LV= to Bain Capital and the ultimate demutualisation of the firm is something that I have engaged with him on and discussed previously. I want to assure the House that this continues to be a priority for me. I am closely engaged on this matter, and I am in close communication with regulators and the firm itself.

However, while I am very focused and aware of the views that the hon. Gentleman holds and the concerns that he raises, I cannot intervene directly in the sale or the demutualisation of a firm. The sale’s approval is a matter for the financial services regulators and the courts, both of which are independent of Government. The hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work to trace the interactions between the firm and the regulators, and I know that they are very aware of his interest in the matter. I am sure that that is going to lead to a very rigorous process, which I think he understands and I know is under way.

Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate for me at this point to comment on the substance of that ongoing independent process, but what I can say is this. The approval process involves safeguards designed to ensure that members and policyholders are kept informed and that their interests are protected. I recognise that we are not at the end of that process yet, and the hon. Gentleman is somewhat anxious and perhaps, I may suggest, sceptical about what the final outcome will look like. But I have been reassured that the regulators are undertaking rigorous processes, as evidenced by the number of meetings that they have had, to assess the viability of the transaction and the suitability of Bain to manage an insurance business. Importantly, the statutory objectives of the regulators put policyholders’ interests, as well as consideration of the impact of the transaction on the market, at the heart of their assessment. I greatly support the regulators in their roles, and trust that they will endeavour to secure the best outcome in the interests of members and policyholders.

I recognise the points that have been raised about further demutualisations by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). As I mentioned earlier, I believe mutuals have a very special place in our economy, and I very much value that contribution, but ultimately any future sales, irrespective of whether the firm is a mutual, will and should be considered on a case-by-case basis, in line with the regulators’ and courts’ duties and requirements.

I recognise that, in the course of this debate this evening, some suggestions have been made about the sorts of interventions that may be appropriate to safeguard the sector. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member for Harrow West and the hon. Member for York Central to discuss their views on this subject, but I am, as I demonstrated earlier, very much focused on helping the sector to thrive. That means continuing the conversation so we can identify how best to facilitate the growth of the sector and understand the concerns in more detail, recognising that, across the range of mutuals of different sizes and different roles in the economy, different concerns may exist.

Therefore, I hope the hon. Member for Harrow West will relay the message to the sector that my door continues to be open to it. I would like to thank both Members for their constructive comments.

[Gareth Thomas]

I have two interlinked questions, if I may. First, the Financial Conduct Authority, in its letter to the all-party group of 5 August, made it clear that it had already decided it would not review the interlinkage, or not, of the decision by LV= to convert to a company limited by guarantee and the subsequent proposal to demutualise. I recognise that the Minister cannot intervene with the regulators directly, but he can, as I understand it, because he meets with the chief executive of the FCA, seek an explanation of that decision. Secondly, if the FCA will not engage with that question sufficiently to satisfy me, could he at least ask it to publish the details of the two independent experts appointed by the board of LV= so that customer-owners can begin to make contact with them to ask them questions about what exactly the plans of LV= are?

[John Glen]

I am always ready to look at constructive suggestions and am happy to take this forward. I suspect there may be legal impediments to the publishing of some of that information, but I will certainly ask the questions and seek to relay to the hon. Gentleman the fullest answer that I am able to. I am frequently in my current role in between this place and independent regulators. It is right that our regulators are independent and I see the frustrations that exist within that, but I am happy to take forward a constructive dialogue as far as I can.

I do not think I can add much more at this point. I recognise the sincere commitment of hon. Members who have spoken to this issue, their frustration with what has happened, the apparent unnecessary nature of this transaction, given the history and the apparent change in the direction of travel with little warning, but I am clear that the regulators are very aware of their obligations to safeguard the interests of members and I look forward to the judgments coming forth in the coming weeks and months. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction on the matters he has raised this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

19:41

House adjourned.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Wednesday 15th September 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Geraint Davies

† Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab)

† Courts, Robert (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)

† Grundy, James (Leigh) (Con)

† Henry, Darren (Broxtowe) (Con)

† Howell, Paul (Sedgefield) (Con)

† Hudson, Dr Neil (Penrith and The Border) (Con)

Johnson, Kim (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

† Kane, Mike (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)

† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)

† Marson, Julie (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)

† Mohindra, Mr Gagan (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)

† Mullan, Dr Kieran (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)

† Osborne, Kate (Jarrow) (Lab)

† Rimmer, Ms Marie (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)

† Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)

† Throup, Maggie (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Twigg, Derek (Halton) (Lab)

Nick Taylor, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2021

[Geraint Davies in the Chair]

Draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

09:25

[The Chair]

Before we begin, can I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking? This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other, and members of staff, space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to [e-mail]. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The draft regulations are necessary because of the ongoing need to reduce pollutant emissions from the maritime sector to protect public health and the environment. They will do that by amending the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 in order that our domestic legislation is aligned with the latest international limits and standards for sulphur and nitrogen dioxide emissions. The international requirements are set out in annex VI of the 1973 international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, which is colloquially known in the industry as the MARPOL convention.

The changes limit the amount of sulphur in marine fuels that are used, or intended for use, by ships to 0.5% by mass or less. They also require that new ships and new engines be certified to meet the latest nitrogen oxide emission standards, both globally and when ships operate inside waters that have been designated as an emission control area, or ECA, by the International Maritime Organisation.

The regulations enable UK ship inspectors to enforce the new limits more effectively on foreign-flagged vessels calling at UK ports. Under port state control regulations, ship inspectors from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can apply limited sanctions for an offence on ships calling at UK ports. For example, those include recording a deficiency against a ship or temporarily detaining a vessel, or a ship can be ordered to de-bunker, which is emptying its fuel tanks. If the ship is using non-compliant fuel, access to UK ports and anchorages may be denied if there is evidence of significant non-compliance.

Those sanctions can be applied to ships only when in port or at anchor. The new statutory instrument, which we are debating, will allow ship inspectors to use the criminal justice system to impose fines on offenders. That is in line with our current approach to other marine pollution offences.

The ability to impose such fines will be an important deterrent to all foreign-registered vessels in UK waters, whether in transit, in port or at anchor, particularly those that would consider risking non-compliance to reduce costs without the threat of financial penalties. I would stress, however, that compliance with maritime environmental rules is the norm. Enforcement action by the MCA through the courts is extremely rare, and would be funded through existing resources if it were to occur.

The regulations also include an ambulatory reference provision—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Minister says that such enforcement action is extremely rare. On how many occasions in the past two decades, for example, have maritime companies been found to be in breach of the regulations?

[Robert Courts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I do not have those details at my fingertips; I apologise, but I will write to him and the Committee.

[Kevin Brennan]

If officials have the figures, could those be communicated to us during the sitting, because they would be of interest to the Committee? We are introducing further and stricter regulation, so it would be helpful for the Committee to know how much of a problem there is under the existing system.

[Robert Courts]

If I have that information, I will be delighted to share it. In any event, I would make the point that through the regulations we will ensure that our domestic legislation matches the international standards with respect to the IMO. We have two choices today, essentially. We can choose not to apply those standards—that is certainly an option for the Committee and the House—but if we were to take that option, we would be choosing to have lower standards in our domestic law than those in international law and those that we pushed for in the International Maritime Organisation. In any event, I urge the Committee to consider that these provisions are necessary, but if I have that information, I will of course share it with the hon. Gentleman.

The regulations include an ambulatory reference provision, which will automatically update references in the 2008 regulations to provisions of the convention and its annexes. That implements a key industry request from the red tape challenge that enables some amendments to international requirements to be transposed into domestic law more rapidly and efficiently than was possible previously. An amendment that is accepted will be publicised in advance of its coming into force date by means of a parliamentary statement to both Houses of Parliament. In any event, the ambulatory reference provision is limited. Substantial changes, such as implementing a new chapter in MARPOL annex VI, would still need to be implemented by statutory instrument.

The draft regulations amend obsolete sulphur limits for marine fuels used by ships, which were made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Specifically, the new regulations remove references to the 1% sulphur limit for ships operating inside an emission control area and the 3.5% sulphur limit for ships operating outside an emission control area. Respectively, these have been superseded by the stricter 0.1% and 0.5% sulphur limits. The new regulations also remove references in the 2008 regulations to a 1.5% sulphur limit that applied to passenger ships operating within European waters. This has been superseded because, like all vessels, passenger ships are now subject to the stricter 0.5% sulphur limit or the 0.1% sulphur limit when they operate inside an emission control area—that is, the higher standard.

Although it is important to remove obsolete requirements from our domestic legislation that were introduced under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act, the draft regulations retain other requirements that are still pertinent. They do not, for example, amend the requirement for ships to use 0.1% sulphur fuel when at berth in a UK port.

As the Committee will remember, shipping is the most global of international industries. It is important we apply internationally recognised air quality standards to shipping, which was of course the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff West a moment ago, along with effective enforcement measures to safeguard and encourage compliance. The draft regulations will ensure that the UK maintains some of the strictest air quality for shipping anywhere in the world, which will of course protect public health and the environment. The Government have made it clear that air quality is one of our top priorities.

The regulations help deliver on the commitments made in Maritime 2050 and our route map for sustainable maritime transport, the clean maritime plan. They will ensure that we enforce the standards we agree at the IMO and I commend them to the Committee.

09:33

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. To be in Committee today, discussing the maritime sector in London International Shipping Week, is a great honour. In this week in particular, I pay tribute to everyone in the maritime sector, which played such a crucial role in getting this country through the pandemic crisis and which will continue to play a crucial role in the months and years ahead. The Minister and I enjoyed a very pleasurable cruise together today—I hope Hansard records that accurately—on the River Thames with industry leaders, where we got to thank them personally for the effort they have put in to keeping our supply chains in the UK moving.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss air pollution today. We all know that it poses not just an environmental threat, but a severe threat to public health, as the Minister pointed out. In my own constituency, the most vulnerable people in our community, children and older people are dealing with increased levels of bronchitis, asthma, heart problems and cancer caused by excesses of nitrogen dioxide in the air they breathe. It is vital that we work to reduce the volume of those emissions and of sulphur dioxide and it is right that we look to all parts of the transport sector to play a part.

We are obliged by MARPOL to control emissions, and our reputation as a maritime nation could be damaged if we fail in that quest. As we come out of lockdown, the effects of climate change are being seen and felt globally. Last year, my constituency was flooded, and the news channels show us wildfires in Europe and across the globe—nothing could more strongly make the case for a green recovery, rooted in decarbonisation and climate justice.

We know what we need to do, and we must start to do it now. Our maritime sector, which is often overlooked, has a crucial role to play, and with the COP26 UN climate change conference imminent, now is the time for us to look ahead and consider a greener future for the industry.

Do the proposals go far enough? I would argue that, in revitalising the maritime sector, we could unlock tens of thousands of jobs across the UK, with many of them green jobs and, very importantly, concentrated in our neglected coastal communities. I had the great honour of visiting the port of Hull a couple of months ago, and cycled from the train station to meet the chief executive in the port, passing the Siemens wind turbine factory. It was a sight to behold, with tens of thousands of highly paid, unionised jobs decarbonising our economy in the heart of a previously neglected coastal community.

This could be the opportunity to renew the many towns and villages that are dotted along the UK coastline, which are in desperate need of improvements to transport, job opportunities and connectivity, and which would be at the heart of maritime sector growth.

I speak frequently to those in the sector, and they tell me how keen they are to make the changes that are needed—to develop, innovate and change for the greener. However, the Government need to fund and support that radical transformation. In doing so, they would rapidly lower carbon emissions from shipping, and in the process could develop world-leading renewable fuels and reskill our workers for a sustainable future.

It is time for Government action. Decarbonisation and the rebalancing of our economy are possible, and UK maritime, with its wealth of talent and expertise, has shown time and again its ability to generate enormous value. This is a fantastic opportunity for our country, as there is no clear global leader setting the pace to develop zero emission shipping technology, and if Ministers are prepared to act quickly and invest, the UK can become a scientific and green technological superpower, bringing jobs and prosperity to our communities around our coast. However, there is no time to lose.

We have a moral duty and an environmental obligation to control pollution and to reduce emissions of both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide from ships and from our skies and in our children’s lungs. Controlling emissions will allow the UK to comply with its obligations as a party to MARPOL and to reduce the risk of reputational damage from not meeting our obligations.

The new regulations will also enable UK ship inspectors to enforce the international pollutant limits and standards more effectively, so I am happy to support the statutory instrument and will continue to be an advocate for more investment in our maritime sector to ensure we get there and take our rightful place at the front of the vanguard.

09:39

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right to welcome the regulations, and this is an extremely important measure and part of our international obligations. I rise, therefore, not to oppose the regulations, but to press the Minister a little around enforcement and costs, and around the resource that the Government are going to put into enforcing these new and stricter regulations in the new form of criminal sanctions.

It is important that the Committee understand the implications of the statutory instrument with respect to Government resource and the effectiveness of enforcement, which will ensure that the regulations have their intended effect on pollution. I note from the explanatory memorandum that the costs overall are deemed to be neutral to business—there will be a cost of £180 million per year to UK businesses as a result of the draft regulations—but the Government judge, probably rightly, that if we did not introduce the regulations, and if those costs were not incurred by UK businesses, those same businesses would face fines, problems, the impounding of ships and so on when travelling to ports in other parts of the world. That is why I am interested to know what we will do to ensure that ships in our waters, as well as UK ones, comply with the regulations so that they are effective in the ultimate aim of reducing pollution, climate change and so on.

Will the Minister tell us whether additional resource is being put into ensuring that the new, stricter regulations are enforced? That would be helpful to the Committee in considering the draft regulations. Also, has he had any electronic inspiration on the question I asked earlier, because that too would be helpful? If not, it would be useful to know in writing. The existing regulations are supposed to be reviewed every five years, so he ought to know the answers to my questions. The Government ought to be able to report to the Committee what the findings of the five-yearly reviews are, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum issued by the Department with the draft regulations.

Finally, on the “Today” programme this morning, I heard a very interesting report about the future potential of hydrogen-powered submarines for marine shipping. I wondered whether in passing, without breaching the strict terms of what we are debating in Committee, the Minister could give us his view of the future potential of that technology to reduce emissions from marine shipping.

[The Chair]

If Members wish to speak, they should signal. Members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, medically qualified people and others will be concerned about air quality in ports, where people live.

09:41

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

Obviously, it is highly desirable that domestic legislation should match the highest international standards, particularly where the UK Government have been a party to calling for higher standards in international regulation and in compliance through international bodies such as the IMO. For all that the draft statutory instrument before us is highly technical, it is of huge significance, and it is absolutely the right thing to be doing to ensure that domestic UK legislation is in alignment with not only the highest international standards, but those standards that the UK has been a party to calling for.

That clearly has a number of effects on aligning our sulphur and nitrogen-related emission requirements with those high standards, on setting standards for new engines in the marine sector and on improving the ability of the authorities to enforce compliance with the stipulated requirements. On all those things, we are content with the draft SI.

Speaking more broadly, in particular in the year of COP26, the environmental impact of heating and our industrial and transportation requirements are clearly the next areas that we need to focus on to reduce our environmental impact on the planet. Rightly, there is a focus on decarbonisation, but carbon is not the only emission to harm our planet and quality of life. Shipping is a key part of that. Reducing the environmental impact of shipping as we move goods around the globe is clearly a huge part of the positive impact that we can make by reducing emissions. The draft legislation is significant in that, and we are happy to support it.

09:43

[Robert Courts]

It is a great pleasure to hear the points made by hon. Members. I appreciate the broad support that is being expressed for the draft statutory instrument and the points made, all of which are excellent. In broad terms, air quality is a huge priority for the Government, as it is for hon. Members throughout the House, and through the legislation we are ensuring that we remain fully aligned with the latest environmental emissions regulations. We are working towards delivering our own commitments for sustainable maritime transport, which I will turn to in a second.

On the specific points raised, I will start with those from the hon. Member for Cardiff West, who asked about the enforcement of the existing regime. I will give him some detail on how that works. Currently, there are civil-only sanctions. We are introducing some criminal sanctions in these regulations. Civil sanctions can, at present, be used under the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011. Ship inspectors, as I outlined at the beginning of the debate, can record a deficiency, and they have a range of powers temporarily to detain a vessel, order a ship to de-bunker if it is using non-compliant fuel, and deny access to UK ports and anchorages. Those are carried out by local inspectors. I would have to go back to the MCA to see if it has a record. I am very happy to do that, I undertake to do so and to write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee.

I think the hon. Gentleman is essentially asking how often the existing powers have been used, and, if not much, why we need extra. It is a perfectly reasonable point. The reason is that civil sanctions can only be applied to ships when in port or at anchor. It would not be possible to apply civil sanctions retrospectively on a vessel that has left UK waters or on the foreign-registered company operating the vessel. We are taking some additional powers not so much to beef up the existing powers, but to slightly broaden them. It is particularly the foreign-registered vessel that the hon. Gentleman might be interested in. We are taking a wider environmental remit, regardless of how often we have used the existing powers. I hope that explanation will help to allay his quite understandable concern about why we are seeking additional powers. The civil sanctions replaced by a criminal sanction is particularly important.

The hon. Gentleman asked about resources. With the new regulations, it will be possible to use the criminal justice system—the courts—to impose the fines or deal with existing contraventions. Enforcement action by the MCA through the courts is extremely rare, but as I outlined at the beginning, because it is very rare, we would expect existing resources to be adequate to deal with any demand. The ability to impose fines has an important deterrent effect, particularly for foreign-registered vessels in UK waters, whether they are transiting, in port or at anchor, and particularly those which are persistent offenders. There is clearly a deterrent effect if we have the ability to impose a fine, which we currently do not have. I understand and would expect any such enforcement action to be very rare and for the cost to be met within existing budgets. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman a little more detail.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but I am none the clearer on how likely the provision is to be needed. If there is a deterrent effect on something, we do not know how often it happens. I would welcome further information, although I understand that he cannot give us that now.

[Robert Courts]

That is a reasonable and pertinent question. I undertake to go away and make the enquiries, and to write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee with further detail. He tempts me to pick up my crystal ball, but it is of course impossible to judge how likely it is that any powers would be used. I understand that such enforcement action is extremely rare, but I appreciate that one person’s definition of extremely rare may be different from another’s. I will look for the information. In any event, having the ability to take the stronger powers would make the requirement to exercise them less rather than more likely, but I will certainly go away and look at that.

The hon. Gentleman raised some other points—broadly, what else are we doing? I do not want to stray too far into a wider clean maritime debate. This is London International Shipping Week, which the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East rightly drew attention to. There are a number of aspects to that, including the clean maritime demonstration competition, which is a £20 million fund and one of the largest such funds that the Department has announced. The competition is directly relevant to some of the technologies we are discussing in these regulations, and we will be announcing the winners this week.

Later today, I will be opening the new cruise terminal at Southampton port, which has shore power. That means that cruise ships can plug in and do not need to have their generators running in port, which will help with carbon dioxide, sulphur oxide and particulate emissions, as well as other emissions, and will take us a step forward.

Earlier this week, we announced that we will be pushing for a zero emissions target for international shipping at the IMO. We will be challenging the international community collectively. The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked me what the UK is doing to push this forward; that is what we are doing, and it was announced a couple of days ago. We are pushing the international community to deliver a Paris-compliant outcome when the IMO renegotiates its strategy for climate change in 2023. So, that is our international work.

Domestically, we continue to make good progress on the commitments that we set out in the clean maritime plan, which was drawn up in 2019. We have provided £1.4 million of funding for a competition for innovation in clean maritime through Maritime Research and Innovation UK, a research agency. We have established the marine emissions reduction advisory service as a function of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. We have undertaken research considering the role of maritime clusters onshore, which are companies in a certain area delivering clean innovation and growth. We are exploring the inclusion of maritime elements in the renewable transport fuel obligation as part of a public consultation.

We have built on the clean maritime plan itself. We had the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan in November 2020. We have had the clean maritime demonstration competition, which I referred to earlier, and we will have the results of that later this week. Overarching all this is the transport decarbonisation plan, building on the clean maritime plan and developing our plans to navigate this tricky-to-decarbonise sector, all the way to net zero. There will be a series of consultations in the coming years as we build towards that.

I apologise for not mentioning before now the hon. Member for Gordon, but I think I have addressed some of his points. I am conscious that he raised points similar to those raised by other Members, and I hope I have answered them.

It has been a real pleasure to discuss the issues raised in the debate. As the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and I have said, this is the right week to be discussing the subject, as it is London International Shipping Week, the industry event that showcases the important role of the sector globally and here in the UK. That is never more important than while we are still in this pandemic, and it is a timely reminder of how critical the sector is in keeping us all supplied. I know the whole Committee will join me in paying tribute to all those in the maritime sector, who have been unsung heroes, keeping us supplied and fed, sometimes in difficult personal circumstances, throughout the last two years. I know the Committee will join me in thanking them sincerely for that.

I hope the Committee has found the debate interesting and informative, and that it will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

09:53

Committee rose.

Draft Capital Requirements Regulation (amendment) regulations 2021

Wednesday 15th September 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mrs Sheryll Murray

† Antoniazzi, Tonia (Gower) (Lab)

Bonnar, Steven (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Carden, Dan (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)

† Costa, Alberto (South Leicestershire) (Con)

† Coutinho, Claire (East Surrey) (Con)

† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)

† Daby, Janet (Lewisham East) (Lab)

Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)

† Glen, John (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

† Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)

† McFadden, Mr Pat (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)

† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)

† Mak, Alan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Stafford, Alexander (Rother Valley) (Con)

† Stevenson, Jane (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

† Wild, James (North West Norfolk) (Con)

Peter Stam, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2021

[Mrs Sheryll Murray in the Chair]

Draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Amendment) Regulations 2021

14:30

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The regulations, among other things, support the implementation of the Basel III standards in the United Kingdom. This is yet another statutory instrument that I bring to the Committee, and I am delighted to do so.

I want to begin by reminding the Committee of the background to this issue. After the financial crisis, the international community came together to rectify major deficiencies in financial regulation and created new banking standards, known as the Basel III accords. As a member of the G20 the UK is committed to implementing these standards, but now we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to do so in our own way, enabling our expert regulators to apply international standards in a way that is most fitting to the UK’s individual circumstances. The instrument therefore exercises the powers contained in section 3 of the Financial Services Act 2021, to revoke elements of the UK’s capital requirements—the CRR, or capital requirements regulation—so the Prudential Regulation Authority can update the current regime to account for the Basel III standards.

Let me turn to some of the detail. The Financial Services Act restricts the ability of Ministers to only revoking those parts of the CRR that need to be updated to reflect the new Basel standards, and anything that is connected to, or consequential to, those standards. When it makes CRR rules under the new regime, the PRA is subject to an accountability framework under which it must consider the impact of its rules on a number of areas. These are: the relative standing of the UK compared to other jurisdictions, lending to the real economy and the Basel standards themselves. In addition, the PRA must consult the Treasury on the potential impacts of any rule changes on equivalence.

The instrument also contains additional EU exit-related amendments to the CRR. It makes an amendment to article 497 of the CRR, allowing for the Treasury to extend a transitional provision that allows for certain foreign central counterparties, or CCPs, to retain temporary qualifying status. Qualifying status allows UK firms to have exposures to these CCPs without being subject to higher capital requirements. This amendment will allow for the transitional period to be extended by regulations one year at a time. These extensions are required as there may be non-UK CCPs that will be unable to receive qualifying status through recognition for a prolonged period. However, the Treasury still considers it beneficial that they retain qualifying status. The Treasury will keep these arrangements under review to ensure they are fit for purpose.

Additionally, under article 391 of the CRR, the Treasury may determine that an overseas jurisdiction applies prudential requirements to the same standard as those applied in the UK and grant it equivalence. Smaller UK banks in particular benefit from that article as it allows them to lend more as a single loan to overseas firms. However, the UK’s only equivalence decision in this area is with respect to EEA member states. That is because, at the end of the transition period, the EU had not made any equivalence decisions under the article and the European Banking Authority had issued guidance allowing EU firms, including those in the UK, to use equivalence decisions under a different article—107—as a proxy for article 391 equivalence. However, this is, in effect, regulatory guidance overruling legislation.

The Government and the UK’s regulators consider that guidance inappropriate and therefore do not intend to replicate it in the UK. It is also impractical to undertake the equivalence assessments in such short timescales. The Treasury is therefore, through this statutory instrument, using section 8 powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to put in place transitional arrangements. In parallel, the Treasury will seek a legislative opportunity to streamline the system by linking the equivalence regime in article 391 to that in article 107, providing certainty to firms.

The Treasury has worked closely with the PRA in drafting the instrument. We also engaged with industry throughout the process, including through a public consultation. The Government have updated their approach in line with the points raised in the consultation.

I hope I have given Members a comprehensive overview of the measure, and I urge colleagues to join me in supporting the regulations. In short, the measure will enable the implementation of Basel III—regulation that is key to the UK’s international standing. In addition, it will iron out some of the wrinkles in existing EU regulation. Together, the proposals will give UK firms certainty, and therefore help them to flourish. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

14:35

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you for chairing the sitting, Mrs Murray.

Just before I came here, I saw media reports that there is a Government reshuffle under way. There is an old Glasgow phrase referring to job insecurity. It talks about somebody’s jacket hanging on a shoogly nail. I genuinely hope that the Minister’s jacket is not hanging on a shoogly nail, and wish him well in whatever transpires over the rest of the day.

The statutory instrument before us, as the Minister explained, is the legislative child of section 3 of the Financial Services Act, which we debated in the House last year. Under that Act, powers under certain EU directives were onshored to be allocated to UK-based regulators. Some of those powers related to the capital requirements regulation, which was the EU’s instrument for implementing the Basel standards agreed in the wake of the financial crash of 2007 and 2008.

Those Basel standards are important, because they required financial institutions to hold particular levels of capital buffer; stick to, at the very least, a minimum overall leverage requirement below which they could not fall; and have particular liquidity requirements. All that was designed to avoid a repeat of the financial crisis, when globally and systemically important banks were found to be holding too little capital, and to be overstretched when it came to leverage, and therefore to be unable to fund themselves when the crisis came.

That scenario left Governments and taxpayers—not only in this country, but in the United States, Ireland and a number of European countries—in the invidious position of having to bail out banks deemed too big to fail. The Basel rules were designed to avoid a repeat of that situation, make financial institutions more resilient and get taxpayers off the hook of bailing those institutions out, or to put it another way, and perhaps more bluntly, to deal with the problem of privatising the profits and nationalising the risks.

As the Minister and I have often discussed in such debates, there is particular onus on the UK to have resilient institutions and good regulation in this sphere, because our banking and financial services sector is so large relative to the rest of our economy. That in many ways is a great strength, but it can be a vulnerability if the UK taxpayer is the ultimate backstop for the system.

My first question to the Minister, therefore, is about whether, in giving these powers to the PRA, there is any policy intent to reduce the capital requirements on institutions. Banks will not openly lobby to put greater risk in the system. Instead, when they come knocking on the Minister’s door, they talk about competitiveness and say, “Can we just have this change? It would make us more internationally competitive. We could lend a bit more if only we didn’t have to hold all this capital against our balance sheet.”

How alive is the Treasury to that kind of lobbying and how determined is the Treasury to resist it, particularly given the number of consultations going on in the financial sector, on all sorts of subjects, asking the sector what it would like to be changed in the wake of our withdrawal from the EU? Really, my question is about whether this is a purely technical transfer of administrative responsibility, or does it open the door to lower capital requirements and greater leverage, and therefore greater risk, for UK-regulated financial institutions?

The second issue in the regulations is clearing services and the recognition of overseas central counterparties, known as CCPs, by the Bank of England. Clearing is very important; it is a firebreak in the system when large transactions take place. It is very important for the UK financial services sector and allows huge volumes of transactions to take place in this country. A temporary agreement on clearing was reached with the EU in the absence of any wider equivalence recognition on financial services last year. This instrument allows the Treasury to extend the transitional period for recognition of overseas CCPs indefinitely, but one year at a time. The reason for that is explained in paragraph 7.11 of the explanatory notes, which say that

“because there are some CCPs, who submitted applications for recognition…that will likely be unable to receive equivalence and recognition under EMIR”—

the relevant directive—

“for a prolonged period”.

In other words, “We need to have this rollover because we can’t process the paperwork.”

That is the financial equivalent of Lord Frost’s announcement yesterday of the unilateral setting aside of border controls on incoming goods. What the Government are doing through this instrument, and a number of similar ones, is empowering themselves in legislation to carry on what went before even in the absence of mutual agreements in the other direction and in recognition that their institutions do not yet have the capacity to consider the individual applications and approvals that would be necessary to do this one clearing house at a time. In the absence of that capacity, we have this catch-all rollover of the status quo, because we are openly admitting that cannot process the paperwork. Can the Minister explain why this power for endless rollover has been deemed necessary? Why, five years after the referendum, does the UK not have the necessary systems in place? How often does he expect to see this annual extension power used?

As I said, this aspect of the statutory instrument is part of a pattern. I have stood in this room and similar rooms on this Corridor debating the same thing with regard to customs procedures, and we also saw it yesterday with regard to the clearance of goods. At what point did taking back control morph into not having controls at all, and not being able to consider applications? When will we ultimately get out of this holding pattern of the rollover of the status quo and actually put in place the controls that were envisaged five years ago when the country took this decision?

14:42

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his constructive scrutiny of the statutory instrument. He always provides succinct summaries of complex matters. They are often full of wisdom, and always courteous, and I am very happy to try to address the points that he made.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the anxiety that exists in his mind concerning the Government’s intentions with respect to standards, competitiveness, what the PRA will be subject to and what we may wish to do to encourage it to succumb to such covert lobbying. As I have always tried to stress in our encounters, this Government wish to retain the highest possible standards. Of course, having regard to our situation in the global financial services industry will always be important, but we are united, in terms of the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA, on the need to hold to the highest international standards, which give us a baseline of resilience. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the UK was extremely influential in both shaping the Basel accords and pushing for their implementation. We remain committed to their effective implementation.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, as part of the Financial Services Act, the PRA is required to have regard to the effect of its rules on international standards, including Basel. As was demonstrated in the publicly available analysis, which I think was published in July, the PRA considers all its rules as achieving the same outcomes: a safe and sound prudential regime to the Basel standards and EU equivalent legislation.

The second issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised was around the CCPs and the transitional rollover concept. He asked about that provision. I would want to say to him that while a foreign firm or jurisdiction can express an interest in receiving equivalence or recognition, it will be for the Treasury to decide whether to initiate consideration of an EU equivalence decision for a foreign jurisdiction and the appropriate timescales. As with all equivalence decisions, the UK authorities will need to ensure that granting equivalence is compatible with the UK’s policy priorities, including those relating to the rule of law, international standards, human rights and efforts to combat money laundering.

Let me turn to the retention of that transitional status without, I think the right hon. Gentleman said, all the forms being processed. Letting that transition fall away might create disruption for the UK firms with exposures to the relevant CCPs. That is not something we would wish to have. The market access provided by qualifying central counterparty status is more limited than that provided by full recognition status, with QCCP firms unable to provide clearing services directly to UK clients. Therefore, it is appropriate that firms may continue to benefit from QCCP status while awaiting the result of their application for recognition.

On any Government intention to extend the transition indefinitely, that is not the case. The Treasury will keep those arrangements under review to ensure they are fit for purpose while a permanent solution is considered. Obviously, I am engaged in discussions with colleagues about legislation in the next Session.

May I conclude by reminding members of the Committee of the key purposes of the statutory instrument? The legislation revokes a number of provisions in the UK’s capital requirements regulations. By doing so, it will enable regulators to make rules in these areas reflecting Basel III international standards. The PRA has consulted on those rules, and in July it published a near-final version of the rules alongside an accompanying policy statement. That set out how the regulator had taken into account public policy factors set out in legislation.

I hope that the Committee has found today’s sitting informative, and that its members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

14:47

Committee rose.

Elections Bill (Second sitting)

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Edward Leigh, †Christina Rees

† Anderson, Fleur (Putney) (Lab)

Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Bristow, Paul (Peterborough) (Con)

† Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)

Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Grady, Patrick (Glasgow North) (SNP)

† Hollern, Kate (Blackburn) (Lab)

† Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)

† O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

† Randall, Tom (Gedling) (Con)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

† Smith, Cat (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)

† Smith, Chloe (Minister for the Constitution and Devolution)

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Chris Stanton, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Professor David Howarth, Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of Cambridge, and former Electoral Commissioner

Fraser Campbell, Blackstone Chambers

Virginia McVea, Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland

Ailsa Irvine, Director of Electoral Administration and Guidance, The Electoral Commission

Peter Stanyon, Chief Executive, Association of Electoral Administrators

Louise Round, spokesperson for Elections and Democratic Renewal, SOLACE

Rob Connolly, Returning Officer, Birmingham City Council

Dr Kate Dommett, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Sheffield

Professor Justin Fisher, Director of Public Policy, Brunel University London

Darren Grimes, political commentator

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2021

(Afternoon)

[Christina Rees in the Chair]

Elections Bill

Examination of Witnesses

Professor David Howarth and Fraser Campbell gave evidence.

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

[Chloe Smith]

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[The Chair]

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[Cat Smith]

[Cat Smith]

[The Chair]

[Cat Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

[Peter Gibson]

[Peter Gibson]

[Peter Gibson]

[Peter Gibson]

[Peter Gibson]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[The Chair]

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

[Paul Bristow]

[The Chair]

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

[The Chair]

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

[The Chair]

[Fleur Anderson]

[Fleur Anderson]

[Fleur Anderson]

[Patrick Grady]

[Patrick Grady]

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Brendan O’Hara]

[Brendan O’Hara]

[Brendan O’Hara]

[The Chair]

[Cat Smith]

[Cat Smith]

[Cat Smith]

[Cat Smith]

[Chris Clarkson]

[Chris Clarkson]

[Chris Clarkson]

[Chris Clarkson]

[Fleur Anderson]

[Nick Smith]

[Peter Gibson]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[Jerome Mayhew]

[The Chair]

[Paul Bristow]

[Paul Bristow]

[Paul Bristow]

[Paul Bristow]

[Paul Bristow]

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[Cat Smith]

[Cat Smith]

[Cat Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[The Chair]

Adjourned till Thursday 16 September at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

EB01 Dr Katherine Dommett

EB02 Professor Justin Fisher

Elections Bill (First sitting)

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Edward Leigh, † Christina Rees

† Anderson, Fleur (Putney) (Lab)

† Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Bristow, Paul (Peterborough) (Con)

† Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)

Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Grady, Patrick (Glasgow North) (SNP)

† Hollern, Kate (Blackburn) (Lab)

† Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)

† O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

† Randall, Tom (Gedling) (Con)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

† Smith, Cat (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)

† Smith, Chloe (Minister for the Constitution and Devolution)

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Chris Stanton, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

The Rt Hon Lord Pickles

Richard Mawrey QC, Henderson Chambers

Councillor Peter Golds, Leader of the Conservative Group, Tower Hamlets Council

Gillian Beasley, Returning Officer, Peterborough City Council

Assistant Chief Constable Gareth Cann QPM, West Midlands Police, and National Police Chiefs’ Council Portfolio Lead for Election-Related Crime

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2021

(Morning)

[Christina Rees in the Chair]

Elections Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. In line with current Government guidance and the House of Commons Commission’s decision, I encourage Members to wear masks when not speaking. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to [e-mail]. Please switch off electronic devices or put them on silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed on Monday by the programming sub-committee for the Bill.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Wednesday 15 September) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 15 September;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 September;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 22 September;

(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 October;

(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 October;

(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 October;

(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 October;

(h) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 3 November;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room, and will be circulated to Members by email.

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Chloe Smith)

09:25

The Committee deliberated in private.

09:25

On resuming—

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public. Do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No.

Examination of Witnesses

The Rt Hon Lord Pickles and Richard Mawrey QC gave evidence. 

09:34

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear evidence from Richard Mawrey QC of Henderson Chambers and Lord Pickles. Before calling the first Member to ask the first question, I remind hon. Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion. This session will end at 10.25 am. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves?

Lord Pickles: My name is Eric Pickles. I am a Member of the House of Lords and I also had the honour of sitting in the House of Commons. I wrote a report for the Government on trying to secure the ballot box, some of the recommendations of which are incorporated in the Bill. It is an honour and a privilege to be with Members of the House of Commons again.

Richard Mawrey: My name is Richard Mawrey, I am a QC at the London Bar, practising in the Temple. I have sat as an election commissioner—election judge—in most of the high-profile disputed local authority elections in the past 20 years, particularly those elections involving electoral fraud and other malpractice. In particular the elections in Birmingham, where the trial took place in 2005, and that concerning the former Mayor of Tower Hamlets, where the trial took place in 2015.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Minister, would you like to ask the first question?

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

Q I would. First, may I welcome our witnesses? It is an absolute pleasure to have you here. You begin our day with the highest quality.

Richard, you highlighted in your judgment on Tower Hamlets and elsewhere how we see interlocking types of fraud that all together create broad criminality. Would you be able to talk us through the extent of that?

Richard Mawrey: Tower Hamlets was a particularly bad example. There, you had a political culture where winning and retaining power was everything. If there were rules, they were to be, at best, circumvented and, at worst, broken. Not only was there electoral fraud in the sense of false votes—almost all postal votes—but the system developed so there was misuse of public funds, which I later decided was bribery, largely as a result of Lord Pickles’ initiative to employ a top firm of accountants to investigate the doings of the council, from which it appeared that large sums of money had been diverted for political purposes.

In Tower Hamlets, the trickiest thing of all was manipulation of voters by religious means. That operated within one community: members of the Bangladeshi community, at the instance of the Mayor and his cronies, were being induced by their religious leaders to back one lot of Muslin politicians against another lot of Muslim politicians. It was not, as you might expect, Muslims versus the rest. They were saying, “If you are a good Muslim, you will vote for Lutfur Rahman and his chums. If you are not and you vote for someone else, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you are beyond the religious pale.” Clearly, that was unacceptable, therefore I made my findings of undue religious influence.

There were also other things, such as the provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983 whereby you cannot make false statements about the personal characters of the other candidates. You may remember the case of Phil Woolas up in the Manchester area. If you go beyond that limit and go public saying, basically, that your principal opponent is a racist who supports racists organisations, when it is totally untrue, that is, again, unacceptable.

You have virtually the whole catalogue of offences laid down by the 1983 Act; they were almost ticking the boxes, one by one, as they did it. That is what happens when you have a political culture that gets corrupted, in all senses, into the belief that, “The rules don’t apply to us. We do what we want in order to get the results.” That is the danger that one perceives. Of course, Tower Hamlets was an extreme case.

The other cases that I tried were largely cases of straightforward voter fraud using postal votes—misuse of the actual votes themselves: stealing them, altering them, and that sort of thing—or putting on the register people who had no right to be there, either because they lived somewhere else or because they did not exist at all. Those are the problems that I have seen, although I must emphasise that my experience is entirely with local authorities, naturally, because parliamentary elections are tried by proper judges, so to speak.

However—I think that Lord Pickles will agree with me here—local authority elections are the easiest to manipulate. You have relatively small electorates, a relatively small geographical area, and communities, although not necessarily racial or religious communities, that can operate as a sort of support mechanism in any frauds that you are perpetrating. I do not expect a large amount of fraud in parliamentary elections, referendums, or anything like that, but it is a serious problem in local elections. I do not think that Lord Pickles would disagree with that.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Across a selection of your cases—Tower Hamlets, Birmingham, and Slough—we see the range of corrupt practices, also known as crimes or elections fraud, including, as you say, postal voting practices, proxy voting practices and personation, notably, in Slough.

Richard Mawrey: Not so much proxy. Proxy votes are very rare, and proxy fraud is very rare. It is mostly personation, of both kinds: putting the wrong people on the register—what the Australians call “roll stuffing”—and misusing genuine votes for genuine people by diverting them, altering them, or, in some cases, simply destroying them.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you. Two questions, if I may: would you agree that, where one of those avenues may be cut off by the law, criminals might turn to others? Criminals, by nature, are able to use a range of techniques, and, naturally, wish to do so. Secondly, may I ask for your assessment of who the victims of such crimes are? Where does the harm fall?

Richard Mawrey: I think the harm falls on the community as a whole if you have someone who is elected as a councillor, let us say, but has no right to be because the votes cast on their behalf are false. Take Birmingham, for example: in the two wards that I tried—although it was actually fairly common in all the wards with a substantial Muslim population—approximately half of the votes cast for the winning candidates were false. That is serious. The winning candidates got between 3,000 and 4,000 votes each. It was three per ward, so they got that, and their rivals got 200 or 300 below.

Of those 3,000-odd votes, somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 were completely bogus. They were votes that had been harvested in various ways—not, funnily enough, by putting bogus people on the register. They had stolen voting papers. They had applied for votes to be sent to the wrong address. They had gone down streets collecting the voting papers from houses in multiple occupation—they would get themselves in and there was a huge pile of voting papers. They knew they would be there because they had applied, without the knowledge of the voters, for those votes to be postal votes. They went in, there was a pile of postal votes and the inhabitants of the block did not know. They collected the lot and filled them in.

If any of the people living in those houses went to vote in person, they were told, “Oh no, you voted by post,” much to their annoyance, as you might imagine. I had witnesses called before me who said, “I went down to the polling station expecting to vote, but they said, ‘I’m sorry, Mr Jones, but you’ve already voted.’” He said, “No, I haven’t,” and they said, “Oh yes, you’re marked: we’ve got your ballot paper.” So they, of course, are the losers.

The other thing is that if you have a culture of political corruption, it seeps into all other life. I think of the money in Tower Hamlets that could have been spent for the benefit of Tower Hamlets but that was actually being spent on providing, in effect, free meals for voters—which is what they were doing, among other things—and subsidising organisations that had not asked for a subsidy. Tower Hamlets is not a borough that has money to spare or to throw around, and I felt that the people who had lost out—I said this in my judgment—were what I might call the rank-and-file members of the Bangladeshi community that they were claiming to represent. They were the losers. If they were looking at it in any sort of tribal way, they were doing down their own kind—the people they were claiming were their power base. That is not tolerable.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Eric, you then had the opportunity to follow up on Richard’s work and to say what ought to be done about it. Is it still your view that something ought to be done about all of those things?

Lord Pickles: Yes. In terms of vulnerability, there might be the odd seat in the House that is vulnerable, but this is about local government. I think it would be a big mistake to say that this is just about voting, democracy and elections. It is actually about power and money. A place like Tower Hamlets has a budget of £1 billion. Many of the large cities have budgets of large sums of money. Even a small district council has considerable ability to dispose of assets and to make appointments.

The reason I put commissioners in Tower Hamlets was, like many things, based on quite a small thing. I looked at the small grants that were available to many organisations, some of which could be distributed by councillors. They were there to relieve poverty. I had a map that showed me where the grants had been distributed and another map that showed me where the deprivation was, and there was no relationship between the two. Then, I looked at the number of decisions that had been overturned by councillors and the number of decisions they had granted without a business plan. It was on that basis that we decided to put the thing through.

I was asked to look at it and we started taking evidence on the types of fraud. I have been involved in politics for a long time and have seen most things on the street, but I was quite shocked by some of the frauds that were being committed. Richard will be able to tell you about warehousing. There was a warehouse in Birmingham, I think, where they were literally changing the ballot papers on an almost commercial basis. There were things like carousel fraud, where a ballot is palmed—a fresh ballot is taken out, filled in and given to another person and it is palmed—as a way of controlling the election; landlords insisting on seeing a photograph of their ballot being completed; and people suddenly finding out that their landlord has registered six or seven people at their house just before an election, only for their names to disappear afterwards.

It is really important to understand that that is not endemic within the system; it is an example of how vulnerable the system is. If Tower Hamlets represents the future, we have to ensure that that future is terminated. We probably will not be burgled, but we lock our houses. The measures in the Bill are moderate and reasonable, and they ensure at least that we will not find some of our large cities run by kleptocrats—this is about rewarding friends; it is not necessarily about politics. Sorry, I went on a bit there.

Richard Mawrey: Could I just come in here on what Lord Pickles has said? The Bill addresses something that was a real problem in Tower Hamlets: the registration of political parties. The Electoral Commission blithely signed off Tower Hamlets First as a party, but it was a joke. It had no premises, and it had—as I discovered to my amazement by asking questions—no bank account. I said to Lutfur Rahman, “If I want to give a donation to your party, do I have to come along with an envelope of used non-consecutive fifties?” Obviously, he was dying to say yes, but that would clearly have been the wrong answer. You can see the levels to which it has come. If anyone can just say, “I am a political party,” and give themselves a name, you lay yourself wide open, particularly once they are registered and can say, “I am a registered political party and have all the rights of a registered political party.”

Lord Pickles: The system is vulnerable. To misquote John Major, it is about old maids cycling to evensong and drinking warm beer, and in most places, that rather twee, gentle system kind of works. When I was a councillor, in gentle rural villages in my own wards, it was fine, but where there is money, we have to protect the integrity of the ballot and of governance.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Q Richard, can I start with you and the Tower Hamlets examples that you have already outlined? Thank you for that. You said that in Tower Hamlets there was a wide range of different types of electoral fraud that was used to try to manipulate. I was particularly struck by what you said about public funds being diverted for political advantage. Does anything in the Bill prevent public funds being diverted for political influence?

Richard Mawrey: The Bill, as I read it, does not make any particular changes to the laws relating to bribery. The laws relating to bribery, in actual terms under the 1983 Act, are quite clear. The problem is that bribery was a common law offence, and it then became a statutory defence under the Victorians. Before the secret ballot, the Victorians had a system whereby you voted in public and everyone knew how you voted. Rich candidates would simply put money in the hands of the electors, who would not be very large in number, to pay them to go and vote. That was the principal thing that led to both the secret ballot and the introduction of electoral courts in the 1860s.

We have moved on from that now. Very few candidates have the sort of money that allows them to put fivers in people’s pockets, so to speak, but they do control public money. The answer is not necessarily electoral law, but better control, particularly in local authorities, of local authority finance. It is better auditing and more independent scrutiny. The law is clear; it is policing it that is the problem. You don’t need to change the law; you need to change the policing of it. Would you agree?

Lord Pickles: Yes, I think I almost certainly would agree. When it starts to go wrong, it is a terrible thing. I do not think I am betraying confidences, because I am sure they would be happy for me to say this, but the two Labour Members of Parliament within the borough came to see me and laid out all these various things, and said that basically the Electoral Commission was ignoring them, that the police were ignoring them, but there was something deeply wrong within the administration, and they urged me to take action.

Obviously, a Secretary of State can only go in on a reasonable basis, and I went in on a reasonable basis because it seemed to me that the way in which grants were being delineated for every small thing was entirely wrong, entirely arbitrary and not based on fact. So the point is that this Bill is about just tightening up and trying to make the system reasonably proof in terms of personation and various other things. It is not going to cure corruption and it is not going to stop bad people being elected; it just reduces the chances of a community being abused.

[Cat Smith]

Q Turning to postal votes, this legislation obviously makes some minor changes to the way in which postal votes are handled, in terms of limiting the number of postal votes that an elector may hand in at a polling station on the day, but there is nothing to prevent postal votes being posted in a post box. So I just wonderer whether you consider that the legislation might not be effective in reducing postal votes, which I think you said was the greatest weakness in the system.

Richard Mawrey: I appreciate the risk of going on about my King Charles’s head. Postal voting is going to be open to fraud, however hard you try and however much you do. Legislation has, since the Birmingham judgment, tried to stop all the mouseholes, but as the old saying goes, the better mousehole breeds the smarter mouse, so you can try and stop all your mouseholes but the mouse will still get out eventually. Obviously you need to tighten up registration, but the problem is resources. If every time somebody wrote in asking to register Mr Jones at 1 Acacia Avenue, if you had unlimited resources you could send someone around to see whether there was a Mr Jones at 1 Acacia Avenue. Had they done that in Slough, things would have been very different.

The thing that blew Slough open was a small road—I still remember its name, Hawtrey Close—of four houses, in which, just before the election, 19 people were registered to vote. What drew the attention of the Labour party, who were on the qui vive for fraud, was that they went along to Hawtrey Close and all four houses had been boarded up and unoccupied for several years. None the less, they had 19 voters in them. Surprisingly, they all voted for the winning candidate. But you couldn’t blame the town hall. The town hall said, “Here is an address. It is a perfectly good address.” The town hall didn’t know that the houses were boarded up. “Here are these people wanting to be registered; we’ve got to register them.” They did not have the resources to send someone out who would look at this thing and say, “Of course there’s nobody registered, as there’s no one living there.” So that is the problem. It is resources, not the law. The law is quite clear: you cannot be registered unless you are a genuine person, living within the ward or constituency.

Lord Pickles: What the Bill does is restrict the number of people you can handle. So you cannot go door to door collecting postal votes, as has been common practice between all political parties for a number of years. I did receive quite a lot of representations from people who just hated the whole idea of postal votes and wanted to go back. I am old enough to remember when you had to make a case—you had to get your employer or your doctor to sign to say it was necessary. But I took the view that it would be just about impossible to turn the clock back and go back to that kind of system. It is probably not fashionable to mention Richard Nixon, but he was told, “Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is awfully hard to get it back in.”

Rather than trying to go back to what was, in some people’s eyes, a golden age, we need instead to restrict it. Returning officers tell me of people arriving at 6 pm on polling day, which as we all know is a busy time, with a crisp packet box full of postal votes—perhaps 200, 300 or 400, which all have to be separately verified, which slows the process down. It could be that that is all straightforward, but I do not think so. It is trying to restrict the handling of postal votes, ensuring that parties cannot pick them up—I think the Labour party went round with a mock ballot box to put papers in. I am not suggesting that it was attempting to do anything wrong—it was trying to get the vote out—but it is important to demonstrate that a vote is important and should not be handled by anyone other than the voter.

[Cat Smith]

Q I wanted to pick up on the example given of Birmingham, which was quite a long time ago. The laws around postal votes and electoral registration have changed since, and a national insurance number is now required, or an electoral registration form with a date of birth and a signature on the postal vote return slip. I wonder whether the example given, of a street where people were registered and postal votes applied for, could happen under the existing law today and the changes that have been made.

Richard Mawrey: It certainly could happen. Instead of having 19 entirely fictitious people living at the address, someone could—if they have sufficient organisation—get entirely genuine people who just live somewhere else. That was done in Slough, where a whole lot of people were registered who actually lived in Walthamstow. Walthamstow did not have elections, so the people were not voting twice. The people registered in Slough by the fraudsters were genuine people, with national insurance numbers and everything—they would have been A1 at Lloyd’s—but they just did not live there. They claimed to have moved just before the election and, curiously, moved back to their old houses just after the election. It was of course fraudulent, and not one of them had set foot outside Walthamstow. Their names were being used, with their permission and their connivance. If someone knows their national insurance numbers, it can be done without their connivance, because the signature on the application form for the postal vote can be replicated if someone has a copy of it.

National insurance numbers were not needed back in 2008, when I did Slough. It is difficult now to put a completely fictitious person on the register, but it is not difficult to harvest votes, with or without consent, from real people who live somewhere else. Of course, the old Irish habit was to vote the graveyard.

Lord Pickles: In terms of warehousing, where the ballots are changed, the signature would not be touched because it is outside the envelope. It is the envelopes that are opened and the vote changed. The signature authenticates something that has been changed subsequently.

[Cat Smith]

Q If I understand it correctly, Richard, in most cases it would require the consent of everyone involved. The people registered at an address that they were not actually living at would need to provide their national insurance numbers—they would have to be in on it. That makes it harder to do on a bigger scale, which feeds into your point that the smaller electorates of local government make it easier to manipulate the outcomes than in a parliamentary election. Given that, does it therefore follow that increasing the turnout at an election makes it harder to commit electoral fraud, so a higher turnout is a good mitigating factor against electoral fraud and a good weapon to combat it?

Richard Mawrey: I think that is absolutely right, because fraud is obviously a relatively risky occupation, and the more bogus votes you have to put in, the more difficult it is. That is why it is very rare in parliamentary constituencies and would be completely unfeasible in any form of referendum, even a local referendum. However, when 50 or even 100 votes is likely to make a difference, then the game is worth the candle, unfortunately.

Lord Pickles: To be clear, nobody really cares that much about Parliament. There is no money in Parliament. You would have to be certain that someone was eventually going to get to a point where they would actually be issuing contracts. However, there is plenty of money in local authorities. As you are probably well aware, there have been, I think, two attempts to unseat a Labour MP using these kinds of methods. Pleasingly, they fell well short, and I was pleased to offer help and assistance in that, because it is massively important that this place remains absolutely secure, but the real money is in local authorities, not here.

Richard Mawrey: And, of course, a local councillor perversely has rather more influence, particularly in the sorts of boroughs where influence is perceived by the public to matter—“Oh, yes, he can swing this for me. He can swing that for me”—far more, curiously enough, than the MP himself or herself, who may be seen as a rather distant figure who you might go and moan to if your granny is not getting proper treatment from the NHS, or something like that. If I may say so with respect, you are not handling the readies: you are not dishing out jobs or contracts, and that is why people are keen to become local councillors. In some cases, it is a different sort of keenness from the keenness to become a Member of Parliament.

[Cat Smith]

Q My final question is about the resources of local government, because under this legislation, local government will be asked to do more because of the requirement to issue free voter ID cards. Our electoral returning officers are quite stretched already, and the Association of Election Administrators has already made representations about the pressure on electoral registration officers. In terms of their ability to spot potential fraud, given the increase in workload and the cuts to local government, do you have concerns about the resources of local government to be able to do their jobs, frankly?

Richard Mawrey: I know it is not in your Bill, but it occurred to me that a solution—although not necessarily one that the Electoral Commission would welcome—would be if the Electoral Commission had resources so that, if necessary, it could assign someone. If a local registration officer or returning officer said, “I think we have a problem, but we cannot handle it because we do not have the resources,” the Electoral Commission could, under this theory at least, put in what might be termed a hit squad to go and see what was going on and deal with it.

That would also have the benefit that this would be an independent, external body coming in, so the local councillors and the local officials would not be getting local flak. These would be people rather like the commissioners appointed by Lord Pickles to go into Tower Hamlets, who were completely independent of the borough and were therefore able to find out all about the financial misappropriations and so on. We have the ability to put in external people. Frankly, I would not necessarily rely on the police, because one, they are overstretched, and two, they do not have the available techniques, resources and skills to deal with this—and they hate doing it, and they make quite clear that they hate doing it. My suggestion is that the question of whether the Electoral Commission itself might be able to assist might at least be considered at some future time. I do not know whether you would go along with that.

Lord Pickles: This is a really important question. If you go to a count, say for Parliament, the chief executive turns up or maybe the mayor, and I as the returning officer—the person who is doing the work is not them, and for too long, electoral registration has been in the legions of the damned. They are forgotten about and not properly resourced.

If chief executives understood that it was part of their terms of contract to deliver a fair poll, and that they would be personally held responsible, that would be an important point. The point that you make about electoral returns being poorly resourced is absolutely right. I do not think that it would take an enormous increase in resources to improve the situation, but what is in the Bill makes their life that bit easier because there are fewer things for them to worry about. I agree with the substantive point that you make.

[The Chair]

I have a long list of Members who want to come in, so I ask Members to keep their questions short, and witnesses to shorten their answers. I will endeavour to get everyone in.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Q I am seeking a comment on what I am about to read to you. I apologise to the Committee that what I am about to read is exceptionally offensive and, frankly, quite evil. This relates to the Batley and Spen by-election. This is something that happened in June of this year. What I am about to read to you we were not able to trace, no matter how hard we tried, but I seek your comments on it. This relates to your comment on religious pressure:

“Brothers & Sisters of Batley & Heckmondwike I am publicly calling out members of our communities who we have supported in the past: Shabbir Pandor, Ghulam Maniyar, Dr Rajpura and others who have shamelessly brought the Labour Candidate (who is openly Lesbian) to the ‘Masjids’ (the house of Allah) for votes. Would Allah be happy with their actions considering he destroyed the people of Lut A.S which is clearly referenced in the Holy Quran as a lesson for mankind? We are already powerless in schools against forced LGBT education and the effect it is having on our children. Must people from our community promote this agenda too? Mr Maniyar who is part of the Muslim burial committee is trying to land his daughter Fazila the job she previously had under the late Jo Cox. I ask him ‘Would you like to be buried with this on your conscience? You are promoting an MP that could potentially harm the Imaan of our children.’ This is not an endorsement of another party or candidate. I want you all as a community to understand that the blind loyalty to the Labour Party of these people for selfish gains be it ‘peerages’ or ‘better job roles’ is being asked FROM US at a cost of the corruption of our future generations. (PLS SHARE THE TRUTH SO PPL MAY KNOW)”.

I apologise for how offensive that was, but I think it is important to the Committee. That was in June of this year, in the parliamentary by-election. I seek your comments on what I have just read.

Richard Mawrey: I quite agree with you that it is offensive, but there is an obvious line to be drawn regarding individuals expressing strong, perhaps bigoted, perhaps extreme religious or indeed ideological views, for example against LGBT people and so on. The key, I think, with religious influence is that, first of all, it has to be directed. Directed against a candidate is perfectly okay for what was, I think, section 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, because it is just as much an offence to try to get somebody unelected as to get a named person elected. Quite often if something false is spread about a candidate’s personal character, so as to engage, I think, section 113, it does not matter that that may not be directed to the election of any other person, but just in order to get a candidate unelected, as it were.

The point about religious influence is that it has to be a way of influencing people. The fact that somebody expresses a view such as that might just fall short. If that person were himself an imam, some other religious teacher, or somebody of standing within the community who is saying, “Don’t vote for this candidate because their views are against our religion,” then you probably might breach the threshold of undue influence, because people would be voting not on general principles but on strictly narrow sectarian principles. That would be true of any religion; it just happened in this case to be Muslim.

Lord Pickles: I have nothing to add to that. I agree with everything that Richard said.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q I have a couple of questions, directed to both of you, but I will start with Lord Pickles. You said that there have been some shocking examples of postal vote fraud, and you gave some examples. However, you said that it is not endemic in the system but that the system is vulnerable. Do you think that, with the system being vulnerable, we are missing an opportunity to tighten up on postal vote fraud in the Bill? It does not seem to be a huge part of the Bill. Given what you have said, the Bill seems to be almost looking in the wrong places to tighten up on fraud. Where could we tighten up more on the postal vote fraud that you say is not endemic but to which the system is vulnerable?

Lord Pickles: Thank you. That gives me a brief opportunity to clarify the remarks. If postal vote fraud was widespread, it would be too late, and this place would be stuffed with people with a vested interest in keeping a vulnerable system. It is vulnerable. We have delineated a number of court cases, over several years, and showed how vulnerable it is. What we want to do is to close that.

Obviously, it is up to the Committee to move various amendments further to restrict postal votes. The recommendations that you have here plough a middle route between taking away from things that people have become very used to and restricting too much. For example, having to renew every three years is important; restricting the number of people who can handle postal votes is important. As Richard says, postal votes are by their very nature more vulnerable than votes at the polling station. Things like carousel fraud are no less possible, but they are hard to do.

You have to come to a judgment. Certainly, I would urge you to put down some amendments to test the Government on restrictions on postal ballots. However, in many ways the horse has bolted on that—people have become used to it. Going back so that everybody voted in person, except in cases of illness or business, would probably be a step too far, but it would certainly be worth putting down a probing amendment. Obviously, I am not saying to my Conservative colleagues that they have to vote for it, but nevertheless it would be a good debate.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q The problem that you have both identified is around postal voting, and the examples of personation that you have given have been pretty few and far between. It is fair to say from what you have said that where the system is most vulnerable and weak is around postal voting.

Richard, you were talking about a particular culture that existed in Tower Hamlets and manipulation by religious means. You said yourself that that was an extreme case. The Tower Hamlets example has been used in previous debates to claim that voter ID cards are absolutely necessary. In your opinion, how would voter ID cards at polling stations have changed what you witnessed at Tower Hamlets?

Richard Mawrey: Tower Hamlets would be a bad example. In Tower Hamlets, as I said, they virtually ticked every box of electoral offence. But for my being rather kind-hearted, they would have ticked the intimidation box as well—they ticked them all. Voter fraud played a very small part, funnily enough, in Tower Hamlets. There was a handful of personation cases. Because they were orchestrated by the candidate, they were enough, as it were, to get him over the line.

If you as the candidate, or as an agent of the candidate, procure one false vote, you are out. It is all or nothing: you do not have to show that it made a difference. There was simply a handful. I regret to say that, in that case, a number of people who were carrying out these frauds by registering themselves at the wrong address were people who were councillors who lived outside the borough and registered in the borough, but that was a rare occurrence.

Birmingham, in particular, Slough and Woking were all cases that were purely postal fraud. Voter ID at polling stations, frankly, is neither here nor there. Personation at polling stations is very rare indeed, because it is so dangerous—if someone turns up to a polling station and says, “I am Mr Jones of Acacia Avenue”, and somebody says, “I know Mr Jones; you are not him”, the next thing is a policeman’s hand on his shoulder and he’s up at the local Crown court—but postal vote personation, whereby you are voting in the name of a non-existent person or a person who lives somewhere else, is very difficult to detect and to trace. It is only when you have a full-scale petition that it comes to light and you are able to unseat someone.

Voter ID in polling stations is all right, but voter ID for the purposes of registering votes would require checking. If you do not have a mechanism to check—even just to spot check—then registering people at addresses where they do not live, which is the key to that sort of postal fraud, which is a form of personation, voter ID is going to be quite difficult to operate. What you need is simply to check that if Mr Jones is registered at 1 Acacia Avenue, there is a Mr Jones living there. That takes money and resources. We do not have an identity card system in this country, for good or ill, so there is no way, obviously, of cross-checking that. Voter ID only takes you so far with postal votes. Beyond that, the system is vulnerable, and necessarily vulnerable.

Lord Pickles: Thank you for the really interesting question. I did not recommend photo ID, but I think things have moved on since then. I was very interested to see that the Government said that 98% of the population has some form of photo ID. To emphasise the importance of voting, to be able to demonstrate that you are that person by producing, in my case, my bus pass—I could not use my driving licence, because I still have a paper one; I am that old—or something from work is a very sensible process. It occurs to me that the 2% who do not have any kind of photo ID might in itself have a wider use beyond voting in a polling station. It is an important check and a way of emphasising the importance of the vote. If Barack Obama can sign for his ballot paper, which might be an alternative, it is not unreasonable to have the same level as we have for getting a pair of Nike trainers from Amazon.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q That is a purely subjective view. The fact that you did not recommend photo ID in your report and it is now being introduced would suggest that it is a solution seeking a problem.

Lord Pickles: No, not really. I did bear in mind what had happened in Northern Ireland. I am sure you will recall that it started with paper ID for the first few years and then went over to photo ID. A lot of things have happened. Essentially, what the Government are suggesting, so far as I can follow what they are doing, is that we are moving to the Northern Ireland system without an intermediate stage with paper ID—

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Sorry, Lord Pickles, can I interrupt? Are you seriously suggesting that the situation in the United Kingdom in 2021 bears any similarity to the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s?

Lord Pickles: In what respect? I do not understand the question.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Well, you say we are moving to the Northern Ireland system. The Northern Ireland system was introduced for very specific reasons. Are you saying we should move to the Northern Ireland system because there are similarities between what is happening here in 2021 and what was happening in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s?

Lord Pickles: I think you are putting words in my mouth. My remarks on Northern Ireland were restricted to the point that at first there was a paper check, and then photo ID. The Government are suggesting that we move on to photo ID now. What has changed since 2016 is the growth of photo ID. It is important to be able to demonstrate who you are when you go to the polling station, not just in order to deal with personation but to emphasise the importance of the vote. No doubt you will spend many happy hours together debating that point. I shall read the debates with great interest.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

Q I wanted to pick up on your point about policing, Mr Mawrey. You have been very critical, in both your judgments and your previous evidence to Parliament, of the police and their determination not to get involved. My question is twofold. What does that imply about how many cases have not been brought that perhaps ought to have been? Does the Bill empower the police, and would you expect them to be more willing to be involved in future?

Richard Mawrey: Those are two separate questions. One was whether the police are empowered. They have the necessary powers now. In the aftermath of my critical remarks in the Birmingham judgment, a number of forces had designated officers to deal with the issue, but for various reasons, there were never enough officers for some to be spared to deal with electoral matters only, so they tended to be somebody who added this issue to his or her other duties—say, with the fraud squad, or whatever it was. They did not have the time or resources, because obviously this was regarded—not unreasonably—by some police forces as being very low priority. They tend to think, “This is a squabble between politicians. Let them sort it out.”

In certain areas—Tower Hamlets is a good example—the police force was wary of the local politicians, who were, of course, only too anxious, particularly in the case of Lutfur Rahman, to meet any sort of criticism or investigation with cries of “Institutional racism!”, mentions of the Macpherson report, and all that. The police were wary of dealing with that. They have the powers; whether they have the resources and the will is an entirely different matter.

On whether lots of cases are going undetected, the answer is undoubtedly yes. It is very difficult to prove fraud, and when you have proved it, it is very difficult and time-consuming to prove who benefited from it. In some systems—in Australia, for example—you can prove fraud until you are blue in the face, but you no longer prove who benefited from it, so anyone elected with fraudulent votes stays elected. That is obviously not a good idea. What you see in the cases that I try is the tip of the iceberg, and those cases exist only because concerned citizens are prepared to put their money—their houses, sometimes—on the line in order to fight that fraud. You can end up, as the petitioners did in Tower Hamlets, with a large order for costs against someone who cheerfully declares themselves bankrupt, and you find yourself having spent a fortune doing what you think to be right, only to see none of that money back.

What the Bill does not deal with, although it might have done, is any reform of the process of electoral petitions, trying disputed elections, and all that—things on which Lord Pickles and I have given evidence on other occasions. I am sorry that it does not deal with that, but it is a big, long Bill; perhaps you will get round to it later. The idea that it should be made easier for elections to be challenged by citizens or candidates, and less expensive—

[The Chair]

I am sorry; I have to come in there. We have one minute left, so we can have a very short question and answer.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Q I have a very short question. To clarify for the record, what was the proportion of postal vote fraud, as opposed to in-person, polling station fraud, in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham? I think you have said that all the fraud in Birmingham was postal votes, for example. Is that correct? What was the proportion in Tower Hamlets?

Richard Mawrey: The proportion proved in Tower Hamlets was very small—really only a handful of votes were proved to be fraudulent. It was enough, because they had been orchestrated by the candidate himself.

[Fleur Anderson]

Q Do you have the number of postal votes?

Lord Pickles: To get a prosecution, you do not need to prove everything; you just need to prove some. I agree entirely with the point about electoral petitions. I would like to put that on the record.

[Fleur Anderson]

Have the elections in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Councillor Peter Golds, Gillian Beasley and Assistant Chief Constable Gareth Cann QPM gave evidence.

10:26

[The Chair]

For this panel we have until 11.25 am. I will bring in Cat Smith first and then the Minister, but please take no more than 10 minutes each, in order to leave time for Back Benchers.

[Cat Smith]

Q Thank you, Ms Rees. My first question is to the witnesses from local government. What will be the practical and cost implications for electoral administrators and councils of implementing the Bill’s voter ID proposals? Also, what pressure will there be on electoral administrators as a result of having to cope with two different categories of EU citizens when it comes to voting rights—whether they are a qualifying EU citizen? Do you anticipate any difficulties in managing that, and what kinds of resources do you expect to have to increase or bring in to meet those difficulties, as well as the requirements to administer free ID cards?

Councillor Golds: Is that for me first? Remember that I am an elected councillor, rather than an official, but obviously I can give you some ideas because I am extremely familiar with the electoral services department of Tower Hamlets Council and how it interfaces with the rest of the council. The electoral services department does understand the need to clean up the system we have, and I believe that there is a will within our council to provide extra resources to electoral services, but of course it is the Government who pay costs toward electoral services. One thing that the department often complains about is the adverts that go out when there is an election, because suddenly they will be inundated when tens of thousands of people ask, “Am I on the electoral register?” A quarter of a million people apply to go on the electoral register, but about 85% of them are already on it, so electoral services are sitting there saying, “Yes, yes, yes.” That is expensive and time consuming.

Gillian Beasley: There are important resource implications for both areas. Looking at how electoral services teams will have to respond, we certainly anticipate that having to produce these new electoral identity documents will require additional resources. We know from experience that voters tend to turn their minds to voting very close to polling day, and if they discover that they do not have the requisite documents to prove their identity and we have to issue those documents, we will probably see a surge at what is the busiest time for electoral services teams, the pre-election run-up, when they are dealing with late registrations, and proxy and postal vote applications, so there will be resource implications for them.

Returning officers, which is what I have been since 1999, will probably have dedicated teams that are able to do that, because when someone discovers that they do not have the requisite documents and they need to bring in other documents, depending on what those are, they sometimes do not bring the right ones and we have to send them home, so there is a lot of administrative burden in that regard. We will also need to train and resource that at polling stations in a better way, because there will be problems in polling stations over this. We need confident presiding officers who understand the law and are trained well, so there will be additional burdens there.

I think that in our arena, in particular, there will be significant resource issues. It is not the case that we do not want to do it; we just need to ensure that is highlighted at very busy times during the electoral process, because of voter behaviour. That has been our experience in Peterborough, and I am sure that it is the experience of other returning officers.

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: From a policing point of view, it is difficult to estimate with any precision what the resource impact might be. Some elements of the Bill, if put into law, might go some way towards helping. For example, voter ID could potentially help to avoid various demands that we have around it. I do not want to overstate that, because it would not be a huge thing, but it could be helpful. On the other hand, until we understand fully what is involved in the digital imprints regime, for example, it is a little difficult to be precise about the likely impact on police resources at the moment.

[Cat Smith]

Q If I may follow up on that, my question to you, Gareth, was going to be slightly different. It is on the policing of electoral fraud, particularly in relation to overseas voters. With regard to overseas voters making political donations that are unlawful, or voter fraud, what powers does the UK have to detect infringements and prosecute?

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: With regard to any infringements that might be committed overseas or by non-UK citizens, for example, our powers to deal with that are very limited.

[Chloe Smith]

Q I welcome all three witnesses. I have one question for each. Councillor Golds, thank you for giving us your time today. Can you tell us a little about the experience on the ground of how people might have been victims of electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets, and perhaps how difficult it can be for some of those stories to come forward?

Councillor Golds: I have been studying it. I have been involved in elections in the borough for 20 years. I should quickly declare that over the years, I have been an election agent in 13 general elections. In fact, I have been an election agent for every kind of election we can have in this country, from Parliament and European Parliament to GLA, GLC and local council, and I have never seen anything like what I saw in Tower Hamlets.

The thing that always upsets me, and that I find terribly disappointing, is that ordinary people’s votes were effectively stolen. When I knock on a door, somebody will say to me, “Mr Golds, my father used to vote for Mr Attlee.” I smile at them, and then they say, “But what’s the point of voting now?” The problem is that, as both Mr Mawrey QC and Lord Pickles said, those are the people whose votes have been stolen. Most of all, however, there are our Bangladeshi voters, who sometimes come forward and say to me, as their local councillor, “Can you provide this information?” I say, “But you have to go on record, otherwise it is hearsay,” and they will then say, “I’m frightened to do so.”

That is a very intimidating situation, and I have to say it is not only in Tower Hamlets. Mr Shelbrooke read what had happened in Batley and Spen. A few years ago I took a friend of mine, who had contested an election in Calderdale, to meet the Electoral Commission. It was a waste of his time, because the Electoral Commission, as it so often is, was completely uninterested. He had a dossier as large as the one I brought with me today, which he handed to the Commission; as far as I know, it is probably still sitting in an archive, gathering dust.

[Chloe Smith]

Q As a brief follow-up, could you please explain what types of fraud people may have encountered? Be specific; is it personation, postal votes or other types?

Councillor Golds: In the election petition, I submitted eight witness statements and approximately 2,000 pages of backing documentation, covering as much as possible. That includes, for example, where we tracked fraudulent postal votes using postal vote returns in the election data. You can see how things were marked on postal voting.

Tracking personation is much more difficult, but I will give you an interesting example. In the 2010 mayoral election, when Lutfur Rahman was first elected, I wrote one of my many unanswered letters to the Metropolitan Police. At 7.15 on polling day, I was present at Christ Church Primary School polling station in Brick Lane. A man entered and approached the desk where electors from Brick Lane were being processed. He had in his hand a poll card and envelope. However, this poll card was dated May 2010, was issued by the London Borough of Enfield, and referred to the Edmonton general election constituency. He tried to give a name and address in Brick Lane but was unable to accurately do so, by which time he was leaning over to the council staff and trying to point at an electoral register in front of the council and say, “That’s me, that’s me.” Eventually, the council officer started to ask questions, and he left the polling station.

I would add that outside there were supporters of Tower Hamlets First with copies of the electoral register. They mark on the electoral register what we all know exists: the vote return. They know if people vote. They have a list of people who may not regularly vote, and people were coming up, talking to them and effectively being given names to go into the polling station.

If you want another extraordinary example—one that made all sorts of press—it was the incident in the 2006 by-election in the Shadwell ward where a figure, about six-foot-something tall, dressed from head to foot in traditional Islamic gear but with huge red trainers, entered a polling station. An hour later, the same figure entered the polling station, and then an hour after that they entered the polling station.

The Conservative and Labour polling agents then compared notes, rang their agents and were told that the one thing they could do would be to ensure the presiding officer asked the statutory questions. When this person came for the fourth time and the statutory questions were put, he merely hooked up the clothing he was wearing and fled down Bigland Street. Everybody asked the policeman on duty what he was going to do, and he shrugged his shoulders and just said, “Nothing. It’s nothing to do with me.”

Those are two particularly extreme examples, but I can give you examples of cases, exactly as Mr Mawrey said—I have them recorded—where for houses that were boarded up, names appeared on the electoral register and votes were cast, or where people turned up only to discover that their votes had been stolen. Staggeringly, on 6 May this year, Francis Hoar, the barrister for the election petitioners in Tower Hamlets, went to vote in Lambeth and unfortunately his vote had already been cast on his behalf. That is what went on.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much indeed. I have a brief question for both Gillian and Assistant Chief Constable Cann. Gillian, thank you very much for joining us; it is good to see you again. We have done some work together, because Peterborough was part of early pilots on how to tackle electoral fraud, and you took forward measures about postal and proxy voting. With reference to the measures in the Bill—for example, clause 6, introducing the requirement of secrecy for postal votes—could you explain to us the problems you encountered, how you tried to deal with them and how you think the Bill will affect that?

Welcome and thank you to ACC Cann, as well. Given that electoral law can be a relatively niche area within policing, can you tell us how the wider profession works to ensure that the right knowledge, training and capacity are in place in local forces to enable them to play the role that is needed from the police?

Gillian Beasley: I will start by saying that we have a very close relationship with the police in Peterborough and our electoral integrity plan is co-produced between us and them. Our police, as well as our electoral services team, have a really good and detailed understanding of the electoral offences in law. There is a lot of co-operation there, which has helped us to home in on where integrity is at risk.

First, I would say that we have seen less personation in polling stations in the recent past. Probably our last prosecution was some years ago, and that is because there are some tight measures not only in polling stations, but around ensuring that we have a good electoral register. We go through our electoral register very carefully, removing duplicate names, and we visit a lot of premises where there are a number of people registered or where we are told there is an empty property, to ensure that they are the right people and that they are real people. Of course, the individual voter registration division has helped tremendously with that.

Where we have issues, as the Minister knows, is in postal voting. That is where our concerns are. The allegations we tend to get are around harvesting. They are allegations of people going into properties where people live—they are proper voters who have applied for a postal vote—and getting that person to make a declaration and signature with date of birth, but not fill the ballot paper. Those are then taken away and the proxies put against the relevant candidate. Those are the allegations. We get allegations about those being taken from properties, and where we get those allegations, we work together with the police in joint operations to visit those premises and make it absolutely clear that there is no tolerance for that and that those properties will be raided. We have never had any prosecutions for that, but we have made a clear statement about not tolerating that kind of behaviour.

The provision on not handing your postal vote to a campaigner is welcome. We will use that as a good communications tool to say to people, “Your vote is your vote. It is important that you post your vote or take it into a polling station.” The restrictions on how many postal votes can go into polling stations is a good provision, and documenting who is going in with those postal votes is important. Harvesting those votes will now be an offence, and although it will be difficult evidentially to get people to make those allegations, to stand by them and to go to court, nevertheless as returning officers we can do some important publicity around that fact: “This is your vote, you must keep it and it is a criminal offence if somebody takes it from you.” I see some strength there, and I support those provisions.

The other area I think is interesting is around undue influence. That is by far the most difficult; we hear allegations, but it is difficult for people who are subject to whatever form of undue influence or intimidation it may be to feel confident to come forward, give evidence and take that through to a court process. We encourage people to do that, but it is still difficult for them.

The change in the provision on undue influence, where you induce or compel somebody not to vote at all, is important; that covers the point that was made about collecting votes where they have not even been marked. My issue as a returning officer is that I send out thousands and thousands of postal votes, and we get them carefully delivered to the correct premises, but what happens behind those closed doors? It is about getting people to confidently give evidence if they are subject to undue influence or somebody comes and tries to take their vote. As I say, we have a really good relationship with the police, who are prepared to take forward and understand the offences. There is a joint communications plan between us and the police telling people that we will take it seriously, take cases forward and investigate every single allegation that is made, but it is still very difficult to get people confident enough to come forward with those kinds of allegations.

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: In terms of developing police knowledge and capacity, I like the description of electoral law being a niche area. I think that is accurate. The RPA is not a widely known piece of legislation among police officers.

One of the reasons that the national portfolio that I lead was created was to raise awareness through some degree of central co-ordination and training across police forces. One of the first things that we recognise is that we are not on our own with this. Gillian has spoken very well about the importance of partnership working between the police, the Association of Electoral Administrators, administrators more locally, the Electoral Commission, the CPS, the parties themselves and Royal Mail. We form strong partnership relationships with a whole range of people, which helps to build capacity and capability within the police service generally.

More specifically, we have established a network of officers, one in every force. We have SPOCs—single points of contact—who are the lead for that force for electoral-related matters. They are knowledgeable in electoral crime and procedure. They usually sit within economic crime teams, but not always. We have created a bespoke training course that is run through the City of London police, which holds particular expertise of its own in this regard. We hold an annual conference for all those single points of contact and a number of other people. There is a very strong, successful partnership from that conference particularly with the Electoral Commission, and with people such as Gillian and other electoral administrators.

We have developed the scope of the portfolio over the last 10 years or so to cover matters of policing the election itself—not just preventing and detecting any fraud, crime or malpractice, but policing the election, so matters of public order and wider security. We have developed guidance in relation to policing elections, which is available on the College of Policing’s website. It is called “Authorised Professional Practice”, and it is about the way police doctrine is expressed and made available to officers up and down the country.

I like to think that, certainly over the last 10 years or so, we have raised the consciousness in the service of electoral malpractice. It is taken extremely seriously and we have some extremely capable and knowledgeable people involved in the work, but it is fair to say that it is something of a niche area. Most officers will not come across it, and in any event the law is slightly difficult to navigate, even for those who have a particular interest and specialism.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Q Good morning to the witnesses. I have two questions to ACC Cann. Do you think the penalties for those committing electoral fraud are sufficient to deter the bad actors?

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: I think the penalties vary, because there is a blend of a civil and a criminal regime at play here. I do not know, because I am not an elected person, a candidate or anything like that, but I imagine that the harsher sanction will be around matters such as being disqualified from holding office or taking part in future electoral matters, rather than a specific fine or a direct sanction. In that regard, there is some significant deterrence there. Generally speaking, when matters go to the courts, it is generally felt that the courts are quite keen to address the seriousness of the matter before them and hand down a suitable penalty.

[Nick Smith]

Q Thank you for that. My second question is this. Mr Mawrey, one of our earlier witnesses, said something like, “Voter ID at polling stations isn’t necessary because there is very little personation.” What is the incidence of personation at polling stations, do you know?

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: I think it is right to say that we have relatively small numbers of those offences coming through to us so, in that sense, it is not a major issue in terms of workload or demand for policing at election time. I imagine that in any case, part of the motivation behind the proposal for voter ID is an element of deterrence. In that regard, if it were to be brought in, we would see some value in that and would broadly welcome that proposal, notwithstanding the fact that, as I say, we do not tend to prosecute or get asked to investigate a significant number of personation allegations.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Q Councillor Golds, you gave some examples earlier today about behaviour in polling stations. Had there been a voter ID regime in place in Tower Hamlets previously, do you think the behaviour that you saw in polling stations might have been different?

Councillor Golds: I certainly think it would have improved. We had a byelection as recently as 12 October, where in one polling station—the Sundial Centre in Shipton Street—the police were called on two occasions to disperse unruly crowds outside the polling station intimidating voters. That is one polling station in one byelection held this summer. I have to say that Assistant Chief Constable Cann’s description of the police activity is positively Panglossian in its optimism; I just wonder whether any of this has percolated through to the Metropolitan police.

[Tom Randall]

Q In Mawrey’s judgment, he described —possibly unkindly—the behaviour of polling staff and the police as taking the three wise monkeys as their role models. Do you feel that after the Rahman trial, the police picked up the issues that arose from it?

Councillor Golds: Frankly, no. There was an inquiry organised by the police called Operation Lynemouth, which said in one of its closing descriptions that

“The policing of the election and the subsequent investigation was deficient in too many areas. There was a lack of corporate responsibility, a lack of training and insufficient resources for the SET investigation. In essence, the MPS did not consider the election and investigation a priority.”

Of course, at the time when they were supposed to be dealing with Tower Hamlets, they were also involved in the infamous Operation Midland, which was another subject. Indeed, one or two officers involved in the Tower Hamlets fiasco drifted through Operation Midland, much to my lack of surprise.

One thing about the police that is truly concerning me, as recent as this year, is the need to defend the secrecy of the ballot. The fundamental Act dealing with balloting in this country is the Ballot Act 1872, which says that you vote in secret. That Act has never been repealed. I have before me an email—a complaint—from a resident. They say that upon their visit to their polling station,

“I noticed 2 separate occasions where 2 people were in the polling booths together with the male member ‘influencing’ the female member’s vote.”

That is one person at midday at the polling station where, incidentally, I vote.

This has travelled to the police and is now in the hands of one Trevor Normoyle, who is the detective inspector of the special inquiry team and, to my horror, informed us that he will be in charge of Tower Hamlets next year. He seems to be completely unaware of the requirement for secrecy of the ballot, because he writes to this resident to say, “In relation to the concerns you have raised, inquiries were carried out”—incidentally, the elector reported this to the presiding officer—“and cannot substantiate any allegation that any influence was being exerted within the polling station, nor are any other electoral laws being broken. The reported matter is now closed”. So nothing will be done, but here we had two people effectively instructing others how to vote inside a polling station in London in 2021, which the police are ignoring—

[The Chair]

Order. Can we move on? We are very short of time.

Councillor Golds: Okay, but it is an example of the police’s utter failure to look at electoral malpractice in London.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Q Thank you to the witnesses. I have a rather technical question for Gillian Beasley, but I want to ask Councillor Golds a little bit more. A lot of the examples that we are hearing about in Tower Hamlets were described by the previous witnesses as “extreme” and “isolated”. In a lot of the examples, people have been brought to justice. The elections were annulled and the candidates were disqualified. What you are describing is police inaction. If your contention is that the police are not enforcing the laws as they already stand, what gives you confidence that the Bill will be any more enforceable or make any more of a difference? Is the contention that there is even more going on—there is even more fraud and there are lots of Tower Hamletses out there—and we are just lucky that we are picking up what is happening in Tower Hamlets, and we have to stop it happening elsewhere in the country where we cannot see it?

Councillor Golds: Let us be absolutely clear that the disqualification was nothing to do with the police, who completely ignored it. It was done by four brave citizens who lost a fortune on it, because they are liable for everybody’s costs, including Lutfur Rahman’s.

On the issue of potential Tower Hamletses, they are out there in other places. Commissioner Mawrey mentioned Slough and he mentioned the problem of Woking, where the returning officer himself said that he did not believe that he had declared an accurate result in all his time as a returning officer. There are issues in Bradford and in other parts of the country. Indeed, we heard from one of your colleagues, who read that extraordinary email that was circulated in the Batley and Spen by-election. That would be typical here.

Outside a polling station, in one of my elections, there were people placed to tell every single Bangladeshi voter two subjects: one, that Councillor Golds is a Jew, and the second, that Councillor Golds is gay. To prove the second point, they had an extract from the election address to ensure that it was understood that the person I have lived with for the past 23 years is male. That was done in London in 2010. Please, as Mr Shelbrooke has said, do not say it is not happening elsewhere. The Bill is essential to clean our elections.

Indeed, we have the appalling situation in Peterborough where a fraudster can sit at a polling station, can turn up at the count, can be present at the reception of postal votes and can stand there smirking for selfies. This is a man who has gone to prison for election fraud and who has been disqualified from voting, but who is taking part in elections. We can all see it. This man Tariq Mahmood tweets it repeatedly. We need the law clearing up so that we do not have what Alec Shelbrooke has said happened in the metropolitan borough of Kirklees, which is repeated in Peterborough and seen in Tower Hamlets. We want clean elections so that people on the Isle of Dogs can vote with the same security as Mr O’Hara’s constituents, the good people of Argyle and Bute.

[Patrick Grady]

Q I want to pick up on some of the questions that Gillian Beasley has been asked about the process of electoral administration. The Bill creates these different categories of EU citizens: EU citizens with retained rights and qualifying EU citizens. How do you anticipate that adding to all the other burdens that we discussed earlier, such as the surge in late voting and the potential surge in late applications for voter ID? How does the creation of yet more categories on the electoral register fit in with the overall package of the Bill?

Gillian Beasley: Thank you for that question. I was talking to my electoral administrators this week about those divisions, and there is undoubtedly going to be more complexity around that. It is already quite complex, if you walk into a polling station with a presiding officer, working out what all the letters mean and who can and cannot vote. I think it means that we need not only highly trained electoral administrators, but highly trained presiding officers. I think it has got a training burden. We are finding it more difficult to get presiding officers because of the complexity, and we will need some really detailed and careful training packages to make sure that the right people get to vote and we administer the register in a proper way. We do expect there to be some burdens and some additional resource needed to ensure we can administer that properly and carefully.

[The Chair]

Gareth Cann, do you have anything to add?

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: Nothing specific. Quite a few issues were raised by Councillor Golds there, but nothing specific for me to come back on, other than that it felt to me that the police had not so much ignored that allegation as assessed and investigated it, and unfortunately it could not be substantiated, which they reported back to the interested parties. I have nothing specific to add on the last question.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Q Gillian, it is nice to talk to you in a different context, and thank you for everything that you do to keep elections free and fair in my city. You are right to say that there have been accusations of postal vote harvesting—I have seen it with my own eyes—so it is good to see that you are comforted that the legislation will help you with that. In the most recent elections in the city—certainly when I was elected in December 2019—the city council placed CCTV at polling stations. Will you explain why you felt the need to do that?

Gillian Beasley: In Peterborough, we have a range of measures to make sure that electoral integrity is maintained. The CCTV was a result of personation allegations of individuals going to one polling station to vote and then taking a polling card to another polling station. We decided to observe the polling stations and who was going into them very closely to see if we could pick up evidence of personation and use it in the prosecution.

CCTV is also a deterrent, to a degree. We are open about the fact that we have CCTV. We tell everybody, including the election agents, that that is going to happen, and we say that we will use the CCTV in evidence if we detect that kind of activity going on. Councillor Golds made the point about people congregating outside polling stations. We get to observe that, and if it is happening, we would get the presiding officer—or the police, who are sometimes in polling stations for assistance with personation—to go out and disperse those who are congregating, so that people can walk into the polling station and feel confident that they will not be subject to any intimidation or comment. We use CCTV for a number of reasons: for the purposes of potential prosecution and to keep an eye on what is happening outside the polling station so that we keep it free and enable voters to go in.

[Paul Bristow]

Q I have one follow-up question. Would you say that CCTV also gives the electorate confidence in the process and that personation and other things will not happen?

Gillian Beasley: I think exactly that. We want to say that we take it very seriously, and that seriousness is exemplified by the CCTV and the measures we have put in place. It is a confidence mechanism as well, and we communicate that not just to those who are involved in the administration, but to the wider public.

[The Chair]

Gareth Cann, do you have anything to add?

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: No, nothing on that one.

[Fleur Anderson]

Q My question is also for you, Gillian, on the nitty-gritty of the increased resources that you said will be needed. I know that my children will certainly want the free ID card to be able to go into pubs and nightclubs, so there will be more demand for them all year round. As you said, there will be a peak about two weeks before the election, when people realise that they need it. How many staff do you think you will need all year round to provide those ID cards? How many additional staff will you need in that peak before elections, and how much will the additional training cost? Have you been able to provide the estimate of all the costs of what the Government have asked for?

Gillian Beasley: We have not done that yet, but we have started to think about working out how many people we think would apply and how many people would have the ID so they would not have to apply. At the moment, we think we probably need one more administrator just to make sure we have enough before the election. Running up to the election, speaking to my electoral administrators this week, we will probably mobilise a small team of two or three people. The reason for that is because we know that people will come in that surge—people will feel anxious because they will be worried that they will lose their votes, so we need to be responsive and be confident that we can help them. Inevitably, they will not in the first case bring the right documentation—that is our experience—so they will need to go back.

With the surge and the late registration, I think probably one additional person in the team and probably a really good team of about two to three people around the surge period, to deal with the throughput and to make sure that we do not disenfranchise people, which is the worst thing we could do. That is the first thinking that we have, but experience will tell us. We will probably overstate the resource in the first instance so we do not fall foul of it, because we want to make sure that a new provision is properly implemented in our area and gives confidence rather than lack of confidence to the electorate.

[Fleur Anderson]

Q How much did the CCTV—really innovative work—cost to put in?

Gillian Beasley: We have worked with the police on that, and they have employed some of their CCTV. We were able to use our own CCTV as some of that is in the right place. The cost of the CCTV was not huge. The biggest cost is when we have to act. The police resource in Peterborough is quite considerable on the day. We have police in a van to help us manage what is happening inside and outside the polling stations. We get a good sign up by the police to give us that resource on the day. We do cost that out at the end of every election and we have our policing plan in mind for the next election.

[Fleur Anderson]

Q I have a quick question for Councillor Golds. Are you now confident that Tower Hamlets elections are done with integrity? Can the people of Tower Hamlets trust the results of elections now?

Councillor Golds: In all honesty, no, because we had the by-election in Weavers ward on 12 August. There were two incidents of mobbing in one polling station. I was interested that Gillian Beasley mentioned the steps they take in Peterborough to deal with mobbing. In Tower Hamlets it can reach dozens, sometimes hundreds, of people. I refer you all to a report by an organisation called Democracy Volunteers, which talks about the mobbing of polling stations and about family voting inside polling stations.

The issue of people being unable to reach a polling station is difficult. I was walking down Shipton Street at dusk on 12 August, which I calculate must have been just after 9 o’clock. There was a woman inside; the presiding officer had called the police, and seven police officers appeared, because she could not get to the polling station without being surrounded by men who were canvassing or harassing her. A woman walking down the street at 9 o’clock at night to go to vote does not need 10 men to surround her to instruct her how to vote. This has to be dealt with.

[The Chair]

Order. Chris Clarkson.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Ms Rees. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Councillor Golds, to pick up on what you said about that going on in other parts of the country, I can attest to that. In Rochdale there is a sitting councillor who, three years ago, accepted a caution for electoral fraud after being caught voting twice. He is still sitting there and did not lose the Labour Whip.

As an experienced election agent, do you think the relatively low level of detection of personation is down to the fact that it is so easy to do? I could pick up a copy of the marked register tomorrow, find out whether you vote routinely in elections, turn up to your polling place, claim to be Peter Golds and vote on your behalf. Or do you agree with Mr O’Hara that it is a solution looking for a problem? If you contest that, what would you describe as an acceptable level of electoral fraud?

Councillor Golds: I disagree with Mr O’Hara. When you have the marked register, if you get the proverbial Sid and Doris Bonkers who have never cast a vote in their life, and someone turns up at the polling station and says, “I am Sid Bonkers,” they are given a ballot paper. If Sid Bonkers does not turn up to say he is going to vote, nothing happens. I have to say that there are far too many instances.

I had one incident of a lady who lives in Woodseer Street, E1, who telephoned me to say that she had gone to vote. She knew that the people next door were off on holiday and furthermore that they were Jehovah’s Witnesses and never voted, but democracy had taken place on this particular occasion. When she was marked off on the electoral register, she saw that their names were marked off. She asked the presiding officer why they were marked off, and he said, “Because they voted.” That is an absolutely classic example. Somebody knew that these people were Jehovah’s Witnesses, somebody knew that they never voted, but democracy took place.

[Chris Clarkson]

Q So in your opinion, if I had to turn up with a piece of identification that said, “I am Peter Golds,” and I could not provide it, I should be issued a ballot paper.

Councillor Golds: Yes—[Laughter.] Sorry, I misunderstood what he said; my hearing is not terribly good.

[Chris Clarkson]

If I could not prove that I was you, should I be issued with a ballot paper?

Councillor Golds: No. If you go to collect a parcel without ID, you are not issued with a parcel. For example, if you go to select a Labour candidate, you have to take ID. We had a selection in 2019 of a Labour candidate, and her document to members of the Poplar and Limehouse constituency Labour party says not to forget to bring photo ID. To go to select Apsana Begum, you had to bring photo ID, but to elect her, or not elect her, anybody can be given a ballot paper.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Have the other witnesses anything to add to that, or can I move on?

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Q I have a very quick question for Gillian. For local authorities to issue the free voter ID, what evidence would you need from the person applying?

Gillian Beasley: That is something that we really need to think about: what evidence is required when somebody applies if they do not have a passport or driving licence. Evidence of where they live—bills, bank statements and other such identification—is what we used when we did our proxy pilots.

What we need is some really good guidance about what would be acceptable. As a group of administrators, we would like to have a conversation with Government about what we think would be sufficient before that provision is enacted, so that we are all consistent about what is sufficient. We need to learn from the pilots, because there is obviously some learning from the pilots about what kind of identification is sufficient, and to bring that together so that we have a consistent and safe approach. How do we actually make sure that the documentation is secure and safe enough? There are still some conversations that need to be had and there is some discussion around that at the moment.

[Kate Hollern]

Q So there is quite extensive work to go into the actual detail of producing voter IDs. That brings me on to the additional burden on local authorities. You mentioned how difficult it is to get presiding officers, so there is obviously a huge cost implication in this for local authorities—plus the practical solutions of identifying and delivering voter ID. However, surely it would be quite simple for someone to come and say, “I am X, I live at this address and I need an ID card.” Are you looking at photo ID?

Gillian Beasley: I think that that is the discussion that we need to have as a sector—about what is sufficient. You are absolutely right; my concern would be that somebody would be able easily to produce a false document to say that they lived at a particular address. The conversation that we need to have across the sector, and the guidance that we need, is: what is sufficient ID? That makes the system safe, because we can be sure, or as sure as we can be, that that ID actually locates that person as a real person who we can be confident in giving an ID document to. There is more work and discussion that we need to have around that. Obviously, the Association of Electoral Administrators will have some thoughts on that, and I am sure my team would, as we move forward. That is a discussion that needs to be carefully had.

[Kate Hollern]

Q Thank you. Turning to Peter, like you I was a councillor for 21 years, so I have seen the problems with voting systems over the years, but I am pleased that a number of measures were taken in that long period to address some of your concerns. I was also pleased that in your evidence to the House of Lords you said that there is much more discipline in Tower Hamlets now and that the presiding officer should be the chief executive. In Blackburn, that is exactly what happens.

A number of issues have obviously improved, but you felt the issues that have not improved seem to be the lack of co-operation from the police responding to your concerns and the town hall staff not being equipped or resourced enough to deal with the issues. What do you see in the Bill that will address your concerns about the lack of action and co-operation by the police or the inefficiencies in some town hall services?

Councillor Golds: That is a very interesting point and thank you for highlighting what I said to the House of Lords. I think it was quite intentional that the senior officers of the council in 2014 all declined to act as returning officer. It was devolved to the head of committee services, who was a junior officer, and he was effectively asked to act as a returning officer. In future Bills I believe that the returning officer in elections should be the most senior officer of the local authority, and that should be written into law. They should not be able to cop out, as they are paid.

Where do I look in the Bill? The Bill tidies up the procedures for postal voting. It strengthens this issue of saying that people cannot turn up to a polling station with a Sainsbury’s bag full of postal votes.

[Kate Hollern]

Q Sorry, we do not need a change in legislation for that. I have been involved with many elections, and it is good practice from parties, both Labour and Conservative, to say in their instructions to candidates and campaigners, “You do not touch a postal vote.” If a resident has some difficulty, we phone the town hall and the returning officer sends someone out to help. It seems to me that the problems that Tower Hamlets have experienced, which we accept have got much better, are actually with management within Tower Hamlets. That does not need legislation to find solutions.

Councillor Golds: I am sorry; I have to disagree with you there. Obviously, we are all pleased that Blackburn has tidied up its act, and I am interested and pleased that you refer to cross-party co-operation.

I am sorry to say that I do not think it has improved in other places, and I refer to what Mr Shelbrooke has said. When Paul Bristow fought his by-election, I went there to campaign. I was taken to the central part of Peterborough and I felt so at home. It was exactly what you would expect to see: somebody suddenly arriving with the proverbial Sainsbury’s bag full of postal votes and people standing outside polling stations harassing voters. It should not happen. I believe that everybody should have the right to go to a polling station and vote in freedom.

If we voted in France, election day is a day of reflection. There is no campaigning. You go and vote in secret, behind curtains. Here, we have this wonderful Victorian sense of trust and co-operation between people, because we trust each other in many ways. As you have said, your colleagues in Blackburn work with colleagues of another party to ensure that the parties work well together, but where that trust breaks down, it collapses.

[Kate Hollern]

Q But how will the legislation address the issues raised? Surely that is a police matter.

Councillor Golds: First, we have the tightening of the rules about what you can and cannot say, and where people can be abusive at elections. For example, I have to say that—

[The Chair]

Order. We have to have short questions and answers now as we are running out of time.

Councillor Golds: I am happy to submit information in writing if you would like to see it. Would you like me to do that?

[Kate Hollern]

I just want you to answer the question.

Councillor Golds: Okay.

[Kate Hollern]

Q People are being intimidated outside polling stations—I have experienced it—and the police should deal with that. People are making allegations about candidates—I believe, at some point, there was a leaflet with me in a burqa. How will this legislation improve such harassment?

Councillor Golds: The legislation tightens up the rules of, effectively, what we would call the Miranda Grell situation, whereby people cannot be abusive. The legislation tightens up the rules, as we have seen, about people turning up to a polling station and just asking for a ballot paper and being given one. It tightens up the rules on postal voting.

There are other matters that I would like to address. I believe that there should be an amendment to reaffirm the secrecy of the ballot, because I cannot believe that the police can possibly argue that we do not have a secret ballot in this country, as they appear to be doing. I would think that, of what—

[Kate Hollern]

Q Sorry. Basically, people intimidating someone on the street should be a police matter. I accept that there should be limits on what can be said and done within a poll, but that is already in the rules. On the secret ballot, you gave a case—I think Gillian addressed it as well—where someone was with a woman actually casting a ballot, and you found that the lady was intimidated. Did she allege it was intimidation, or did she just require support because she did not speak or read English?

[The Chair]

Order. We need a very short answer. We have two more Members who would like to come in.

Councillor Golds: The law is clear that you vote in secret.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Q I will build on the questions that my colleague, Mr Clarkson, posed to Councillor Golds a moment ago, about personation in polling stations and how prevalent it is. In his judgment in the Bordesley Green ward and Aston ward Birmingham fraud trials back in 2005, the election judge, Mr Mawrey QC, stated that,

“there is likely to be no evidence of fraud, if you do not look for it.”

Your teams in the polling booths are the frontline in identifying personation. What tools do you currently have to look for personation fraud?

Gillian Beasley: When we organise our elections, we graduate our polling stations to the ones where we think the most issues will be. We employ presiding officers who have a lot of experience in dealing with the administration of their polling station. However, more than that, we train them around the issues of personation and ensure that they know the statutory questions. There are also ways in which, when someone comes into a polling station and they ask them to give their names, they are very particular about ensuring that we keep with the processes.

We also always have police in those polling stations. There will be two police officers, and there will also be polling agents, so we give a very clear statement that we take personation seriously. When you walk into a polling station in that area, you will see well-trained staff and police officers, and you will likely see a polling agent. There is training that we do. There is also an incident response, so if staff are concerned about an elector, they have a police officer they can talk to. If a polling agent raises an issue, it can be responded to immediately.

The message goes out there that that is what you will find when you go into a Peterborough polling station and those that we consider to be at risk. That is the approach that we take in ensuring that the training and the experience is really good. As Paul Bristow said, we also have CCTV. It conveys how seriously we take electoral fraud in those stations.

[Aaron Bell]

Q I just wanted to briefly ask ACC Cann about polling day, and whether he thinks that the measures around voter ID and undue influence will make polling day easier for the police.

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: I am not sure I heard the question. I think it was whether the measures around undue influence are likely to make life easier for the police.

[Aaron Bell]

And voter ID on polling day.

Assistant Chief Constable Cann: Thank you very much. I think, in general, they are potentially helpful measures indeed. It is always difficult for policy makers to strike the balance between an accessible system and a secure system. If the balance was struck in that particular way in any future Act then, on balance, yes, it would probably be helpful for the police if those measures were brought in.

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions and, indeed, for this morning’s sitting. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm to continue taking oral evidence.

11:25

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Christopher Chope, Judith Cummins

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

† Britcliffe, Sara (Hyndburn) (Con)

† Bruce, Fiona (Congleton) (Con)

† Buchan, Felicity (Kensington) (Con)

† Donelan, Michelle (Minister for Universities)

† Glindon, Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)

† Hardy, Emma (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)

† Hayes, Sir John (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

† Holden, Mr Richard (North West Durham) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

† McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

† Nichols, Charlotte (Warrington North) (Lab)

† Russell-Moyle, Lloyd (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

† Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Webb, Suzanne (Stourbridge) (Con)

† Western, Matt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

Kevin Maddison, Seb Newman, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2021

(Morning)

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

09:30

[The Chair]

We will now start dealing with amendments. These proceedings are being broadcast, and I think that the best way forward is for people to learn from their mistakes during proceedings, if they make any, rather than for me to remind them of the procedure at the beginning.

Clause 1

Duties of registered higher education providers

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from beginning to “must” and insert:

“Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government or management of a registered higher education provider”.

This amendment expands the duty on a governing body of a registered higher education provider to take steps that are reasonably practicable to secure freedom of speech within the law to include any individual or body of persons concerned in the government or management of a registered higher education provider.

I thank you, Sir Christopher, and your co-Chair, Mrs Cummins, for your chairmanship up to this point. I also thank the Clerks for all their work keeping us in order and for putting everything together.

I have not checked the numbers this morning, but it is interesting that some 84 amendments and counting have been tabled. That underlines the fact that many of us, especially Opposition Members, have profound reservations not only about whether the Bill is needed but about its extent and its detail. If it was a dog’s breakfast before, it looks like a bit of a canine meal plan this morning.

Amendment 50 covers a small but important detail. We are here to be constructive and to try to make the best of the Bill, and this is the first example of that. We are seeking to broaden the meaning of the “governance” of an institution. We do not want it to be too narrow, or to simply mean the senate or board of trustees. Recognising the complex nature of modern higher education institutions, we want the term to reflect the wide array of professionals involved in university administration who should be subject to the legal requirement to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom

It is important that we recognise the diversification of the management of the HE sector. It seems that the Bill’s wording is a carbon copy of the section 43 duty under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. We have repeatedly heard from the hon. Member for Congleton about the need to develop the 1986 Act to reflect today’s reality, and that is what the amendment seeks to do.

All we are asking is that the legal duty be expanded to include anyone involved in the government or management of a higher education provider, rather than solely the governing body, as is the case in the Bill as drafted. The definition is far too narrow. It is the wording of yesteryear and does not reflect the complex nature and structure of the governance of the universities and higher education institutions of today. Indeed, Professor Stock said in her evidence that, thanks to the consumer dynamic, universities are presenting their best public relations face to prospective students, and that involves a plethora of people behind the scenes, including human resources professionals. Tom Simpson, likewise, in his evidence, stated:

“At the moment, the crucial question is the position of those involved in university leadership and administration.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 71, Q148.]

We wish to be constructive today and in the coming days, and will do our best to try to refine the Bill to make it workable. We do not believe clause 1 is absolutely necessary, but we will do our best to refine it and make it practical. That is what amendment 50 seeks to do.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

I, too, thank the Clerks for their work in facilitating this Committee.

Amendment 50 would reinstate the wording currently in section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, where the freedom of speech duty applies to individuals and bodies involved in a higher education provider’s governance or management. The approach in the Bill, which is to impose the duty on the provider’s governing body, is taken for a number of reasons. A key plank of the Bill is introducing new enforcement measures, including a new Office for Students complaints scheme and a statutory tort. In the light of the potential for tortious liability, it would not be appropriate for the duties to apply to any individual in that management. It should be the provider that is held responsible by the OfS or the courts. Of course, the provider will generally be liable for the acts of its staff in any event, so the change in emphasis will not necessarily make any difference on the ground. The provider will require its staff to act in accordance with the duty, as it will be held liable for their conduct. This approach mirrors other statutory duties imposed on the governing bodies of higher education providers, for example under the Equality Act 2010. It therefore makes sense for the same body to be responsible for all relevant duties under consideration.

I hope that reassures the Committee that the amendment is not needed. The Bill ensures that responsibility for the freedom of speech duties will lie with higher education providers, and and that where they are found to be in breach of those duties, they can be held to account.

[Matt Western]

I hear what the Minister says, but the amendment is not aimed at every individual in a higher education institution. It is specifically about every individual and body of persons concerned in the government or management of a registered higher education provider. The crucial point is that it absolutely is about those involved in the governance and wider management of the institution, not every individual within that university or higher education institution. I stand by the amendment and wish to push it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 1

Ayes: 5

Noes: 10

[Matt Western]

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “importance” and insert “primacy”.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 43, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “speech” insert “and academic freedom”.

This amendment would require the governing body of a higher education provider to also have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom.

[Matt Western]

As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that numerous small-detail changes to clause 1 that might make some difference can certainly be made, albeit that we believe that much, if not all, of this has already been written and is already in legislation. Nevertheless, changes can be made that could bring about a certain pragmatism and greater effectiveness to what is being proposed by the Government.

These two amendments involve just a couple of words. Amendment 51 relates to a perhaps slightly nuanced, but none the less important, interpretation. On the first Bill that I examined, I was in the company of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who was leading for the Government on their Bill on electric and autonomous vehicles. Listening to him and to others, I realised just how important language can be. The nuance of language is certainly important in both amendments.

Amendment 43 is quite specific and extremely important. I use the word “important”, and I am just about to examine the word “importance”. It is vital that we understand the significance of the amendment. The amendments address the relative importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. We heard in the witness sessions that some people speak of a “chilling effect”, and it is interesting how language gets adopted and then becomes an assumed state. I think there is some appreciation that there are concerns out there and that things can and need to improve, but through the amendments I want to consider the weight we place on these two distinguishable concepts in the Bill, which arguably will affect how effective the Bill is at reducing the issues described by various witnesses.

Amendment 51 stresses the “primacy” of freedom of speech. Clause 1 inserts in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 new part A1, which stresses that to secure freedom of speech within the law:

“The governing body of a registered higher education provider must take the steps that, having particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech, are reasonably practicable”.

“Importance” is such an important word. Often, it is overly important and very subjective. What does it actually bring? As we heard during the evidence sessions, the importance that one person places on freedom of speech can vary, whether it be unparalleled—I am thinking of the evidence we heard from Professor Goodwin, and his desire to invite fascist groups such as the National Front to speak on campus, infringing upon the wellbeing of minority students—or limited. On the latter, I am thinking of the evidence from the vice-president of the National Union of Students, Hillary Gyebi-Ababi, and her explanation of the NUS no-platform policy for six proscribed bodies.

That is vague and subjective. We all think we know what is meant by importance or important, but how often have we read that something is important, when in fact we viewed it as not being so? That is why the concept of mere importance may be deemed to be too low a threshold. I propose to address that by elevating the threshold to one that is more objective and more concrete by using the word “primacy”.

In the oral evidence sessions, Professor Nigel Biggar, the Government’s own witness, addressed the concerns that freedom of speech would take primacy over academic freedom when the duty is balanced in practice. That is what I am seeking to address with my amendment. When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle whether he would recommend that the Bill as written should deal with that imbalance, he replied: “Yes, I would.” That is pretty categoric. Primacy is absolute; that is the important thing. “Importance” is a value term, and that is why we will be pressing for “primacy” to be in the Bill.

Let me turn to amendment 43. Academic freedom and freedom of speech are of course interdependent, but they are also independent concepts. To avoid an imbalance of one in favour of the other, the values of both should be elevated to prime status, recognising the importance of both concepts simultaneously working with each other. That would address the policy objectives outlined by the Government in their Department for Education impact assessment: first, to

“embed principles that enable students, staff and visiting speakers to feel actively encouraged to express, debate and expand their views on campus”

and, secondly, to ensure that

“staff are able to exercise freedom to question and test received wisdom”.

I believe that the two amendments are equally important, establishing primacy versus importance, but also stressing the vital nature of freedom of speech and addressing through this the policy objectives as outlined by the Government’s own Department for Education.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I thank all the Clerks for the work they have done on the amendments. I

Academic freedom came up from our witnesses time and again. I joked about it, but it is a truth that I managed to unite differing academics with wildly different opinions on many different issues on a single point: they all agreed that academic freedom was important and therefore should be on the face of the Bill. I will not keep the Committee long, but I am going to quote three of them.

Professor Stock “took it as implicit” that academic freedom was included within freedom of speech, but agreed that it was

“a bit confusing that ‘freedom of speech’ is the phrase.”

She went on to say that

“in terms of drafting, that could be clarified.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 12, Q20.]

When I asked whether we should have academic freedom in the Bill, she was supportive of the idea. Dr Ahmed agreed that if academic freedom was to be genuinely protected, it needed to be more explicit in the Bill. That was another of the Government’s witnesses.

Professor Biggar, another of the Government’s witnesses, said that

“academic freedom needs to have equal standing, because free speech and academic freedom are not the same things.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 29, Q54.]

He recommended that the imbalance in the Bill as written—that is, mentioning only freedom of speech—be addressed. He agreed with Taylor Vinters, whose submission has been referred to, that it was

“arguable that freedom of speech would take primacy over academic freedom when the duty is balanced in practice”.

I hope that the Government will listen to their own witnesses who gave evidence on the importance of having both freedom of speech and academic freedom.

09:44

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I rise to make a general point and a specific point. The general point is that you, Sir Christopher, have been around for longer than me and you know how these Committees work: we can either work together to improve the legislation or we can all turn up and allow individuals to speak while the rest do their correspondence. I hope that this Committee will be one that works together to improve the legislation.

I do not support the legislation in principle. It is unnecessary, over the top and a hammer to crack a nut, but the Government have a right to introduce their legislation. They have a big majority and therefore the legislation will go through in some form. The responsibility therefore falls upon us all to try to ensure that it does so in a form that is implementable and does not cause problems in the future. We have to take that attitude on the Bill, and work together to improve it. This first stage is part of that test.

We listened to a large number of witnesses, chosen cross-party by both sides. The Government brought their witnesses forward and the Opposition were able to insert some of the views of others as well. It was interesting, and at times entertaining, and it threw a fair amount of light on the overall process that the Bill would eventually implement as a result of the Government’s wishes to legislate in this field. One of the issues that came up, which my hon. Friends referred to, is the need to broaden the definition. What I heard from the witnesses was almost a consensus on that. Whatever political position they were coming from, they expressed the need to strengthen this aspect of the Bill.

We may well come back to that on Report, depending on the Speaker’s selection of amendments, but we could deal with it at this stage, and we might be able to build consensus on the Committee about designing a Bill that will deliver on the intention that we all have, I think, to ensure freedom of speech and guarantee academic freedom. That came from all the witnesses and all the contributions in our sessions so far, interrogating those witnesses. I hope that there will be a constructive response to a number of the amendments, rather than the traditional response that whatever the Opposition table has to be opposed, while everyone else sits on their hands and busies themselves with other matters.

[Michelle Donelan]

The amendments relate to the new aspect of the free speech duty that will require higher education providers to pay particular regard to the importance of lawful freedom of speech when considering what “reasonably practicable” steps they can take to secure it.

Amendment 43 would add a reference to academic freedom. The Bill refers to that in a provision on freedom of speech, which is a broad concept protected under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Academic freedom is considered to be a subset of freedom of speech—a distinct element with particular considerations within the broader concept. As a result, there is no need for this provision to specify academic freedom separately, as it is already covered.

[John McDonnell]

What harm would it do to insert it into the legislation, on the basis of the witnesses that we heard?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. There is no point in duplicating in the Bill, because academic freedom is a subset of freedom of speech. That is clearly accepted.

[Emma Hardy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

I will continue a little bit. Amendment 51 proposes primacy instead of importance. The Government are clear that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Indeed, the new requirement to have “particular regard” is intended to shift the dial in the balancing act that providers have to undertake in order to give more weight in favour of freedom of speech than currently. However, this does not mean that freedom of speech must always outweigh other considerations; rather, it indicates that it is a very important factor. This is the right approach. The Bill does not place on providers a requirement to prioritise freedom of speech over other rights, such as freedom of religion. The requirement to have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech may, in a particular case, prompt a provider to prioritise freedom of speech over another right, but this would always be subject to the provider’s assessment of what is reasonably practical, and would need to be lawful. The Bill does not create an obligation on the provider to reach a particular outcome. It is vital to remember that, in context, the right to freedom of speech is not, and should never be, absolute.

[Emma Hardy]

I apologise for returning to the previous point, but is the Minister aware how remarkable it is to have a group of different academics agreeing on one issue? It is truly remarkable; we achieved the almost impossible by getting them united on the issue of academic freedom. Therefore, it does seem rather preposterous that we have a Bill claiming to be about freedom of speech that does not include the two words “academic freedom”. I wonder, with the greatest of respect, what the point was of having all those witnesses give evidence if everything they said is disregarded, and the Government intend to stick with what they already published before those sessions.

[Michelle Donelan]

I refute the point that everything in the evidence was disregarded. The Government reserve the right to stick by their opinion, which is that this Bill will protect academic freedom and freedom of speech. Academic freedom is a subset of freedom of speech.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

If I could continue, the Government recognise that a provider will be best placed to consider, on a case-by-case basis, how to fulfil its duties under the Bill while also meeting its other duties, including those under the Equality Act 2010 and the Prevent duty. The provision in the Bill requires reasonably practical steps alongside the particular regard duty, which allows for the balancing exercise to be properly done.

Once the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses, I expect that the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will issue comprehensive guidance to the sector on the expectations of the Office for Students. I am confident that providers will be well equipped to strike an appropriate balance when exercising their various duties. I trust that the Committee members are reassured that this amendment is not necessary.

[John McDonnell]

Actually, I think there might be a bit of movement here. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will indicate to the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom that there should be a specific reference in the guidance to academic freedom?

[Michelle Donelan]

The director and the OfS will be publishing their own guidance, and it would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that. I would, however, expect there to be a reference to academic freedom within that guidance. I hope the Committee is reassured that the Bill strikes the right balance.

[Matt Western]

I thank my colleagues for their contributions, which flesh out these points. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we have approached this Committee in a spirit of co-operation and constructive thought, to try and improve the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, there was a surprising, perhaps staggering, consensus from the witnesses about the need to clarify the importance of academic freedom, from whichever side we sit on. The Minister may be right that academic freedom technically falls within freedom of speech, but this is a higher education Bill—legislation about higher education—so surely the emphasis must be on how freedom of speech relates to higher education. I urge us as a Committee to stress the importance of academic freedom in the Bill and give real emphasis to it.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s view, and I entirely endorse the view articulated by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about how legislation is improved through scrutiny, and how these Committees can work at their best. When I was on the Front Bench doing the Minister’s job, I always adopted that approach with shadow Ministers and others. [Interruption.] I shall ignore the sedentary comment, although I will give way if it was not a sedentary comment.

[John McDonnell]

I simply said that the right hon. Gentleman always spoke with literary skill as well.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Like him, I certainly never compromised on what I believe.

On the point that was made—I invite the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge this—these things, generally speaking, are dealt with in guidance, as the Minister said, for the very reason that once the Bill becomes an Act, as we hope it will, and it beds down, we will need to refine precisely how universities interpret it, and the guidance will reflect that continuing work. I therefore think we have got a win in the Minister saying that she would expect the guidance to include that, and we should take that win and move on.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I genuinely respect him and would like to accept his point. However, I have profound concerns over the direction of the Office for Students and its leadership. He said that generally these things are put in place, but “generally” is not good enough for me, and I do not think it can be for any of us today.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Most pre-1984 universities have a reference in their charter to academic freedom as opposed to freedom of speech, and most post-’84 universities have it within their other governing documents. Is it not therefore important that the wording in the Bill reflects those governing documents, or at least ensures a clear dovetail, rather than leaving it ambiguous, which might cause greater problems, particularly if, as we know, the charter is used quite often in employment law and tribunals? These provisions, according to evidence that we heard, need to dovetail better into that process.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is right. His knowledge and experience in these matters greatly exceed mine, so I thank him for bringing that to the table.

The Minister said that she would expect the guidance to include academic freedom. Again, I cannot accept that “generally” or “expect” is good enough when it is so fundamental, vital and central to the work and role of our higher education institutions and academics. As my hon. Friend said in his intervention, the words “academic freedom” are written into the governance of universities and higher education institutions.

We are here to be constructive. I cannot stress that point enough. We accept that there is a huge majority on the Government side. They can do as they wish, but we are here for the coming four days to be constructive and to try to make the best of what we think is very poor legislation. I wish to press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 2

Ayes: 7

Noes: 10

10:00

Amendment proposed: 43, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “speech” insert “and academic freedom”.—(Matt Western.)

This amendment would require the governing body of a higher education provider to also have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 3

Ayes: 7

Noes: 10

[Matt Western]

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, after “premises” insert “or online platforms”.

This amendment expands the objective of securing freedom of speech within the law for staff, members, students and visiting speakers to include securing the use of online platforms.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 31, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, after the second “of” insert “or occupied by”.

This amendment expands the duty on higher education providers to not deny the use of any premises, including premises occupied by the provider, to the staff of the provider, the members of the provider, the students of the provider and visiting speakers.

Amendment 53, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(c) The financial cost of providing physical security for any individual or body, except where such a cost would be greatly disproportionate.

(4A) In circumstances where subsection (c) applies, the provider must ensure that an online platform can be used as an alternative.”

This amendment would ensure that the use of premises and the terms on which those premises are used are not limited by financial security costs, save where the costs would be disproportionate. In the event the costs are disproportionate, an alternative online platform has to be found by the provider.

[Matt Western]

I may be bloodied, but I am unbowed. We press on.

I wish to speak in favour of all the amendments in the group. They seek to expand the free speech duty to online platforms, if that is where a speaker is being posted. This is pretty common-sense stuff, given that the past 18 or 19 months of the covid-19 pandemic have fundamentally changed the nature of teaching and hosting events. All of us in the Committee appreciate that online events have become almost a de facto norm when face-to-face meetings for teaching or other events have not been possible over this past year and a half.

That is the same for higher education settings. As we approach the new academic year, increased numbers of student are arriving on campus, following all the changes made to A-level examinations, placing greater pressures on our universities and higher education institutions to meet higher capacity needs, with real pressures arising where they are unable to, and also to support venues where there is insufficient ventilation. Online is therefore an important part of what happens in higher education, whether we like it or not. Some see it as a progressive change, while others might see it as unwanted, but on balance most would accept that it has enhanced the possibilities of higher education provision.

Amendment 52 reflects the fact that many meetings and events will continue to be held online and would ensure that the same law applying to those held in person on university premises would rightly apply to those held online. Clearly, we cannot and should not create a two-tier system where in-person meetings are required to uphold free speech—and yet people have to jump through hoops to facilitate that—while online meetings go unregulated. Professor Stock believes that

“the traditional problem of academic freedom has expanded. Several relevant factors are now in play that were not before, including the internet, which is the most obvious one, social media, academics being encouraged to engage online”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 5, Q1.]

I did not necessarily agree with a great deal of what Bryn Harris of the Free Speech Union had to say, but I entirely accept his point that

“There needs to be a joined-up approach between the various instances of reform. The danger is that we end up with an anomaly. For example, Twitter’s house rules under the online safety Bill will have to be consistent with Ofcom codes of practice. There is a danger that something might be perfectly allowable under Twitter’s house rules, but unlawful in some other way.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 82, Q174.]

In fact, the whole Online Safety Bill is a very important part of what we have been discussing in this Bill: it is fundamental to some of the issues faced by academics, students and wider society when it comes to what free speech is.

The DFE’s own impact assessment stated that one of the policy objectives was

“to embed principles that enable students, staff and visiting speakers to feel actively encouraged to express, debate and expand their views on campus and online, within the law”.

In turn, the Regulatory Policy Committee’s review of the impact assessment commented—quite rightly, as this is so important—that

“The IA should discuss how the proposal interacts with other government policies and proposals such as those relating to online harms.”

To address and relate to online harms, beyond the premises where we can have issues—I mentioned Dr Bryn Harris—surely the duty should be extended to the online sphere as well. It seems anomalous for the Government not to wish to incentivise holding online instead of in-person meetings and for them not to accept the amendment. I very much hope that they will see that the amendment introduces a constructive, small detail that aims to improve the legislation in a way highlighted by the impact assessment of the DfE itself. The idea that the online sphere should be included has come from within the Government.

Amendment 53 seeks to build on amendment 52. It would ensure that when the financial costs of hosting speakers were unreasonable and disproportionate, a suitable online platform would have to be provided as an alternative. We have seen over the past year and a half how easily that can be done. Costs are much lower and more people can access the events. It gets around the significant costs of hosting an event.

The truth is that the cancellation of events on campuses has been incredibly rare. Since I assumed this role six months ago, I have been talking to universities and student unions. They have raised certain concerns with me, particularly about when the costs of accommodating a person on campus become prohibitive. Typically, that relates to the security costs of posting that—the security of individuals involved as well as the wider safety of those on campus. There was the case, to which frequent reference has been made, of the former Israeli ambassador, Mark Regev, who was prevented, I believe, from speaking at one university. I think we were talking about a five-figure number for costs. Security costs, whether they are established by the embassy or whether the police deem that a certain level of security is needed for the safety of the speaker and attendees, can be considerable, and I want to come on to that. For student societies, these are significant sums of money—as I said, they can be five-figure sums. When we think of higher education institutions it is all too easy to think of the larger providers where these events are perhaps more typical, but the legislation covers all higher education institutions, many of which have just a few hundred students.

Universities UK produced a report in 2011 entitled “Freedom of speech on campus”, in which it recommended that universities should have someone who was responsible for campus security and who would ensure that those making decisions based on campus security, academic freedom and freedom of speech were all aware of existing legislative duties. It is out there—there should be someone doing that, and they would be there to establish the impact, risk or threat of such an event.

Dr Bryn Harris, in his evidence, said:

“Ideally, what we would see here is an elaboration of what ‘reasonably practicable steps’ means. You could say it shall include a duty to cover such security costs as are necessary to enable an event to take place safely.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 79, Q166.]

While that comment is in relation to proposed new part A1, there is clearly support among Government witnesses for not allowing security costs to impinge on the duty to secure freedom of speech.

Perhaps the inclusion of an upper bar of disproportionate costs is required, because it is not right that costs should never limit the restriction of an event. I believe that that should be determined by each institution—each higher education provider. It should be within their gift to decide what is reasonable with regard to affording security and safety, which is of paramount importance to them as an establishment. Relevant in that regard is the case cited by Bryn Harris of R v. The University of Southampton, in which an administrative court struck out a judicial review claim of the university’s decision to pull an event, given the risks of holding it. Costs were deemed to justify interference with the claimant’s rights. Our amendment would ensure that if in-person events cannot go ahead due to sizeable costs, an online event must be facilitated instead, thereby ensuring that freedom of speech can be exercised. It would also ensure that public safety is paramount.

Amendment 31 addresses the issue of what constitutes premises. We clearly wish to extend the provision to the online forum, but there are still questions to be asked about how that would apply to the myriad premises that universities can occupy under various contractual arrangements. Universities are not uniform places. Trusts may have premises on site, or have other premises that may be used by universities. Private companies may also have facilities and premises that can be used by the university. Going back to the point that we are here in the spirit of trying to improve the legislation, making the change about premises “occupied by” rather than necessarily being owned by a university is an important tweak to the legislation, to ensure that all those sorts of premises are included in the remit of the Bill. It would address the subcontracting and private bodies that are used to facilitate student services, such as the absolute explosion in the private provision of student halls of residence that we are seeing across the country.

10:15

If this amendment is not adopted, there is a real risk that free speech requirements would not apply to those spaces. It is as simple as that. We must ensure that this Bill is as good as it can be. We do not believe it is necessary, but if it is to go through it has to be as good as it possibly can be, and it is essential to include these sorts of details. This is a sensible proposal, and it is needed in practice.

[Emma Hardy]

I shall be extremely brief, Sir Christopher. Yesterday, in a meeting with the Jewish Leadership Council, I was reminiscing about my time as shadow Universities Minister, when I met the Union of Jewish Students. One of the points that it wanted to reinforce was the difficulty it had holding events because of the extortionate costs that can result from security, given some of the speakers it wished to invite on to campus. I therefore hope that the Minister takes this amendment seriously, because it seems to be a very simple way of allowing people to invite speakers who could be deemed controversial and require extortionate security costs, and to continue their events in the online sphere.

[Sir John Hayes]

I very much welcome the tone that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has adopted this morning, following the advice of his senior colleague—he is senior in so many ways—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. In particular, the hon. Gentleman made a profoundly important point about the online transmission of information, because of course that is pertinent given the events of the past couple of years. Many universities have taught exclusively online. Seminars and lectures have been provided by that means by necessity. Others have adopted a more flexible approach, and so on.

Nevertheless, mindful of that, I think the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. This is an improvement to the Bill. I had not given it as much consideration as I might have done until I read his amendment and heard him articulate it, but it seems self-evidently an improvement to the spirit and tone of what the Government are hoping to achieve. Far be it for me to teach the Minister to do her job—if I start doing that, I will get chastised by both her and my Whip, no doubt—but this is a very good example of where a Bill can be improved by sensible Opposition amendments. I hope we will have a lot more sensible amendments from them, and no wrecking or destructive ones.

[Matt Western]

I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s tone, too, and I thank him for it. This is absolutely about trying to do the best. I described the Bill as a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I do not know whether, in his experience, he has had a 17-page Bill to which so many amendments have been tabled, but this is certainly the first time I have come across quite so many per page. I would also welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on amendment 31, which he is perhaps about to move on to.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am coming to that. The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next contribution—which will be brief, I hasten to add. I think that the point he makes with amendment 31 is also good. He is right that where universities deliver what they do is not a simple matter, not just because of the changes in technology and the way in which they operate, but in other respects as well. There are many premises, many different kinds of operators and many people involved in the university community. That has become increasingly true over time, and again I think the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely reasonable and valid point. I have been inspired by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to embrace the spirit of collaboration and helpfulness, and I hope that the Minister will do so, too.

[John McDonnell]

I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to go too far, because I still think that it is a rubbish Bill. I want to address the issue of occupied premises; the online point has been made well by Members across the Committee.

The issue of the occupation of premises is important in a number of areas where the university is not sited in the constituency but uses, often temporarily, premises around the area. Without the amendment, the Bill will have a potential loophole that could be exploited. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington made a valid point about that.

On the online issue, if we do not build it in early, we will really miss a trick. The scale of online abuse that most of us receive is enormous—perhaps I receive more than others; I do not know—and if we do not venture into that territory and secure it, we will not be seen to be actually operating in the real world as it now is. Most of the universities that I have been dealing with recently are only now going back to any form of physical participation; virtually everything up until now has been online. They have also encouraged students to maintain some form of student life as well, such that where physical meetings cannot take place, student societies go online, using Zoom, Teams and so on. The Bill could make explicit reference to that. Failing that, I would welcome the Minister’s views on any alternative solution, but we need to be convinced that the issue is being addressed.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 52 seeks to make clear that the duty of higher education providers to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech applies in relation to the use of online platforms as well as physical premises. As drafted, section A1(3) requires that providers must take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech, including by securing that the use of premises is not denied because of the ideas, beliefs and views of an individual or body, and that the terms of the use are not based on such grounds.

Importantly, the provision uses the word “includes”. In other words, the duty in section A1(1) is not limited to what happens on the physical premises. Therefore, the requirement for a provider to take reasonably practicable steps may apply to online events hosted by the provider every bit as much as to physical events held by the provider.

Of course, it is important to be clear that the lawful speech of students, staff, members and visiting speakers in online spaces is covered by the Bill. The Government believe that the Bill as drafted achieves that aim, and I absolutely expect that the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will set that out clearly in the guidance in due course. I hope that I have reassured the Committee. However, I also commit to the Committee to keep this under further consideration.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am concerned that a lot is going to be left to guidance. I want to explore the Minister’s role in ensuring that the commitment that she has given today will actually get into that guidance. If the operation of the Bill is going to be reliant on the guidance, that guidance is going to be very important.

[Michelle Donelan]

I have committed to the Committee today to consider this further as the Bill progresses through the House.

[Mr Jones]

Over the past few years it has increasingly been the case that the bite is found in guidance rather than on the face of the Bill. I am trying to understand what the Minister or the Department’s input will be in terms of framing that guidance, because that is going to be very important in determining whether the Bill works.

[Michelle Donelan]

The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that I work very closely with the Office for Students and intend to continue to do so in the formulation of the guidance. It is important that that guidance is robust and comprehensive and that it enables both universities and student unions to know exactly how to work with the legislation. It would be impossible for the Bill to detail all of the things that the guidance needs to address.

I now want to turn to amendment 31.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michelle Donelan]

I really do want to get to amendment 31, but I will let the right hon. Gentleman in.

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I just want to get this clear, because I might have missed this: the guidance itself will be prepared by the director. That guidance will not be subject to parliamentary approval or amendment in any form, and therefore the opportunity for Members of the House to influence that guidance does not exist. That is my worry, and that is why having things on the face of the Bill shapes the guidance in due course. The hon. Lady has said that she will give this further consideration, but could I suggest that she offers the Opposition lead, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, the opportunity to meet her and go through the potential for an amendment on this topic on Report?

[Michelle Donelan]

I am always only too happy to meet the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and to discuss this Bill in particular, so I can commit to that.

Amendment 31 seeks to expand the duty on higher education providers to secure freedom of speech by not denying the use of its premises to an individual or group because of their ideas, beliefs or views. It seeks to do so by explicitly including premises that a provider occupies. The Bill strengthens and expands the existing freedom of speech duty on providers contained in section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. The wording of this Bill—

“any premises of the provider”—

is effectively carried over from section 43 of that Act. The Bill requires providers to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for its members, staff, students and visiting speakers.

In this context, proposed new section A1(3) to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 deals with university procedures, namely room booking systems. It requires that the use of providers’ premises is not denied because of someone’s ideas, beliefs or views, and that the terms of use are not based on such grounds. If the provider is responsible for such decisions in relation to the premises, this provision will apply. That is likely to be the case when the provider owns the premises or is in a long-term leasehold, for example; “the premises of the provider” will apply in both cases, noting that the Bill does not say “premises owned by the provider”.

However, where a provider hires rooms on a short-term basis, it is unlikely to be within its control to decide who can access rooms owned by an external party and how those rooms are used. Accordingly, such premises would not be the premises of the provider under the Bill. Of course, as I have said, the provider must still take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that there is lawful freedom of speech, but that would not apply to booking decisions about external parties’ rooms.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I understand exactly what the Minister is saying, and the difficulty of requiring a university to secure premises that it might not directly run. The difficulty is that more and more higher education provision is done at a distance from the main location of the university, so while the university might make reasonable adjustments to provide that speaker or activity in its central location, that has the effect of denying a voice to speakers in a location that might be hundreds of miles away, and to students and staff who may never be able to access it. Making sure that there is a reasonable duty regarding premises that are “occupied by” a university does not specify a particular room, but does give an inference that the wider premises and the area occupied must be provided for. I understand that the wording of the amendment might not be the Minister’s preferred wording, but is this something she would come back to in order to ensure that there is a location-based understanding of this, as well as an ownership and long-term lease-based understanding of it, so that students who might be studying 100 or so miles away from the central premises of the university have in their locality the ability to hear and host external speakers, for example, or have lecturers who are able to have academic freedom?

[The Chair]

That was a very long intervention, which I allowed in order to facilitate debate, but I do not want that to be a precedent for the future.

[Michelle Donelan]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. While I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points, this Bill does cover accommodation that is in different locations. Multiple universities and higher education providers will have satellite campuses: this amendment is about who owns the premises, and the kind of lease it is. We cannot get into a predicament where universities are tied in bureaucracy and are being asked to be responsible for the freedom of speech of other organisations that hold leases on buildings.

10:30

Amendment 53 seeks to deal with cases where security costs required for an event may result in the event’s not being able to go ahead. It would require the amount of cost not to be taken into account when a provider is deciding on the use of its premises or the terms of its use, unless the costs are greatly disproportionate, in which case online provision should be made available. I agree it would be concerning if events could not go ahead because of security costs and I am aware of several examples reported in the media of that happening. I too have met some groups that have been impacted.

Higher education providers should not be no-platforming by the back door. The Bill already requires providers to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure freedom of speech, and that duty will apply when providers are making decisions around security costs for the use of such premises. Notwithstanding that, I have heard and noted the reasonable concerns raised by hon. Members about amendment 53 and I commit to the Committee to look at this. I hope that will reassure the Committee that the amendments are not necessary.

[Matt Western]

I thank those on both sides of the Committee who contributed to the debate. I think where we are coming from is increasingly being understood as constructive. If we were working through this legislation in September 2019, there would be a lot of stuff that we had not imagined would be required. These amendments seek to future-proof what might happen in the future evolution of higher education. Forty years ago, they might have been these fixed, established, campus-based city centre location universities. They had not spread and assumed sites in Singapore or other towns in the UK. They were not renting spaces and they did not have the plethora of private property that there is on campuses today. It was a very different situation. We need to think about how higher education has evolved over the last year and a half and how it will continue to evolve.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington alluded to, mischievous organisations, societies or whatever we want to call them might seek out venues located within a premise or site that they knew would not be within the letter of the law of this legislation. I agree entirely that leaving so much to guidance must be a concern for us all. We are here, as parliamentarians, to make legislation and set policy, and I do not think it is healthy for too much to be left in the remit of, say, one individual, as would be the case with a director for freedom of speech and academic freedom.

I also agree with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I think he was referring to the point that, as was suggested by certain witnesses in our evidence sessions, this guidance will be laid down by a person who is likely to be a political appointee and therefore the way that this guidance is formulated is extremely important. That is why more detail must be included in the legislation; and if that does not happen in this place, I am sure that the House of Lords will seek to do that.

I take on board the Minister’s positive comments, particularly on amendment 53. However, I would like to press amendment 52 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 4

Ayes: 7

Noes: 9

[The Chair]

Does the shadow Minister wish to move amendment 31?

[Matt Western]

I take the Minister at her word and look forward to being able to work with her. At this point, I do not wish to move the amendment.

[Sir John Hayes]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(3A) Any conduct that would otherwise constitute conduct having the effect of harassment in accordance with section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010 shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in that Act, constitute freedom of speech within the law for the purposes of subsection (2), provided the conduct constitutes, or forms part of, discussion of an academic or scientific matter in a higher education setting.”.

The amendment draws attention to the concern that was expressed during our evidence sessions about the possible relationship between this legislation and existing statutes, notably the Equality Act.

The point was raised by witnesses and I am particularly mindful of what Professor Biggar said when he spoke to us. He said that,

“the Bill is not proposing to amend the Equality Act. That is quite clear; however, there is tension between the requirements of the Equality Act and the duties to secure and promote free speech and academic freedom that the Bill would establish. The tension arises around the definition of harassment. It is quite right that those with protected characteristics should be protected from harassment. The problem is that harassment is often interpreted by universities—not so much by courts—in such a fashion that dissent from, disagreement with and criticism of becomes harassment.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 30, Q59.]

We heard something on that in the evidence from the National Union of Students. When I challenged the witness on whether she believed in the right to disturb or to shock and offend, she claimed she believed in free speech, but went on to defend the idea of no platform. She talked about vulnerable people. It is hard to know who these vulnerable people are. We cannot be talking about shy or reticent people—after all, the meek are so blessed they are going to inherit the Earth, so it cannot have been them—but there is a concern that the broadening of the definition of vulnerability and harassment could inhibit the intentions of the legislation.

Of course it is true that we all abhor offensive, discourteous and other unsavoury or unpalatable kinds of speech, but in a free society it must be permitted if it is lawful. It is necessary sometimes, as several witnesses told us, to challenge orthodox thinking. If orthodox thinking becomes so narrow that it prohibits those who question the status quo and the zeitgeist, nothing would ever alter. Most innovators through time, from Socrates onwards, have done just that. It made him very unpopular with Athenians—in the end, so unpopular that it brought about his demise. Indeed, I was reading Socrates this morning, on just that point—on Meno’s paradox. Let us not go into that, Sir Christopher; you will no doubt not let me depart from the subject in hand to that degree.

The amendment is straightforward. It tries to address the challenge identified by Professor Biggar and others to reconcile the legislation with the other requirements that will affect universities in its interpretation. Indeed, other witnesses from the sector draw attention to this more critically than Professor Biggar, who is, broadly speaking, in favour of the legislation. They suggest that it is a problem with the legislation per se, and they feel that it cannot be reconciled with the need to balance their legal responsibilities. I do not share their view, because I think it can be reconciled. The Government can help with that by clarifying the different responsibilities on the face of the Bill, which is what the amendment is designed to do.

The spirit in which the Committee operates will, I hope, be one of helpfulness, collaboration and scrutiny, so that we can improve the legislation. I can tell from what the Minister has said that she shares that spirit, because she has already said that she will go and think about things afresh during the passage of the Bill. Moreover, the work that she does with the new regulatory regime will reflect such further consideration, given the comments from members of the Committee, and no doubt in the other place and on Report. I am most grateful to the Minister for adopting that tone, and I hope she will do just that when she deals with my amendment.

[Emma Hardy]

Before I start, I want to say that I genuinely hold the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings in high regard, especially since we discovered a shared love of skills and FE. However, I think the amendment is gravely mistaken. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the explanatory notes on what constitutes harassment under the Equality Act 2010, so that we know what we are talking about:

“The first type, which applies to all the protected characteristics apart from pregnancy and maternity, and marriage and civil partnership, involves unwanted conduct which is related to a relevant characteristic and has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant or of violating the complainant’s dignity.”

I am not aware of any debate, discussion or event in a university that we could rightly say creates

“an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant”

or violates

“the complainant’s dignity”.

The second type is sexual harassment, which is

“unwanted conduct of a sexual nature”.

That is surely not something that we would want in a university. The third type is

“treating someone less favourably because he or she has either submitted to or rejected sexual harassment”,

which could indeed become the lecherous lecturers clause. The explanatory notes for the Equality Act 2010 give three examples of harassment:

“A white worker who sees a black colleague being subjected to racially abusive language could have a case of harassment if the language also causes an offensive environment for her.

An employer who displays any material of a sexual nature, such as a topless calendar, may be harassing her employees where this makes the workplace an offensive place to work for any employee, female or male.

A shopkeeper propositions one of his shop assistants. She rejects his advances and then is turned down for promotion.”

That is what we mean when we are talking about harassment under the Act, so we need to think about whether we should amend it for universities. Do we really want to encourage this kind of behaviour? It is important to state that universities are not separate from our community or our country. Something that is permitted when people are inside a university cannot become something that is suddenly not permitted when they step outside the university grounds. In fact, the best types of universities are those that I call civic universities—universities that do not just exist in their communities, but are part of them. Therefore, why do we need a separate law? It would mean that people could be offensive within the university grounds but would suddenly have to remember to be polite to their same colleagues when they step outside. We need to think incredibly seriously when we are discussing using the Bill to amend something as important as the Equality Act 2010.

10:45

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her introductory remarks about our mutual regard. The amendment does not do what she is saying. Clearly, universities have a responsibility under the Equality Act 2010 to counter, prevent and act on the kind of harassment that she describes, but Professor Biggar says that the risk with the Bill as it stands is in exaggerating harassment to include, as my amendment describes it,

“discussion of an academic or scientific matter”.

I entirely agree with the essence of what the hon. Lady said, but my worry is that the tension between the duties she has described and this legislation will be hard to reconcile for universities unless we are clearer in the Bill about that distinction.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I will not continue to give my opinion; instead, I sought legal advice on the amendment. The quote that I shall read is from the highly regarded human rights barrister and expert, Adam Wagner, who gave me permission to read out his statement in full:

“This is a bizarre and retrogressive amendment. All speech is already protected by ‘freedom of speech’, i.e. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that right is qualified and will always be balanced against the rights of others, the prohibition on discrimination and generally the interests of the public. The implication of this amendment would be that, for example, hostile and degrading antisemitic speech targeted at a Jewish individual—i.e. hate speech—during an ‘academic discussion’ would no longer be unlawful. A neo-Nazi could repeatedly refer to a Jewish speaker as ‘Jewish scum’ during an academic discussion and this could—on the face of it—be lawful, as would referring to a black speaker as ‘subhuman’ and so on. Hate speech has never been protected by free speech rights and I would not be surprised if this amendment, if it became law, was not ruled to be in breach of the UK’s human rights obligations by a court here and/or in the European Court of Human Rights.”

I completely respect what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do with the amendment. Indeed, we need a full and frank discussion later on how we balance the different aspects of the Equality Act 2010 with the Bill and still allow free speech. With the greatest respect, however, the amendment should not be accepted.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I want to follow up on my hon. Friend’s comments about what the Bill means in relation to the Equality Act 2010. As someone who is Jewish, one of my key areas of concern is what it would mean for Jewish students—an issue I have raised a number of times throughout the passage of the Bill. I have raised concerns about what it would mean for Holocaust denial, after the Minister appeared to suggest on the radio that that would be protected speech under the Bill. In fact, we heard from witnesses such as Professor Goodwin that he would invite a speaker from the National Front or the British National party, if they were available, to address his students. We have heard evidence that that is what some academics would seek to do, if the Bill were in place.

We need only look at the British National party. Nick Griffin, along with a number of members of the British National party and the National Front, has been repeatedly prosecuted for hate crimes, incitement to racial hatred and Holocaust denial. Inviting someone with those sorts of views to address students on campus—for example, in a politics lecture—might mean someone like Nick Griffin laying out all the reasons why he believes that anyone who is not white British should be repatriated to a different country, why he believes that the Holocaust did not happen, and so forth. Clearly, if he made those remarks outside a university setting, in a discussion that was not about an academic or scientific matter in a higher education setting, he could be prosecuted for that, as he has been repeatedly.

The amendment would allow a loophole for Nazis, fascists and people who hold absolutely objectionable views. As we have heard, those people have, in the public interest, always had their right to absolute freedom of speech, qualified by that public interest, libel laws, the Equality Act 2010 and so on. The unintended consequence would be to drive a wedge in the Equality Act. Our university campuses would become less safe spaces than the street outside them, where those rules would still be in place.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I have nothing but respect for the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but if his amendment formed part of the Bill, it could have really adverse consequences.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I became quite fond of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings during the evidence sessions, and during our discussions about the necessity for broader academic reform in our universities and about how tenure works. There is a lot of agreement on that. However, for three reasons, I am worried that the amendment creates an outcome that he is not actually seeking. First, Professor Stock described how her academic freedom and free speech was not limited just by—I would argue not at all by—the university and the institution, but by the harassment from colleagues, students and the academic community more broadly. They called her names such as TERF, which she found objectionable, and said that she was not academically rigorous. In effect, she described what we would call harassment, because she was exerting her right under sex protections to talk about sex, and they were harassing her for that. I disagree with her views on the sex agenda, but it is her right to express them without fear of harassment.

This amendment would be a harasser’s charter—a charter to harass her outside the university, making snide remarks online or in academic forums, degrading her and ridiculing her. We heard in the last evidence session—it feels like yesterday—how many academics feel mocked and ridiculed by their colleagues because of their activities, and that sometimes leads to harassment, because they have protected characteristics. This would be a charter for those academics to be harassed out of their practice. That would be very worrying. I do not think that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants, but I am worried that is what the amendment would do.

We also heard from Trevor Phillips, with whom I disagree on a number of matters, who said that the importance of the Bill is not about directing details but empowering a regulator to provide guidance about where these things need deliberation. Bizarrely, whereas the Minister has previously said, “This needs to be dealt with by the Office for Students”, and I have disagreed, on this issue I would take the line that the Minister has taken: this is an area where we need decent guidance from the Office for Students to ensure that universities are balancing that duty.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that sometimes universities incorrectly interpret the balance of where they should be on harassment and academic rigour. The clunky nature of this amendment might not fix that, but decent guidelines will change the way universities work, so I hope the Minister will say that she will push for them.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is taking us towards some sort of Hegelian synthesis of my intention, which is to ensure that, as Professor Biggar said, universities do not over-interpret their duties and define harassment so broadly that it closes down debate, while ensuring, on the other hand, that universities do the right thing, in the terms that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle was describing, in protecting people from the kind of activities that the hon. Gentleman spoke of. Maybe, as he says, that is best achieved in guidance, because he acknowledges that there is a tension, or a risk of it, as I tried to point out,.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The whole Bill is full of tensions, which is why many of us would say this is not best put in legislation; instead, it could be done through other mechanisms, such as guidance and support for universities, given that we already have the Office for Students. That is the Opposition’s whole argument on whether we need a Bill. However, we have a Bill, so we need to create a framework to ensure that those tensions are dealt with sensitively.

[John McDonnell]

May I add to my hon. Friend’s note of caution? In 2010, when the equalities legislation was introduced by the then Conservative Government, there was extensive debate. He will remember the debates around what constituted an appropriate joke, and whether that was encompassed in legislation. We now have 11 years of experience of that legislation, and precedent has built up, after court actions. I am fearful to tread into an area where I think we have a settled opinion at the moment. This amendment could be counterproductive, because it would reopen that whole debate, which I thought we had comfortably settled.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. Again, that is the importance of the guidance. The Office for Students can sit down with other regulators and work out a settled opinion, which might be that there is not enough guidance for universities to interpret things correctly.

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a number of times the no-platform policy of the National Union of Students. That is a policy that bans National Action, a proscribed, illegal organisation in this country. It is a policy that bans Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation that is prevented from entering campuses under Prevent. It bans only a small handful of organisations—literally fewer than 10.

[Emma Hardy]

Six.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Six—I thank my hon. Friend. Those bans usually have national governmental guidelines behind them, because the organisations are proscribed under Prevent or under other duties. We need to be careful when we lambast the no-platform policy of the NUS, because it is a policy that furthers Government policy and guidelines for keeping our campuses safe. Sometimes the phrase no-platforming is used, but it is actually a policy that is implementing Government guidelines.

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that, where organisations are proscribed or by law prohibited from operating or existing, they should not come. Furthermore, it may be that other organisations are not welcomed into particular forums, but he will know that, over the years, no-platform policies have been used in all kinds of different institutions to prohibit a much wider range of outside speakers, including in some cases speakers from the Conservative party and other perfectly legitimate and indeed noble political organisations of that kind.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

In a previous sitting, the Chair mentioned facing this issue when he was a student. That is exactly why the NUS has laid down a national policy that refers to six named organisations—so that individual student union branches or universities cannot erroneously put forward others. The right hon. Gentleman’s exact concerns have been implemented by the NUS, which has listed the organisations—only six, and all backed up by national guidelines. An individual student union cannot just say, “We do not like that Conservative,” or “We do not like that academic.” I agree with him that there is concern that that has been misapplied in the past. That is why we now have national guidelines. Again, that is an example of where these things are best settled under guidelines, through negotiations with the national unions and through the regulator, and not put in legislation, which might lead to unforeseen circumstances.

11:00

[Matt Western]

I echo the comments of colleagues, who have made the case so well. We have profound concerns about the amendment, I am afraid. We understand what it is trying to do, but it could be very broad if accepted as it is. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State made it crystal clear that

“the right to lawful free speech will remain balanced by the important safeguards against harassment, abuse and threats of violence as set out in the Equality Act 2010”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 49.]

The amendment could strip out that safeguard of harassment protection. The Minister, too, stressed the point on Second Reading. She said:

“To be absolutely clear, the Bill does not override the existing duties under the Equality Act regarding harassment and unlawful discrimination.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 120.]

We should be very careful about the existing duties, and we need to ensure that they are protected in future as well. That could be a real problem for us, if the Bill is amended.

Professor Stephen Whittle said:

“The Equality Act provides little protection for anybody who feels that their rights are being disturbed by somebody else’s freedom of speech. For example, if somebody is speaking and they are antisemitic, unless it directly relates to that person, unless they have some sort of standing, the Equality Act cannot protect them as such.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 43-44, Q80.]

The Equality Act is already a fairly flimsy tool for interfering with freedom of speech, so I really want to know why the amendment should so brutally cut the legs from under the Act’s harassment provisions. Even Bryn Harris commented:

“I accept that getting into the Equality Act is very controversial and tricky terrain”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 80, Q168.]

I fear the Government’s approach is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The concern is about a fundamental change to the Equality Act. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, universities are trying to do, or should do, the right thing. That is what has always been sought. In one evidence session, Professor Grant referred to the Chicago principles, under which a university can restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, or that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment. The amendment would be counter to those principles, which is why we will oppose it.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 71 seeks to override the law on harassment so that higher education providers would be required to take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech in scientific or academic discussions, even where that would constitute harassment under the Equality Act 2010. Freedom of speech, which generates rigorous debate and advances understanding, is vital. To uphold freedom of speech in higher education, students, staff and members must be able to express their ideas within the law that may be controversial, unpalatable or even deeply offensive. That is how students develop the ability to think critically, to challenge extremist narratives and to put forward new and controversial ideas.

As is the case now, providers must consider each case on its own facts, and work collaboratively with those involved to ensure that there is an appropriate balance across the range of relevant duties, including in relation to equality protections. It is already the case that, when considering a claim of harassment, courts and tribunals must balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, which could include the rights of freedom of expression, as set out in article 10, and academic freedom. Guidance has made it clear that the harassment provision within the Equality Act cannot be used to undermine academic freedom. I expect that that will be reiterated in the new Office for Students guidance.

Students’ learning experience may include exposure to course material, discussion or speakers’ views that they find offensive or unacceptable. That is very unlikely to be considered harassment under the Equality Act. Also, if the subject matter of a talk is clear from the material promoting an event, people who attend are very unlikely to succeed in a claim for harassment arising from views expressed by the speaker. At the same time, if speech does constitute harassment, it should not be tolerated, even in the context of academic discussion in higher education. Any form of harassment is abhorrent and unacceptable anywhere in our society, including in universities. It is vital that the Bill makes clear that it protects only lawful free speech. Although I hugely respect my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings—as, it seems, does the Committee—I must ask the Committee to agree that the amendment is unnecessary. The Bill meaningfully strengthens protections for lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister may persuade me to withdraw the amendment, in the spirit that has pervaded the Committee so far, if she addresses the issue raised by Professor Biggar and other academics, who said that at the moment, universities may be over-interpreting their responsibilities in respect of the Equality Act. Professor Biggar made clear that they are interpreting it in a way that the courts would not. All I ask is that universities stick to the law and what the courts would do on harassment, rather than over-interpreting in the way that Professor Biggar suggested. If she included that in her remarks and in the subsequent guidance, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment, but I will wait to hear what she says.

[Michelle Donelan]

I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend that neither universities nor anybody else should be over-interpreting the Equality Act. That will be made clear in the guidance that the Office for Students will bring forward, and I fully expect that to help clarify the situation and ensure that freedom of speech is prevalent on our campuses. With that in mind, the Bill meaningfully strengthens protections for lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom, but absolutely does not, and should not, provide a vehicle for people to harass one another.

[Sir John Hayes]

With that hearty recognition of my point, I will happily withdraw the amendment. I take the points that have been made on both sides of the Committee about how vital it is to protect students from all the things that I think we would all regard as fundamentally unacceptable. In the light of the comments from Professor Biggar and others on the need to get the balance right, and with the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matt Western]

I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“members and visiting academic speakers”

This amendment would ensure that the objective of securing freedom of speech within the law includes securing the academic freedom of members and visiting academic speakers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 29, in clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“references to “members of the provider” include any affiliated academics and any other person holding an academic position at the provider;”

This amendment widens the definition of academic members to include affiliated academics and other individuals holding academic positions at higher education providers.

Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘“visiting academic speaker” shall mean any individual who is an academic member of another registered education provider or equivalent institution or organisation.’

This amendment defines academic visiting speaker.

[Matt Western]

I am conscious of time so I will not spend too much of it on this. I really hope that amendment 55 is yet another constructive, common-sense tweak to the Bill, to ensure that there is comprehensive coverage of who a member or speaker may be. The amendment would ensure that the protection of academic freedom is provided to academic speakers as well. Many of the events that the legislation covers are most relevant to external speakers, so it should be very clear and obvious that the amendment should be included. If the Government are seeking an end to no-platforming, we need to ensure that existing academic speakers are included in that.

Tom Simpson put it this way in his evidence:

“The coverage of the duty is currently specified as the staff of the provider, members, students and visiting speakers. In academic life, there is a really important category of what you might call affiliated academics”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 67, Q136.]

That is quite obvious. Increasingly, there are many more guest scholars or people on visiting fellowships who are not necessarily members of the university. Currently, the wording does not make it plain that such people would be included, and they need to be.

The issue has also been raised with me by various representative bodies and institutions, and they urge that my amendments 55 and 56, which define a “visiting academic speaker”, be included. The amendments are not controversial; they are common sense, and I hope that they will be adopted by the Government.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I tabled amendment 29, as other Members have tabled other amendments, on a constructive basis, seeking to improve a Bill that I strongly support.

Amendment 29 would clarify that

“references to “members of the provider”—

that is, the higher academic provider—

“include any affiliated academics and any other person holding an academic position at the provider”.

Why is this important? It is to ensure that those who are undoubtedly intended to be covered by the Bill, such as visiting fellows, research associates, life fellows, guest scholars and emeritus fellows do not fall outside the scope of the Bill’s protection. Many within the higher education sector would not view these categories of affiliated academics as “members”, on the basis of what I understand is a commonly accepted understanding of that word. The simple remedy provided by amendment 29 would be to clarify and broaden the meaning of “members” to include affiliated academics and anyone held to be occupying an academic position within the university.

I will just refer to two remarks from witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee. Associate Professor Tom Simpson told the Committee:

“In academic life, there is a really important category of what you might call affiliated academics—people with visiting fellowships or emeritus professorships, guest scholars or life fellows. The wording does not make it plain that such people would be included.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 67, Q136.]

And Professor Matthew Goodwin told us of academics being “disinvited from workshops”, who I rather think might not necessarily be a member of the higher academic provider, when he said that

“speaking out about issues that go against the monoculture in many of our universities comes with very real consequences, and I know that from the many emails that I have received from junior academics and members of staff at universities who simply feel unable to voice their true views on those issues because they are fearful of what will happen to their careers. Indeed, in some cases—including friends of mine—they have been sacked or disinvited from workshops.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 91, Q185.]

I do not propose to press this amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will confirm in her closing remarks that she will consider taking this matter away for consideration as the Bill progresses through the House.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendment 29 seeks to expand the notion of who is a member of a higher education provider to include affiliated academics and other individuals holding academic positions. Amendments 55 and 56 seek to extend academic freedom to members and visiting academic speakers.

Clause 1 will insert part A1 into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Part A1 (1) and (2) require registered higher education providers to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for their

“staff…members…students…and…visiting speakers.”

Turning to amendment 29, we have used the term “staff” to broaden the existing reference to “employees” in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, because not all of those who work at a provider have an employment contract or employee status. To be clear, expanding the protections to these individuals is a key aspect of the Bill and ensures that all academic staff have access to redress. It is important to note that the term “staff” is already used in the current definition of academic freedom in the Higher Education and Research Act, so it is an understood term in this context. Similarly, “members” is a commonly used term in the sector, as well as in legislation. It is included in the existing provision in the Education (No. 2) Act, which is carried over into the Bill to ensure that individuals who are currently covered do not lose that protection. Members of a university include members of the governing council, for example.

I now turn to the proposed extension of academic freedom to members and visiting academic speakers in amendments 55 and 56. As already defined in the Higher Education and Research Act and strengthened in clause 1, academic freedom is necessary for academic staff who may be at risk of losing privileges and jobs or with reduced likelihood of securing a new academic role because of their views. Visiting academic speakers will therefore have academic freedom in relation to their own universities. A visiting speaker who speaks controversially at another university will have the benefit of the provision at their own university, but they do not need it at the university they are visiting, as they do not have a job or promotion prospects at that university that they are at risk of losing.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Very often, an academic seeking promotion has to demonstrate that they have published work and have spoken at an event external to the institution that they work in. If they are unable to prove that they have spoken at a number of events, they are unable to secure promotion. Therefore, the protection that the Minister talks about is a protection in the institution, but if academics are not protected in external institutions they will not even be able to apply for promotion. Does she understand that there does need to be an extension, and would she consider how that could be done?

[Michelle Donelan]

Importantly, they will be covered by the overarching protections in relation to freedom of speech when they speak at other institutions. As for members, they are specifically covered under proposed new part A1(2). Strasbourg case law has confirmed that, in determining whether speech has an academic element, it is necessary to establish whether the speaker can be considered an academic. To the extent that a member of a university could also come within the category of academic staff will be a question of fact. Quite simply, if they are covered they will have academic freedom as defined in the Bill. I hope that reassures members of the Committee that these amendments are not needed, as the members and types of academics mentioned can already be assured that they will be protected under the Bill.

[Matt Western]

I am reassured by what the Minister says. It seems there is coverage for visiting academic speakers. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

11:17

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Christopher Chope, † Judith Cummins

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

† Britcliffe, Sara (Hyndburn) (Con)

† Bruce, Fiona (Congleton) (Con)

† Buchan, Felicity (Kensington) (Con)

† Donelan, Michelle (Minister for Universities)

† Glindon, Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)

† Hardy, Emma (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)

† Hayes, Sir John (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

† Holden, Mr Richard (North West Durham) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

† McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

Nichols, Charlotte (Warrington North) (Lab)

† Russell-Moyle, Lloyd (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

† Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Webb, Suzanne (Stourbridge) (Con)

† Western, Matt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

Kevin Maddison, Seb Newman, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2021

(Afternoon)

[Judith Cummins in the Chair]

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Clause 1

Duties of registered higher education providers

14:00

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, after “staff” insert “and students”.

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 61, in clause 1, page 3, line 26, after “staff” insert “and students”.

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

Amendment 62, in clause 4, page 5, line 31, after “staff” insert “and students”.

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

Amendment 63, in clause 4, page 6, line 1, after “staff” insert “and students”.

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

Amendment 64, in the schedule, page 13, line 8, after “staff” insert “and students”.

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

Amendment 65, in the schedule, page 14, line 9, after “staff” insert “and students”.

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

Amendment 66, in the schedule, page 14, line 36, after “staff” insert “and students”.

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

Amendment 67, in the schedule, page 15, line 16, after “staff” insert “and students”.

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

[Fiona Bruce]

I rise to speak to amendment 59. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are the lifeblood of higher education. Without the protection of these freedoms, and recognition of their value to society, universities risk losing the ability to be centres of intellectual debate, where prevailing norms can be challenged and where academics and students are able to pursue unconventional lines of inquiry. This is an issue of critical importance. Universities function as critical influencers across society. The students of today will be the leaders of tomorrow, who will shape—and hopefully improve—society as a whole.

The Government have rightly sought to ensure that the meaning of academic freedom is clarified in the Bill to include the ability of academic staff members to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves at risk of being adversely affected, either as a result of losing their jobs or privileges or reducing the likelihood of future promotions or other employment opportunities.

However, we heard in evidence from several witnesses that academic freedom is a right that needs to exist to protect not only academic staff but students, who are often more vulnerable to pressure and self-censorship. They may worry, for example, that they will be marked down and that their expression of unpopular or unfashionable views will have an adverse impact on their educational progress.

I will give a few examples. In his evidence, Professor Biggar mentioned a junior research fellow who would attend one of his events only on the condition that he was not photographed or named. He feared there would be repercussions for his present academic pursuits and future career if he associated in any way with Professor Biggar. That was a junior research fellow. How much more a student, who may feel a greater pressure to acquiesce to the prevailing culture and refrain from rigorous academic pursuit to ingratiate himself with his academic supervisor?

Another, deeply concerning case in the press last year involved Julia Rynkiewicz, a 25-year-old Catholic midwifery student, who was suspended from entering her programme’s hospital placement phase after her university learned of her leadership of a pro-life student group. She was subjected to a four-month fitness to practise investigation in 2019. Ultimately, she was completely vindicated of any wrongdoing and received an apology from her university, but she had already lost one year of her academic studies, and was, understandably, deeply distressed.

In their evidence, Professors Goodwin and Kaufmann were clear that the protection of academic freedom should apply not just to established academics, but to doctoral students. Indeed, their evidence was that students are the most likely to self-censor. Students do not want to irritate their colleagues or suffer reputational or educational consequences that will harm their career prospects. Professor Goodwin told the Committee:

“we know clearly from the King’s study…that a quarter of all university students in the UK are self-censoring, which is a very depressing statistic”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 91, Q186.]

My concern is that the very welcome clarity in the Bill concerning the protection of academic freedom for staff will function as a double-edged interpretive sword by excluding academic freedom for anyone who is not a staff member. Without the express inclusion of students, there is a risk.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point for research students. I am just not quite sure how these points relate to all taught students. Being a taught student sometimes requires instruction in order to learn the basics. Although we like to think higher education institutions are purely about thinking and knowledge generation, the reality is that the first year and the foundation years run out of universities are instructional and directive. That is important because students have to understand the basics of current academic knowledge before they can challenge it. I am just worried. Does the hon. Lady see the amendment including instructional elements for students so that they could reject information about, say, how lenses work, if they are studying to be optometrists? Or does she mean research students and other students involved in the creation of knowledge? Would an amendment that explicitly said “students involved in the creation of knowledge” therefore be better?

[Fiona Bruce]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I would like to think that the very concerning case of the midwifery student is a case in point.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I recognise the point that the hon. Lady is making. My concern is with the definition of academic freedom applying to academics and therefore not being applicable to students. I draw her attention to my amendment 44, which would insert the words

“and in the conduct of research”

to cover PhD students and other students involved in research. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown was making was that we cannot say that academic freedom, in its entirety, which belongs to academics, can apply to every student, whereas students involved in the conduct of research behave more like academics, so it could apply to them. That is my issue with the amendment.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Lady for that gracious intervention. It is a pity that I cannot speak to amendment 60 in the same moment, because I think that would help clarify my reasoning for this amendment. I am concerned that without the express inclusion of students, there is a risk that those most vulnerable to self-censorship and adverse consequences in academia, such as being marked down, will remain unprotected.

There is the argument that freedom of speech, as referred to in the Bill, is sufficient to adequately cover students without the need to cover them through the term “academic freedom”. However, I would question that, as demonstrated by the examples I have given involving Professor Biggar and the midwifery student. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and ask her to consider the amendment as the Bill progresses.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I listened to what the hon. Member for Congleton said. We have to be wary of where the amendment could take us in terms of the status conferred on academics by the term “academic freedom”. As the Minister herself said, it is a subset of a freedom of speech, but it is a really important one. That is why we sought to eke that out earlier, in order to make it sacrosanct: it stands alone, but it is linked to freedom of speech.

As regards the notion that students in their third week on campus could gain the status of academic freedom, I am not entirely sure, speaking from personal experience, that it would have been right for me to have been given that status when I had a degree of naivety about a particular subject, but I would be under the hon. Member for Congleton’s amendment. I do not think that that is right, because we are essentially putting students on the same level as those who have gone through a process of academic rigour to arrive at a position where they deserve this particular freedom and status.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Matt Western]

I will give way to my hon. Friend first.

[Emma Hardy]

We all agree that we want freedom of speech to apply to students. I wonder whether, as the Bill progresses, we might find an alternative place to make specific reference to them.

[Matt Western]

I now give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I take his point about the technical difficulties with what is proposed. He is right about the different status and, indeed, different challenges faced by students and teachers. None the less, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said, there is an issue—we heard this in evidence—about students self-censoring, and students may fear that they cannot say what they think. That could be outside teaching or it could be in seminars and so on. Therefore we do need to address the issue of students. Whether or not this proposal is the best vehicle to do so, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point and, likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle for hers. I accept that there is a need for protection under freedom of speech. The differentiator for me is about academic freedom. I totally concur that all students, whether they be postdoctoral students or students in week two, arriving on campus in September or October of this year, have the right to freedom of speech, to say what they wish to say—with responsibility. But there is an area where I differ, and this was what I was edging towards in my questioning to various academics during the two witness sessions. What Professor Stock actually said was interesting. She made this very distinction. She thinks that

“the difference between academic freedom and freedom of expression”—

I am quoting her word for word—

“assuming there is one, can only be in principle grounded in expertise.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 11, Q17.]

That is the case however we wish to define that expertise. And there is a problem, actually, about how people might consider what expertise is. I would say that the expertise is much more to do with methodology and understanding of academic rigour and discipline and how an academic arrives at a process of thinking, which a student is not necessarily—

[Emma Hardy]

A student is learning.

[Matt Western]

Yes, learning—going through that development. That is why students are attracted to going into higher education. It is to understand about the process of that academic rigour and methodology.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Some of the evidence that we heard from a number of the Government and Opposition witnesses was that, actually, part of the problem is the commercialisation in higher education, whereby students see themselves as customers and consumers and then demand more and demand their rights. There are some advantages to that, but there are clearly some disadvantages to it. There is a danger, is there not, that if this were used in the consumeristic mind of certain students, it could prevent the instruction of certain basics that students must accept to progress? Students could claim, “You’re not letting me progress even though I reject the way light moves through a lens.” It is perfectly legitimate for an academic to do that at a higher level, but if someone is teaching optometry, they require the student to accept certain basic principles to be able to progress and to look into people’s eyes. There is a danger that, with a consumeristic mind and with a more litigious mind, some students might end up shutting down academics and actually stopping them doing their instructive part rather than their research part.

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for his, as ever, valuable contribution—and specialism of optometry. I always try to look through a rose-tinted lens. More seriously, the point he makes is made very well—[Interruption.] I missed that point. To be serious for a moment, my hon. Friend’s point is well made. It is about consumerism. I guess one of the things that motivated me to get into politics was that, as a kid of the 1960s and ’70s, I enjoyed education and access to all sorts of things without the privilege of money. We need to row back on how consumerism is becoming so corrosive of relationships between all sorts of authorities—I am not talking only about universities. How people view public service, in whatever manifestation, seems somehow to be about getting one’s money’s worth, whether on council tax or, in this case, educational fees.

14:15

To my mind, it is important that anyone who is able and keen to go to any form of higher education understands that it is a privilege, whatever they choose to study. That does not somehow give them the right to do or say certain things, just because they are paying £9,000—or £30,000 or £50,000 in total over three years—for that privilege. We need to disconnect that consumerist mentality from that kind of thinking, because it is damaging to relationships between academics, institutions and student cohorts.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect for a moment on the position of doctoral students, which was mentioned by Professors Goodwin and Kaufmann? A student studying for a doctorate has considerable expertise in their field and, at the same time, might be tutoring some more junior students—undergraduates. Is it not a somewhat distorted situation and a strange irony that they could claim the protection of academic freedom for anything said in the tutoring, but not as a doctoral student?

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Matt Western]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, and respond to the interventions together.

[Emma Hardy]

I am sorry, Mrs Cummins, I did not realise that in declaring our interests we had to say what our partners do. My partner is at the University of Hull doing degree apprenticeships, which I am very proud of.

To respond to the hon. Member for Congleton, our amendment 44 includes the words

“and in the conduct of research”,

to close the loophole that she has just mentioned, of a doctoral student involved in research. We would like to close the loophole with that amendment.

[Matt Western]

I thank the hon. Member for Congleton and my hon. Friend for their interventions. Yes, there is a differentiation between doctoral and undergraduate students.

Vitally, with academic freedom, special status is conferred. It is not something someone gets just because they turn up on a campus, or sign up to the Open University or whatever; it has to be conferred on those individuals who are, in essence, academics in the traditional sense. What they have is founded on their research—that thinking, the methodology, the scholarly debate. Ultimately, because their work is peer reviewed, it is understood to have a robust methodology. They have earned that—I used “earned” in the witness sessions, which was perhaps slightly the wrong word, and there might be a better word. It is an appreciation that the academic has gone through the academic thinking that has led them to express a particular thought or piece of research and outcome.

To my mind, that is the essential element, the primacy of academic freedom, which is why it is so important to separate it out from freedom of speech—hence our points this morning. Academic freedom defends the right to express ideas based not simply on opinion, but on academic research. I stress that point.

In the evidence session, the hon. Member for Congleton said:

“I am thinking not only that academic freedom is important generally for anyone at a university, but that some students, such as doctoral students, may also be tutoring.”—[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 97, Q196.]

As she said earlier, that is an important distinction because that role has been given to them by the university. It has conferred on that person a status, and there is a responsibility that goes with it. That is a very important distinction.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I really do think that the hon. Member for Congleton has a point. The issue is how we define that point. I hope that it applies retrospectively as well, because I would not mind challenging some of my essay marks from about 50 years ago.

The point is that the only way that a large number of students can finance their PhD research is by doing separate tutoring at the university, and therefore they have an academic status. Somehow we must find a form of wording for this Bill that protects them. At the moment, it is too loose. Colleagues have tabled other amendments—actually, I have tabled amendment 45, which focuses on innovative research. I am fearful that someone who, like me, is a pain could challenge their mark for a particular essay purely and simply because they disagree with what is being taught, even if they are wrong.

One of the biggest contentious issues at the moment is climate change. There are rows going on while academics are trying to identify a whole range of the causes of climate change as well as some solutions to it, and it is incredibly contentious. Lecturers and professors do have a responsibility to point out where they think something is wrong or ludicrous, and mark it down on that basis.

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. It is easy to mistakenly see this through the prism of political ideas. However, it is actually not just about political ideas, but about all kinds of challenges to orthodoxy. Some of those challenges will be scientific, some will be technological and some will be about philosophical principles, which are not to do with the politics we enjoy here. The right hon. Gentleman is right: innovation is a much bigger subject than political debate.

[John McDonnell]

There are even elements in science itself where there are really contentious issues and we know that some scientific theories are being brought forward for political motives—we have seen that around race in the past, about genetics linked to racial groups and so on—but an academic would throw the whole essay out on that basis. There are some really contentious issues here.

The hon. Member for Congleton is right to point out the issue of non-inclusion of students, but we must find a definition that enables us to ensure that there is a level of academic expertise at which the student should be operating, which qualifies that person to have academic freedom and the right to free speech. I think that is very difficult.

To come on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, in academia, people are now extremely litigious. They will challenge individual gradings or the award of the degree classification. What we often find now—ask any university—is that a large amount of money and time is being spent on defending the awarding of degrees due to this sense of being a consumer, of buying a product. It is as though they are challenging the quality of the degree awarded as though it were a washing machine. There is a real issue here.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My right hon. Friend makes some good points about the litigiousness, but also about the ability that people have to challenge the status quo to create knowledge. That is when they then take part in research, and that is when they then take part in the production of knowledge.

For undergraduates, however, and even sometimes in taught masters programmes, particularly for professional qualifications, it is about instruction. Very often, in that purpose of instruction, students should be able to make an argument that is not their own. Their teachers want to say to them, “If you just make your own argument, I am going to mark you down.” We talked in the evidence sessions about debating societies. Teachers want to say to their students, “If you produce an essay which is your own argument, that is not going to be highly regarded. I want you to produce something you might vehemently disagree with, but that is the point of this exercise.”

There is a danger that, if students are given personal academic freedom, they will say, “Well, that is not my view. I have got an academic freedom to express what my view is.” The distinction must be between taught and research, and between the creation of knowledge and instruction. The flipside is a researcher or university member of staff enrolling in a course for academic interest, and then taking on a different role as a student and being instructed. The freedom does not stay with the person; the freedom is the role that the person is undertaking at that moment.

[John McDonnell]

Right, I am waiting for the Minister to say that this will be covered in guidance. On this occasion, I might well support her, because it is complicated. It is a combination of the level of the degree and the content and status of the research. In some instances, there will be very specific examples and we will see it playing out in individual cases and challenges setting a precedent. If we are not careful, I can see the vista being lawyers making a huge amount of money at the expense of universities.

The hon. Member for Congleton has raised a genuine issue and we should address it with subtlety, recognising that it could open the doors to a whole range of activities that would burden universities and confuse the individual academics and students themselves. I look forward to the guidance.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

It is a pleasure to work with you today, Mrs Cummins. These amendments seek to extend academic freedom protections to students as well as academic staff. Where clause 1 provides that higher education providers must take reasonably practical steps to secure freedom of speech for staff and members, as well as students and visiting speakers, this includes securing the academic freedom of academic staff. Academic staff have studied and researched for many years to reach the positions they hold. It is wrong for them to fear for their jobs or career because they have taken a minority view or put forward a controversial opinion.

I am pleased to reassure Committee members that the Bill goes further than previous legislation, broadening the definition of academic freedom so that it will include promotion and new applicants for academic positions. Indeed, it goes even further, in that all academic staff, not just employees, will have the benefit of academic freedom. That means that the Bill covers those who hold honorary positions, whether they are paid or not, as well as PhD students who teach undergraduates.

I must be clear that the additional protections afforded by academic freedom are relevant only to the academic staff of a provider. That is because the provision is about the risk of losing one’s job or the possibility of promotion, which are not issues that apply to students.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend, as I did to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. It was refreshing to hear him make common cause with me, and I appreciate it. If academic freedom is not to be extended to students, would freedom of speech under this Bill have covered the situation of the midwifery student who lost a year of her academic life? It is a very important point and I would appreciate it if the Minister reflected on it.

[Michelle Donelan]

While it would not be appropriate for me to outline how the Bill would apply to a retrospective individual case, I can give guarantees that in broad terms it will be comprehensive, and freedom of speech will cover students in a range of scenarios, so it is not necessary to include academic freedom for students. However, I have listened to the arguments that have been made today, and I will keep them under consideration.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for her promise to keep under consideration the points that have been made today by Members on both sides of the Committee, and I look forward to her returning to this issue as the Bill progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

14:30

[Sir John Hayes]

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—

“(6) In this Part, ‘academic freedom’, in relation to academic staff at a registered higher education provider, includes their freedom within the law—

(a) to question and test received wisdom,

(b) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, and

(c) to design and deliver their own teaching, notwithstanding direction as to the topic or occasion of their teaching,”.

This amendment affirms the freedom of academic staff to exercise their professional judgment in the design and delivery of their teaching. It allows that Departments may nonetheless direct academic staff as to the topic on which they should teach, and when.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 28, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out from “provider” to the end of line 16 and insert “includes freedom—

(a) to question and test received wisdom,

(b) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, and

(c) to express opinions about a registered higher education provider, including without limitation opinions concerning its curricula, governance, affiliations and the teaching and research conducted at the provider,

without unlawful interference, and without being adversely affected (or being placed at risk of being adversely affected) in any of the ways described in subsection (7).”

This amendment would enshrine the protections afforded to academics under ECHR case law (Article 10) to speak about their institution without unlawful interference.

Amendment 27, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out

“within their field of expertise”.

This amendment aims to ensure that the definition of “academic freedom” is not restricted by a requirement for it to be exercised within an academic staff’s “field of expertise”.

Amendment 45, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, after “new ideas” insert “, innovative research”.

This amendment would expand the definition of academic freedom to encompass innovative research carried out by academics.

Amendment 46, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research without government or institutional interference, and

(d) to express their opinions in relation to higher education providers, including that at which they are employed,”.

This amendment would expand the definition of academic freedom to encompass an academic’s ability to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research, free from external interference, and express an opinion in relation to a higher education provider.

Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) to criticise or otherwise express opinions about—

(i) the governance of the higher education institution, and

(ii) decisions taken by the higher education institution, including decisions about affiliations with other bodies,”.

This amendment would provide protection to academics, under the auspices of academic freedom, to express opinions about the governance, decisions and affiliations of higher education institutions.

Amendment 47, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, after “the provider” insert “or other providers”.

This amendment seeks to expand the ways in which an academic cannot be adversely affected due to an exercise of their academic freedom, to include loss of their job or privileges at any other provider.

Amendment 48, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(c) the denial of a just and open path for career development, including fair procedures for appointment”.

This amendment seeks to expand the ways in which an academic cannot be adversely affected due to an exercise of their academic freedom to include the denial of a just and open path for career development.

Amendment 60, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“and

(c) adverse impact on educational progress.”

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 2, line 28, leave out

“and within their field of expertise”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 27.

Amendment 58, in schedule, page 15, line 17, leave out

“and within their field of expertise”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 27.

Amendment 68, in schedule, page 15, line 27, at end insert—

“and

(a) adverse impact on educational progress.”

This amendment seeks to protect the right of academic freedom for students in addition to academic staff.

[Sir John Hayes]

My amendment would have been pertinent in any case, but it has been made more so by the debate we have just had and the progress of the Committee so far, which has drawn our attention to the distinction between freedom of speech and academic freedom. That was made clear in the evidence sessions by a variety of witnesses, and it has been amplified today by speakers from both sides of the Committee. My amendment attempts to revisit that matter and add it to the Bill.

This is not a straightforward affair, as has been widely acknowledged by the Committee. As the Minister has made clear, freedom of speech is a broad term, and it might be said to be sufficiently broad to encompass a range of liberties, including academic freedom. But there is something specific about academic freedom, and this is rooted in the very principle of university learning. I could wax lyrical about John Henry Newman and the idea of a university, but you would not allow me to do so, Mrs Cummins, and the Committee would not thank me for doing so. The Whips certainly would not, given that it would prolong our proceedings unduly.

The essence of university education is giving academics the space to innovate, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made clear in his last contribution, but it is also about fuelling intellectual curiosity, which leads to creativity. That could be in all kinds of spheres of work. We are inclined, because of who we are and the job that we do, to see this through the prism of political discourse, but it is much wider than that. We really do need to recognise that academic freedom is a fundamental part of allowing that curious creativity, if I can put it in those terms, to flourish in our places of learning. There is some evidence, from what we have heard, that that is being restricted—being stymied, one might say. That is partly because, in the words of Professor Goodwin, many academics

“no longer feel particularly welcome, safe, secure, or ultimately able to say what they really think, and for every one of me, there are 20 or 30 people behind me who do not feel able to come and speak and voice their concerns”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 100, Q208.]

as he did when he gave evidence. There is a concern that some academics feel as though their academic freedom is being restricted.

We also heard from witnesses what that academic freedom amounts to, and I have tried to reproduce those ideas in my amendment. They include the freedom

“to question and test received wisdom…to put forward new ideas”

and have those scrutinised, too, even where they are unpopular or controversial. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said that one of the tests of a good student is their ability to make a case that they do not believe in. By the way, I could say the same about a good teacher. When I taught at university before I became a Minister in 2010, I would often advance arguments that bore no relation whatsoever to what I thought, because I was teaching government and politics. All good teachers do that, all the time, and students should be tested on that basis too, exactly as the hon. Gentleman describes. That is what a vital and creative learning environment is all about. I think Members on both sides of this Committee would want to see that reinforced by the provisions of this Bill, and that is precisely what I am trying to do in my amendment.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will in a moment, but now that I am flowing poetically I do not want the hon. Gentleman to break into the stanza. [Interruption.] All of these things are a matter of opinion, John. There is also a point about what I might describe as top-down pressure. We know—Members who have been involved in higher education, including many on this Committee, will be familiar with this—that there is often a tension between university management and particular university departments; between the academic staff and the senior management team who are often long detached from their original academic roots. It is a concern that sometimes university authorities will instruct academics to teach particular things, possibly even in a particular way. Defending the integrity of the people at the academic coalface is really important, and that is what the second part of my amendment seeks to do.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

To whom should I give way first? I am terribly old fashioned, so I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

[John McDonnell]

Don’t fall for it!

[Emma Hardy]

As a former teacher who had the statutory national curriculum and regular reviews from Ofsted on the best way to teach x, y and z, there is part of me that reads the right hon. Gentleman’s proposed paragraph (c) and thinks, “Wonderful! Yes, the passion and the ability to teach in the way you want on the subjects you want”. However, as has been alluded to—and this is where we get to the detail of it—there are subjects at university that require things to be taught in a particular way to get through a certain amount of basic knowledge components on that course. It might be suitable for some courses, such as government and politics, where there can be greater freedom, but studying medicine, for example, might need to be more instructive. Therefore, much as in my heart I am with him, in my head I find that, as it stands, it is not quite the right sentiment.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am pretty certain that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown is going to make a similar point, but I will let him do so when I give way to him.

Of course, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is right that it cannot be a free-for-all. Every academic knows what their professional duty is: to transmit a body of knowledge, but also to stimulate a range of ideas, to stimulate people to think freely and openly about the subject matter, which they are missioned to teach and their students are missioned to study. I take the hon. Lady’s point. The amendment is not saying, “Do what you like and it really does not matter”, because in the end academics have a responsibility to their students. That is an important professional duty as well as a responsibility. We must not be too permissive in our approach to what academics can or cannot say and do. However, I am just as concerned—in fact, I am more concerned—about the character of leadership in some universities.

We have talked informally outside this Committee about governance and accountability within universities. When the Minister has a spare moment after getting this Bill on the statute book and is looking for her next Bill, I think that all of us across this House, including those on the Front Bench, should spend time reflecting on and considering the very important issue of university governance.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I broadly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says and with the subsequent amendments, some of which say similar things. My problem is around academic rigour, which universities must ensure is provided. Would he address the issue as it relates to basic instructional courses such as optometry, or any of the life sciences. I mention optometry because the University of Bradford has a very good optometry department. I have mentioned my connections with the University of Bradford, the University of Sussex and University and College Union before, and it is on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It might be dealt with better in regulation than on the face of the Bill, but might there be something to be said for the freedom of the academics to sit around the table and work out their plans without interference from management, rather than the freedom of an academic to decide what they do?

I put that forward because academics sit down together and work out a course of teaching, so they have a duty to sometimes challenge each other and say, “You need to teach this. You might not want to, but we need to get through it.” Could the wording around that be better? It would also address some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points on how academics have been removed from the management of course design over the years, and could restore their role at the heart of course design and teaching and learning. That would be a move forward.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right about the changing balance of power within universities. Many senates no longer play the role they once did routinely. If anything, universities have become more pyramidical in their management structure. It is and always has been important to ensure rigour in the disciplines he describes, and validation of courses, including external validation, is an important part of assuring that rigour. I have been involved in that myself.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but my worry is that these days there may even be ideological top-down instruction, so that one has to sanitise one’s curriculum in a particular way. It might be politically motivated, but it might be, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington implied, about all kinds of other things. It is not all about politics; it is sometimes about non-political orthodoxies. The whole point about academic freedom is that one can challenge what are assumed to be a priori assumptions. That is what the greatest among us have done over time.

I think I can find further agreement with the hon. Gentleman. The wording added may require further work to reflect the sentiment he articulated, but my purpose in tabling the amendment is to get the Government to think again about the relationship between freedom of speech and academic freedom, which populated quite a lot of the evidence we received from witnesses. The concern that we, across the Committee, and the witnesses shared is that academic freedom should, of itself, be placed at the heart of the consideration. The Minister has been reassuring about that, and what she has said so far publicly and in Committee encourages me, but I wonder if we need something in the Bill to reinforce the point.

[Emma Hardy]

As I said, my heart is definitely in agreement with the principles being outlined, but one of the depressing realities we face—I know this from a particular university—is universities having to drop courses because they are not as marketable and attractive to students and they cannot get the people on. Universities are making decisions to wipe out entire courses, because it costs too much to run them. I would love to say that, yes, academics should have complete freedom to design and deliver courses however they want, but we have to be mindful that there is a cost involved. There have to be some conversations with the management team about whether the course they are putting on will make ends meet and will not end up costing university more in the long run. I wish we did not have to talk about this.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady now really is opening a hornet’s nest with the issue of money, how universities are motivated, and how far that is skewed. I have struggled against the narrow interpretation of learning as an entirely utilitarian matter for all my political career, including my ministerial career. As Committee members will know, I was a stout defender of adult and community learning, not because it was necessarily and directly linked to employment, but because it fed societal wellbeing. Let us make the case for the glory of learning for its own sake.

The hon. Lady provoked me into that digression, Mrs Cummins, but she is right to say that sometimes universities are driven by those utilitarian purposes, hence my point about senior management. We have recently heard about money from outside sources—China was mentioned in our witness sessions, and rightly so, given recent revelations. There are all kinds of ways in which what is taught and learnt at universities can be altered by factors that go well beyond the interests of either academics or students. I am concerned about the matters that the hon. Lady has raised, and the Government will have a watchful eye on all that, too.

I have a fundamental disagreement with Opposition Members, in that I think the Bill is welcome and a good thing. I know that they have reservations. However, I am equally sure that if the Bill is to be effective, it needs to be as well drafted as it can be. That is precisely what scrutiny is designed to do. In that respect, drawing out and codifying the distinction in some way seems to me to have value. I make no definitive judgment about how that should be done; my amendment is very much a first stab.

I should not say before the Minister has spoken that I will not press the amendment to a Division, or I will extract no concessions from her. Instead, I shall hang on, hold fire, and hear what she has to say. The amendment is very much designed to push and probe the Government, but if she says it is a complete load of nonsense, I will have to test the Committee’s view.

I feel some responsibility to reflect the fact that the amendment is one of a group. There are some very good amendments in the group, tabled by Members on both sides. I will not name them all, but amendment 48, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, is helpful, and amendment 60, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, brings value to what we are doing. A number of strong amendments in the group are designed in a constructive way to hone and improve the Bill. I will not go through them all because that would be tedious and people can speak for themselves, but there are some good amendments worthy of further consideration by the Committee and the Government.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his amendment, which has generated a huge amount of debate. It is interesting that several of us have had a go at the same provision to embellish and improve it. The definition of academic freedom is loose and hard to pin down. The fact that three amendments are addressing it emphasises how concerned we all are about how it is defined.

The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to expand academic freedom to encompass how a teacher delivers their classes. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton goes a little further in seeking to protect academics under the umbrella of academic freedom whenever they express an opinion about the practices of a provider. I guess that this is where we get into subjective interpretations of what academic freedom should be.

During my research I came across part 6 of the UNESCO definition of academic freedom, which guides my thinking and that behind amendment 46, tabled by me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Under the UNESCO definition, the concept of academic freedom is broken down into five parts: freedom of teaching and discussion; freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof; freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work; freedom from institutional censorship; and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies.

My concern about the amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Congleton is that they are trying to nail down a definition, but may have left out a couple of crucial components. Amendment 46, tabled by me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, is a compromise with the position of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. It touches on two of the most of crucial elements in providing that clarity: freely pursuing chosen topics and expressing views of their institution. Interestingly, the University and College Union favours an amendment in the realm of ours. It is also deeply concerned that narrowing the definition of academic freedom will limit the ability and willingness of education staff to speak out on wider social or political issues, or indeed against their employers. An amendment such as ours would offer expansive protection for the academic freedom of staff, including from pressure and censorship by public authorities like the Department for Education and the Office for Students or by employers.

The amendments would offer protection against redundancies targeted at particular academic disciplines or those perceived to be politically motivated.

[Emma Hardy]

My mistake, Mrs Cummins, for not realising that the amendments are grouped and that I should be talking about all of them. An aspect of academic freedom and the importance that we want the Bill to place on the role of academics is illustrated by amendment 27, tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton. We should not restrict academics with the narrow definition including:

“within their field of expertise”.

We do not know who will make the definition. That is an important issue, too.

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend and I shall address that important point shortly.

Amendment 47 would protect academics against not securing promotion in respect of different jobs in other institutions. It aims to ensure that academic freedom is protected across the range of roles that someone may hold, not simply where an issue may arise. For instance, an academic may be employed by two HE institutions or hold various visiting professorships. The amendment would ensure that an institution cannot punish an academic for disagreeing with research or published work at another institution.

This links with open, transparent career development —an honest approach. We heard from Tom Simpson that decisions on research grants and appointments are made in the culture of the office. To a certain extent, that is inevitable. That is the reality of how organisations work, but I get what he was trying to say. Amendment 48 would prevent a university from denying training opportunities. as a way to punish an academic for the views they hold. The essential difference from our amendments is that they seek to protect those who can benefit from academic freedom.

Amendment 60, tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, on the inclusion of adverse impacts on educational progress, implies that academic freedom ought to be given to students. We had a long debate about that. I have reservations about it, and I am not convinced by the argument that was made in the previous debate. The experience that I have gleaned from discussions with higher education institutions in the past six months is that many assessment methods are anonymised. Each student is given a unique number and papers or their equivalent are marked by several academics to avoid discrimination. Institutions do their utmost to ensure that discrimination does not prevail and damage students’ progress.

For those who can and should benefit from academic freedom, I have sought to expand the definition to include innovative research. Amendment 45 would ensure that the definition of academic freedom includes the world-class innovative work carried out in our universities. The current definition in the Bill simply covers new ideas or controversial or unpopular opinions, but most of the socially or scientifically beneficial or prize work conducted by academics is innovative, rather than falling into those narrow categories. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings expanded on that point, and said that it would be valuable to include that, mentioning Galileo and Darwin, who conducted innovative research centuries. The two go hand in hand. Think about Rosalind Franklin and the ground-breaking work she did in the face of a counter-view in society about genetics; she clearly did incredibly important research. More recently, we have Oxford’s work on vaccines. That kind of work has to be protected at all costs.

One of our witnesses, Dr Ahmed, believes that certain forces are leading academics not to pursue lines of research that they think might be fruitful. Research is fundamental, and it is important to protect it. I can well understand the perspective of institutions on the work that is done and why they seek to have some sort of direction over research and teaching wherever possible. Various Members, however, spoke about how institutions present themselves in what has become an incredibly marketised sector. The institutions did not create that situation; it is the result of what was put in place years ago, and they have to respond not just to a UK market but to a global market for higher education. They are trying to appeal to the needs of the UK, what students wish to study and what research is needed, as well as looking at trends, approaches and the needs of global society.

[Emma Hardy]

I risk straying from the Bill, so I will be quick. The evidence that we heard and our discussions today show that the marketisation of higher education has had a negative impact on the student experience. I hope that the Minister takes that evidence seriously, as well as the remarks that Members on both sides of the Committee have made about the impact of marketisation on education, so that in a future Bill Committee we can secure consensus on an alternative model.

15:00

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I totally agree.

In response to the point raised by right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the detransitioning research at the University of Bath, Professor Whittle said that

“had Bath addressed it properly, they could have done more to say, ‘This needs sorting and this does before we will consider it.’”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 41, Q75.]

The amendment would incorporate innovative research under the academic freedom duty, which would push the likes of the University of Bath towards exploring further how such research proposals can be encouraged.

The issue goes both ways and cuts across the political divide, as we have heard. A briefing I received from Ruth Pearce from the Center for Applied Transgender Studies revealed examples of where research has been disrupted by aggressive anti-liberal voices. That included Peel and Newman’s survey on legal gender, which received an uptick in polarised, confrontational responses after being shared on a UK anti-trans forum. Stein and Appel describe how a survey on young LGBTQ people’s experience of cyber-bullying in Germany was derailed, with nearly every dataset containing expletives and hate speech.

That work needs to be protected under the legislation, and most academics would agree that this kind of work falls within their academic freedom. Amendment 47 would also bring us in line with the German model, which is based on the Humboldtian approach and focuses on the unity of teaching and research, with both staff and students able to enjoy academic freedom. It is important to include innovation within the definition of academic freedom in the Bill.

Amendment 27 addresses the point about field of expertise, which was raised by the hon. Member for Congleton. I share some concerns about this, as do my colleagues. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle commented in the evidence session on the submission from Professor Anderson, saying:

“His concern is around changing the wording in the Bill from ‘freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom’ to ‘freedom within the law and within their field of expertise’.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 10, Q17.]

I have concerns that a Bill allegedly intended to promote academic freedom could limit it if people are limited to what their field of expertise is.

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Matt Western]

And speaking of expertise.

[Sir John Hayes]

I entirely agree, and I wanted to say that on the record. Professor Biggar made that point, too, as the hon. Gentleman will remember. The problem is how we define someone’s field of expertise. If we define it too narrowly, they will not be covered. The Minister, I know, will have an explanation of this and a counter-argument that may satisfy us, but I am concerned, as witnesses were and the hon. Gentleman is, that we risk getting this wrong in the Bill unless we take account of the fact that people’s field of expertise is often broader than the definition of what they do professionally. Expertise is a complex thing. I think we need to look again at this. I am sure the Government will have heard what the hon. Gentleman and others have said.

[Matt Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, we heard virtually all the academic witnesses and others express the importance of this point. Dr Ahmed, referring to Professor Stock, spoke about Professor Richard Dawkins, saying:

“theology is not his area of expertise. Many…would argue that it is not even his area of competence. I would dispute that myself, but it could be argued. Nevertheless, we would certainly want a Bill that protects his freedom to muse about religion as he likes. That is one issue.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 11, Q18.]

[Emma Hardy]

This is crucial. This small amendment would remove five words from the Bill; it is incredibly small and very easy for the Minister to agree, but incredibly important. If the Bill is what it is claimed to be—a Bill on freedom of speech and academic freedom—and if the Minister honestly believes that that is what is written here, she will accept the amendment to remove

“within their field of expertise”,

because that is a limitation on academic freedom. It is clear, and no future guidance will change it. If those words are left in the Bill, academic freedom is limited. I cannot put it any more strongly than that. All the evidence we heard made the same point. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend again for a valuable intervention.

[Sir John Hayes]

Is this not about areas of interest versus fields of expertise? An academic may have areas of interest that extend beyond the strict and narrow definition of their expertise in their subject. By using that sort of term—I am sure the lawyers will go one better—we might be able to solve the problem.

[Matt Western]

I thank my—I was about to say hon. Friend. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle will elaborate.

The reality of the academic community in higher education is that their areas of work are fluid. They do not see themselves as necessarily specialists in one field or another. As we heard in our evidence session, a statistician is a mathematician, but a mathematician could become a specialist or well versed in issues such as migration or epidemiology—medical science, in essence. How does one define “their area of expertise”? We have to be extremely careful. The right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion may well be in the right area, but much more consideration is needed, and for the purposes of the Bill we have to remove these words.

I will not expand on what Professor Nigel Biggar said. That has been done already.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

On amendment 27, I am interested in what form of words other than

“within their field of expertise”

could be used to act as a safeguard, because we might see cases in which academics are picked up for use of their freedom of speech more widely, but there is a distinction between freedom of speech and academic freedom.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is quite right. We have not proposed anything that necessarily refines that. At this stage, I think, it is important to remove the words, and minds greater than mine—perhaps in the House of Lords—may come up with an alternative. It is a really important area that needs to be defined.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend has already developed the phraseology and wording in his comments about research and academic interest. Were a matter within an academic’s research and interest areas, that would be their definition. It would be broad enough; it would also go to amendment 80 and the right to teach in areas of their academic interest and research, and resolve my concerns about that amendment. It would be good if the Government were to reflect on that phraseology.

[Matt Western]

I totally agree.

[Emma Hardy]

The original definition of academic freedom did not have these five additional words. The Government chose to add them. I do not believe we need to rewrite or put in words. Originally, the definition of academic freedom was:

“freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom…put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves at risk”.

The Government added the unnecessary words

“and within their field of expertise”.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is right. I sense that we agree across the Committee—

[Emma Hardy]

Some of us.

[Matt Western]

Some of us are agreed that it should not be in there, and I think the House of Lords should explore whether further definition is required.

From talking to academics over the last six months and more, I want to stress how incredibly fluid the areas of research they work in are. They go through wholesale change in areas of interest and exploration. That is the kind of innovative research we want, and it is one of the great things about our institutions. People talk about UK universities being the best in the world in different categories, but we genuinely do have a very strong reputation for higher education globally. It needs to be protected.

We support the amendment by the hon. Member for Congleton on the removal of those words. We will, of course, support the amendments standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.

[Fiona Bruce]

I will speak to my amendments 26 and 27 and, very briefly, to 60. I had hoped that the short but crucial amendment 27 might attract support from both sides of the Committee. Judging by some of the comments from Committee members today, not least the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I continue to live in hope. I had hoped even the Minister might give a positive response to the amendment.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has already made the point that the Bill is intended to protect and promote academic freedom, but may in fact restrict it if academic freedom is defined as an academic’s freedom to express views only within their field of expertise. There are real problems with this phrase. We have heard some of them already, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has said.

To elaborate on some of the comments made, an initial difficulty is that of defining an academic’s field of expertise. Giving evidence, Dr Ahmed raised the very good example of Professor Richard Dawkins, who is an expert in evolutionary biology. Dr Ahmed said that one could argue that theology is not within his field of expertise, or even competence, yet his freedom to critique religion and contribute to the debate on God should not be denied to him merely due to an arguable lack of specific expertise.

[Sir John Hayes]

Or just because he is wrong.

[Fiona Bruce]

My right hon. Friend may have his view, but I could not possibly comment.

Without another look at the words “field of expertise”, academics could find themselves with fewer free speech rights than those in other vocations, since straying outside of their perceived field of expertise might lead to more complaints, increased disciplinary action and dismissal—outcomes clearly at odds with the intention and purpose of the Bill.

A second difficulty is that an academic’s expertise often stretches over a variety of fields. A biologist could have an insight into economics, and a theologian may well have useful musings about sociology. The interaction between a variety of subjects is often how ideas are tested from fresh perspectives, leading to innovation and thought-provoking insights for the benefit of society as a whole. A requirement to stay within one’s field of expertise could have an unintended chilling effect, which I will elaborate on when I speak to amendment 28. Academics, particularly junior academics, might seek to modify their speech and academic inquiry in a bid to ensure that they qualify for protection under the law.

It cannot be right to penalise an academic simply because he opines on the issues of the day. The issues may be completely outside his field of expertise, and he may speak from a political perspective or with faith-based views, such as on marriage or being pro-life, but is not deliberating on issues of the day a key part of university life?

15:14

[Charlotte Nichols]

I am interested in the examples that the hon. Member has raised as things that should be protected as part of academic freedom, but I would draw the distinction back between academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Just because someone is an academic, for example, does not mean that any topic that they choose to wax lyrical about should necessarily be protected, particularly if they are engaging in harmful stereotypes, discriminatory behaviour and so on. As much as I agree with the broad thrust of taking this out, I think that we need to reflect in the legislation a way in which we might draw that distinction between academic freedom and freedom of speech. Does the hon. Member not agree?

[Fiona Bruce]

The objective of the Bill is to secure freedom of speech within the law. We are saying that, provided that someone speaks within the law—whether about their field of expertise or not—they should be covered by the Bill. They should have the freedom, as academics, to express views and not be penalised if those are unpopular, unfashionable or not mainstream. I hope the Minister will look at amendment 27 very seriously, above all those I have put down, and consider it in a positive light as the Bill progresses.

Amendment 28 is self-explanatory, setting out a number of factors that need to be covered and clarified in the definition of academic freedom. Not the least of those is the importance of academics being able to set the reading matter for subjects that they are teaching. I will set the amendment in context, underneath amendment 27.

A deeply concerning trend has emerged in our universities that has seen academics lose their jobs, students suspended from courses and refused affiliation with their unions, and visiting speakers refused a platform, due only to their expression of non-mainstream viewpoints. Some are not, in fact, non-mainstream. In his evidence, Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics and international relations, told us he was an outlier when speaking of Brexit, with only 10% of academics sharing his support of it. However, Brexit was actually voted for by over 50% of those who voted in the referendum across our country.

We also heard of instances of academics being subject to vilification or discrimination for exercising their right to academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law. Although we did not hear of these instances in evidence, I will give two examples. In 2019, I raised in this House the well-publicised and worrying experience of respected academic John Finnis, an emeritus professor of law and legal philosophy who had taught at the University of Oxford for some 40 years at that point, yet students were calling for him to be removed from office simply for holding traditional Catholic views. Much more recently in the press, we had the case of David Palmer, a Catholic who was denied recognition by Nottingham University for the post of chaplain due to comments he made on social media expressing no more than the Church’s traditional views on euthanasia and abortion.

Professor Goodwin told us:

“This is how it typically works: a group of students will make a complaint about an academic. They may take that academic’s words out of context. They may imply that something was said that may not have been said—who knows? That academic is typically investigated and, as we saw in the case at Edinburgh recently, they are suspended and asked to leave campus for six weeks or so while the case is investigated. There is a reason why academics say that the punishment is the process. The reputation of that academic is now in tatters. Nobody will hire that academic. His or her chances of getting a research grant are probably minimal, and those of getting published have been severely damaged. That individual is tainted.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 97, Q197.]

Given that Professor Kaufmann told us how there can be over 100 applicants for any post in academia, that is a serious disadvantage that can be experienced and suffered. We were also told by more than one witness that self-censorship by academics is the most pervasive impact of all—the so-called “chilling effect”.

We heard about that from several witnesses during the course of evidence. The case of Dr Ahmed is particularly instructive. We heard how he struggled to get just 25 signatures of people willing to put their name publicly to a motion on whether to change the wording of a university’s policy. That goes directly to the reason why we need amendment 28. Once it was put to a vote by secret ballot, it passed by 80%. Some witnesses spoke of staff and students refraining from saying things they considered to be important or not pursuing lines of research they thought would be fruitful, because they feared adverse consequences, such as disciplinary action or another form of marginalisation or vilification.

Amendment 28 seeks to augment and clarify that academic freedom should include the freedom to express opinions about a university, including its curricula, governance, affiliations, teaching and research, without the risk of being adversely affected. Amendment 60 seeks to ensure that students do not suffer any impact on their educational process, such as being marked down. We have already had a good debate on amendment 59, with which amendment 60 is linked, so I will leave that with no further comment, save the hope that the Minister will reflect on amendment 60 with amendment 59.

[John McDonnell]

I want to repeat my declaration of interest as an honorary fellow of Birkbeck, University of London, which is the same as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I failed to declare that my wife is an educational psychologist and is now a part-time tutor at the Institute of Education at University College London. I just want to make sure that our register of interests is full. I cannot think of any other family who are involved, but at least I will get that on the record.

Before considering the amendments, I want to reflect on the fact that we have come a long way since section 28 in the 1980s. We are no longer tolerating any Government interference in matters—for example, at that stage, in just talking in an educational setting about LGBT rights. It is interesting and gratifying that we have come this far.

On amendment 80, I want to warn the Minister. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has a propensity to get people into trouble. On one occasion some years ago, the Speaker called for a question in the House and shouted out “Hayes, the Whip”, but nobody was there and I got the blame for it, even though it was John Hayes, not the Member for Hayes and Harlington, so I caution the Minister. Ever since Pepper v. Hart, material in the House can be taken into account in legal actions, and the right hon. Gentleman is enticing the Minister into expressions around his amendment. I actually have some time for his amendment. All we are trying to do today is get a formulation—maybe by Report stage and certainly by the time the Bill gets to the Lords, which is packed full of legal experts—with more than even the Commons—who might well be able to assist us. I can understand exactly where he is coming from in wanting to maximise that freedom of expression of freedom of academic activity.

I want also to consolidate the alliance I now have with the hon. Member for Congleton. It is interesting that a number of witnesses raised the point that this form of words does not work—we have to find some other formulation. I have worked with a whole range of economists in recent years who have commented on a whole range of matters unrelated strictly to economic matters—for example, wellbeing, health, social care. Areas of interest evolve over time. They cannot be defined just by the job description of that academic. We are digging ourselves into a hole by leaving this in the Bill. To the hon. Member for Congleton, I say: screw your courage to the sticking place, because if we had a vote on that today, we would most probably win it. I would be careful about the assurances that she may get from the Minister, which might not completely eradicate that form of words from the Bill.

[Charlotte Nichols]

The Minister may find herself promoted and able to follow through on the assurance she has given today, so perhaps the vote is the right way to make sure that we sort that out.

[John McDonnell]

Given the way that heads are toppling at the moment, anything could happen. The guillotine is out there, certainly.

I now come to amendments 45, 46 and 48 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, to which I also put my name. I want to be completely honest about this: those amendments have come from discussions that we have had with individual academics and trade unions. Those matters also came up in the evidence sessions. One issue that came up time and again is employment protection for academics. Their biggest anxiety is not just their ability to exercise freedom of speech and academic freedom but retaining their jobs, having access to appropriate promotion and so on.

The three amendments seek to provide that enhanced protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has covered amendment 45. It seeks to make it absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the provision pertains to innovative research as well. That was one of the issues that came from the evidence sessions: the biggest feeling of insecurity is among people who are doing leading-edge research that challenges existing establishment views and that, maybe for some, goes over the edge of acceptability. However, it is often the case—and I cite section 28 here—that those sorts of statements, activities and expressions of view become accepted wisdom within a period of time. All those equalities things that I can remember being condemned for personally in the Evening Standard throughout the 1980s are now accepted as Government policy and by all political parties. Putting “innovative research” in the Bill would close a door and clarify the situation.

Amendment 46 seeks to re-emphasise the ability of academics to freely pursue their teaching and research without—this is where section 28 comes into it —“government or institutional interference”. It is fundamentally important that we say that. We need to learn the lesson of section 28. Given the policies that have been developed on equalities by all our political parties, I think we have learned that lesson, but it is worth legislating to that effect as well. I do not want to be here in another period of moral panic over a particular issue, with a rush to Government activity that seeks to influence institutions in a way that means people suffer as a result, and in subsequent years people realise their mistake, by which time, unfortunately, too many people have been harmed.

The reference to “government or institutional interference” is quite significant. I say “institutional interference” because these days a large amount of policy development, and even policy making, is undertaken by agencies other than Government, agencies established by Government or institutions that have been funded and established to perform a role on behalf of Government.

The other issue—the prickly one, really—is the right of an employee or academic to criticise the institution that they work within. That is quite fundamental. The Minister might argue that the protections are there already in employment law and so on, but the message we were getting from the evidence sessions is that they are not. The way in which people are victimised by their institutions—“providers”, as we call them—or their employers can be quite subtle, and quite undermining in a way that might not stack up if they go to an employment tribunal, so it is worth putting on the face of the Bill that a person can challenge the institution that employs them and have that protection.

15:30

Of course, if any of these cases ever did come before the courts, there would have to be some test of reasonableness, but I think English law can cope with that. Having this protection on the face of the Bill would just give people more confidence. It is a reflection of what we heard and our own individual experiences when we have talked to academics and others working in this sector.

Amendment 48 covers the issue, which others have referred to, of not being denied career development. There are too many examples of people saying that it was about not just the appointment, but the ability to go on training courses and be supported in areas that would lead to career enhancement.

On amendment 47, we must ensure that these protections are all-encompassing. A person might be trying to be protected from the provider they are working for or operate within, but we also want to ensure that they are protected from the activities of other providers that they may want to work for or with in the future. That is why we are inserting “other providers”.

We are setting out a comprehensive range of protection. I say again to the Minister that if this form of words is not acceptable today, let us work on it and try to get it sorted for Report, or failing that, when the Bill goes to the House of Lords—although it is an institution I think we should have abolished years ago. If we can get a comprehensive range of protections, this Bill, which I still think is inappropriate, at least might reflect what we heard and what we know is happening on the ground, which is a serious cause of concern.

One of the reasons I am not happy with the Bill is that I believe most of these protections should be installed in employment law, which would mean that they are much stronger than they are in a Bill of this sort, but the Government have chosen to go down this path, and that is why we tabled these amendments. I think they are completely reasonable, and I cannot understand why anyone would not support them. If it is a matter of wording, semantics or whatever, let us work on them and resolve the issues. Either we should accept them today or we should get a very strong commitment that a similar form of words will be introduced into the Bill.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendments 80, 28, 45, 46 and 49 seek to set out the type of speech that the definition of academic freedom in clause 1 covers, and to ensure it includes the right of academic staff to express opinions about the curricula, governance, affiliation and the teaching and research at their provider, to design and deliver their teaching and do innovative research. Amendment 28 would also remove the limitation in the current provision that it covers only law speech that is within the person’s field of expertise, and makes other changes that I will discuss shortly.

As currently drafted, the definition of academic freedom includes the freedom to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions. To be clear, that includes the right of academic staff to put forward opinions about any issue, including the curricula, governance, affiliation and teaching and research of their provider. It would also include the right to put forward research proposals that some might see as controversial or to pursue a range of methods when designing and delivering high-quality course material. There is therefore no need to specify in the Bill the type of opinions and speech that are covered, since all opinions and speech are covered as long as they are within the law and one’s academic field of expertise—a point I will return to in a minute. Of course, I shall consider once again the comments made in the debate.

Amendment 28 would make other changes to the definition of academic freedom. The first is the requirement that academic freedom means freedom within the law, which is a vital qualification in the Bill. Let me be clear once again that the Bill does not cover unlawful speech. The amendment would remove the qualification, but I do not see why the lawfulness of speech should not apply to academic staff as it does to anyone else on campus. Amendment 28, as well as amendment 80, would also remove the requirement that the protected speech should be within an academic’s field of expertise.

I commit to the Committee that I will take the topic away. We have heard a very compelling case from both Opposition Members and Government Members today. I want to outline why the provision is in the Bill, but I commit to taking the topic away.

[Emma Hardy]

Does the Minister commit to taking away the topic relating to amendment 28? Or was it amendment 27?

[Michelle Donelan]

Sorry; I commit to taking away the topic of field of expertise, which is covered in amendment 28, as well as amendment 80.

I will outline the reason why the topic is in the Bill in the first place. Academic staff will have extra protection under the Bill, in addition to the more general protection for freedom of speech. That is the reason that the additional protection only covers speech where an individual has expertise. For example, a maths professor should not have greater protection than a non-academic colleague or a student when they are speaking about matters unrelated to their role as an academic, but in that case the professor would still benefit from the same freedom of speech protections.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I understand exactly what the Minister is trying to say, although there is some advanced maths that could move into philosophy and so on, depending on how deep we want to go. It is about the word “expertise”. That is why I put forward the idea of academic “interest”, which is a much lower bar and means that someone just needs to demonstrate that they have had an academic interest or research in that area. Would she go away and think about the bar that the word “expertise” sets—who proves that expertise?—compared with other qualifications that might fulfil the Minister’s purpose, but give people the right to explain a broad range of academic interests?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank the hon. Member for that helpful point. I commit to taking away that very topic.

[Emma Hardy]

I take the commitment, but it does not have a lot of detail. A commitment to do what? A commitment to rewrite those five words? A commitment to reassess whether those five words need to be in there or not? I would like a little more detail on what the Minister is committing to.

[Michelle Donelan]

I and the Government commit to taking the topic away, listening to Members from across the Committee today and their very valid points and concerns on the topic, and to look at the topic again.

On the rationale behind the topic, the Government intend the definition to be interpreted broadly, so that a maths professor who uses their mathematical or statistical skills to analyse a non-mathematical subject would be covered, for example—that references the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. It would also cover situations where an academic discusses teaching generally or the governance of their department—all that is within their area of work and subject expertise.

The wording reflects Strasbourg case law, where it has been held that academic freedom is not restricted to academic or scientific research, but also extends to an academic’s freedom to freely express their opinions in the area of their research, professional expertise and competence. Our courts must take this judgment into account when considering the question of what academic freedom is.

Further on amendment 28, I will move on to the inclusion of the wording that seeks to clarify that academics should enjoy academic freedom without “unlawful interference”. That is unnecessary, because any such interference with academic freedom will by definition be unlawful, which does not need to be stated in the Bill.

Finally, amendment 28 adds “without being adversely affected” to the definition. Being placed “at risk” of adverse effect is already covered by the Bill. It would be sufficient for an academic to show that they were at risk of adverse effect. It would not be necessary to go further and show that there had actually been adverse effect. Even a threat to damage an academic’s career, for example, could be sufficient. Therefore that aspect of the amendment is not required, as the current drafting is actually wider.

Amendments 27, 57 and 58 all seek to broaden the definition by removing the requirement for speech to fall within an academic’s field of expertise—once again, we shall cover this topic. Clause 1 provides that higher education providers must take reasonably practicable steps to secure freedom of speech for their staff and members. This includes securing the academic freedom of academic staff. As I have already said, this means that academic staff will have particular extra protection, in addition to the more general protection that the Bill offers for freedom of speech. This will allow academics to bring complaints to the Office for Students or a tort claim before the courts, which will reflect the high level of importance that the courts have consistently placed on academic freedom. I have outlined our rationale behind the “field of expertise” requirement and that it should be interpreted broadly, but as I have already stated to the Committee, I will take away and consider the issues raised regarding this topic.

[John McDonnell]

I hate to raise this subject, but it was suggested that someone in any field of academic expertise would somehow be denied the ability to talk about or comment on Brexit. Can we just clarify that?

[Michelle Donelan]

This particular element of the Bill does not deny people the ability to speak on anything, because as I have already stated, academic freedom is a subset of the broader term “freedom of speech”, so they would be covered by that as well.

[Matt Western]

I heard the Minister’s point about committing to go away and discuss this issue and so on. Things are clearly moving quite fast in the reshuffle. I would like to think that she will still be in her post and perhaps will not have been promoted—perhaps she wishes to be promoted—but the essence of this is so important that I think it goes beyond the words of this Minister because in two weeks’ time we could have a very different person actually handling this particular issue.

[Michelle Donelan]

I can see what the Opposition are cleverly trying to do here to push me to go further than my words, but I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that the words that I am using today will be on the record in Hansard for ever more and for any future Ministers in my position or, indeed, me to revisit in a few weeks’ time.

Amendments 60 and 68 seek to extend the concept of academic freedom to students as well as academic staff. There are long-standing reasons why academic freedom for academic staff is considered so important and particularly worthy of protection under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Academic freedom for academic staff is a long-standing concept that is already used in legislation—including the Higher Education and Research Act 2017—and is understood in the sector. It has also been considered in an international context. An example is the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel. As is clear from that recommendation’s title, academic freedom concerns teaching personnel, not students. Strasbourg case law also confirms that, in determining whether speech has an “academic element”, it is necessary to establish whether the speaker can be considered an academic.

Accordingly, the academic freedom provisions in this Bill are relevant only to those who are academic staff. That will include those who are employees of the provider, but also those staff who do not have employee status. That could include staff who undertake teaching or research as part of an honorary appointment for which they are not paid. Similarly, it will mean that PhD students who teach undergraduates at the provider can be considered to be academic staff for that purpose. However, as I have committed to this morning, I will consider this topic once again.

A first-year undergraduate student would not be considered to have the particular protection afforded by academic freedom. But I reiterate that all those on campus, whether a student, a member of staff, members of the provider or visiting speakers, are nevertheless covered by the freedom of speech duties placed on providers. That is made very clear in the Bill. I hope that Committee members will be reassured by what I have said and understand the rationale behind maintaining that the additional layer of protection for academic freedom should be reserved for academic staff, but I will, as I said, consider this.

15:45

Amendments 47 and 48 relate to the definition of academic freedom, making specific provision regarding opportunities to move to another job or another university and career development. As regards amendment 47, proposed new section A1(8) and (9) of the 2017 Act, in clause 1 of this Bill, already set out a new duty on higher education providers to protect external applicants for academic posts. An external applicant must not be adversely affected because they have previously exercised their academic freedom

to question and test wisdom, or put forward new ideas or controversial or unpopular opinions. It must not be the case that an individual’s career journey grinds to a halt because they are seeking new opportunities at another university. Academic freedom is not enough if a person only has it within their own institution.

Equally, as regards amendment 48, proposed new section A1(7)(b) to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 already sets out a new provision that academic freedom covers not only the risk of losing one’s job or privileges—as is currently the case under that Act— but the risk of not securing promotion or another job within one’s university. Again, academic freedom is not enough if it only prevents a person from losing their job, and does not allow them to progress their career.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise to the Minister for interfering again. I want to be absolutely clear about these amendments, though, because at the moment, I am not. She has dealt with amendment 45; could she make it absolutely clear that, even if she will not accept the amendment to include “innovative research” on the face of the Bill, the Bill does encompass protections for innovative research?

With regard to amendment 46, the Minister has made no reference to the protections against Government interference in academic work. Again, it would be helpful to get assurance about that, and if we cannot get that assurance I would urge my hon. Friends to press amendment 49 to a vote, which is about protections enabling members of staff, academics and others to criticise their own institution.

[Michelle Donelan]

Academic freedom would indeed cover academics’ own research; the research of students would be covered by the broader freedom of speech. If it were the Government interfering with an academic’s freedom of teaching or research, that would be covered in just the same way as if it were the institution interfering. I hope that reassures the right hon. Member.

I understand the concerns that have been raised today, and I assure Members that it is not our intention to unnecessarily limit the right of academic freedom. I therefore will, as I have already stated, commit to exploring this issue, particularly as regards the field of expertise.

[Sir John Hayes]

I have heard what the Minister has said. I am not entirely satisfied, although I appreciate her point about taking this issue away and looking at it again. There is a debate to be had about how explicit legislation should be, and there is a case to be made—and the Minister has made it well—that much of what we are asking for is implicit: that freedom of speech is a sufficiently broad term to allow those who will have the power to oversee these matters, particularly the new regulator, to take into account many of the points that have been made by Members of this Committee. However, I am inclined to the view that we do need to be more explicit in respect of academic freedom, and I am mindful of what the witnesses have told us and Members from both sides of the Chamber have reinforced: that, if there is indeed a climate of fear and a culture of silence given expression by self-censorship, as we heard from Professor Goodwin, Dr Ahmed and others, we need to be crystal clear about the protections that the Bill will afford.

Nevertheless, mindful of the integrity of the Minister and her assurances, I hope she will look at this issue again, and on that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment that stands in my name in order to facilitate our progress. In doing so, let me just say that I also welcome her assurance about the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton in respect of fields of expertise. I do think that “areas of interest”, or some such similar phrase, might be more appropriate, and would deal with some of the points that have been raised by Members. Furthermore—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington knows I have form on this subject—I am very happy to support his remarks about the need to protect employees’ interests from employers. My views on that are just as deeply held as his, as he knows from previous exchanges that we have enjoyed. It is important to take that away and think of it afresh, as the Minister has suggested she will. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 46, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research without government or institutional interference, and

(d) to express their opinions in relation to higher education providers, including that at which they are employed,”.—(Matt Western.)

This amendment would expand the definition of academic freedom to encompass an academic’s ability to freely pursue chosen topics for teaching and research, free from external interference, and express an opinion in relation to a higher education provider.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 5

Ayes: 6

Noes: 10

Amendment proposed: 48, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(c) the denial of a just and open path for career development, including fair procedures for appointment” .—(Matt Western.)

This amendment seeks to expand the ways in which an academic cannot be adversely affected due to an exercise of their academic freedom to include the denial of a just and open path for career development

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 6

Ayes: 6

Noes: 10

[Charlotte Nichols]

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(7A) The objective under subsection (2) does not apply to any person or body that—

(a) has made any statement in public that amounts to the denial of genocide; or

(b) intends to make any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide within the premises of the provider or to any students of the provider.”

This amendment ensures that the objective of securing freedom of speech within the law does not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 69, in clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

““denial of genocide” means the malicious condoning, denying or trivialising of an act of genocide;

“genocide” has the meaning set out in Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

This amendment defines genocide denial against Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Amendment 54.

Amendment 33, in clause 1, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“(2) For the purposes of this section, “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom” do not extend to any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide.”

This amendment ensures that the objective of securing freedom of speech and academic freedom do not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.

Amendment 34, in clause 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

“(4B) The objective under subsection (2) does not apply to any person or body that—

(a) has made any statement in public that amounts to the denial of genocide; or

(b) intends to make any statement that amounts to the denial of genocide within the premises of the students’ union or to any members of the students’ union.”

This amendment ensures that the duty on students’ unions to secure freedom of speech within the law does not cover those who make statements that amount to a denial of genocide.

[Charlotte Nichols]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. The amendment would make it clear and explicit in the Bill that the legal protections afforded to academics for their freedom of speech would not cover denial of the holocaust or other genocides recognised by the UK Government, namely the subsequent genocides in Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Bosnia.

As I have previously explained, I feel that my concern is justified by the Minister’s comments on the radio about how holocaust denial constitutes lawful free speech, however objectionable everyone in this room would find it. There was a swift back-pedalling on that, with the newly sacked right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) saying in the Chamber that freedom of speech would not protect holocaust deniers. However, I am not sure that assurances will be enough, and that is why it needs to be explicit.

One of the witnesses who came before the Committee, Professor Goodwin, stated that he would invite a speaker to address his students

“from the British National party or the National Front”.––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 91, Q187.]

Mr Griffin has a degree from the University of Cambridge, so he could potentially argue that he would be covered by academic freedom when promoting his views. Clearly, this is not an extreme hypothetical; this is someone who has been invited to address a number of universities, including my own, the University of Liverpool. He has also addressed the Cambridge Union society, taking part in a panel debate with Abu Hamza. When we consider the academic rigour of courses and the benefit of what students are being taught, I am not sure that any of us could argue that there was academic rigour in a debate between an Islamic fundamentalist and an out-and-out renowned Nazi. Mr Griffin has engaged in holocaust denial on a number of occasions, including at the trial for his 1998 public order offence, where he said:

“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat.”

Over the course of our debates on the Bill, we have heard a lot about the need to challenge certain orthodoxies: that such debate is healthy in an academic setting and improves academic rigour, allows students to develop their critical thinking and debating skills, and so on. However, there must be a limit. Professor Goodwin made it clear that, if the Bill were enacted, he could invite someone such as Nick Griffin on to his campus. That is why it needs to be explicit in the Bill that, if he were to do so and his university provider tried to cancel the event, that is not something for which Mr Griffin would be able to seek damages against the university.

15:59

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is making an absolutely excellent speech. To pre-empt what the Minister will say—“Well, everything is allowed unless it’s unlawful”—I refer back to the evidence given to us by Sunder Katwala, who said:

“Most racist and antisemitic speech does not meet the legal threshold of being unlawful. Intimidation and violence are unlawful, and other forms of stirring up are unlawful, but holocaust denial is not unlawful.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 101, Q209.]

So having a definition of allowing speech unless it is unlawful is not enough to stop holocaust denialists coming and speaking at universities.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important contribution. As we have heard from a number of witnesses, holocaust denial—as I said, I am sure that everyone present finds it objectionable—is, in fact, lawful free speech that could be protected under the regulations currently in the Bill, unless we ensure that the limitations of free speech and academic freedom are spelled out explicitly on the face of the Bill.

As we have talked about a lot over the past couple of days, it is really important that speakers, academics and students have academic freedom. Clearly, other pieces of legislation that are in place—not least libel law, the limits that are set out in the Prevent duties that universities have to abide by, and the limits set out in the Equality Act 2010—must be read alongside the Bill, but none of those is sufficient to prevent holocaust denial. I am particularly keen to expand the definition of holocaust denial to genocide denial. Just as we not only commemorate the Nazi holocaust of Jews, disabled people, Roma and Sinti, LGBT people, trade unionists and other minority groups within Europe on Holocaust Memorial Day every year, we also commemorate the subsequent genocides in Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Bosnia.

We have spoken about universities trying to appeal not only to a market within the UK, but to a global market. If there are no limitations on free speech, what message would it send to students from places such as Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Bosnia? What would it say to students from Germany, where they have much more robust laws in place to ensure that holocaust denial and denial of other genocides—which is of course a disgusting desecration of all those who lost their lives and who suffered in those genocides—is not perpetuated within higher education institutions? The duty of care that institutions have towards their students is incredibly important, and it is something that we need to ensure is not lost as a result of the unforeseen consequences of passing a Bill that does not have the limitations that I have set out in amendment 32. The following amendments, which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, clarify some of the technical points throughout the Bill to ensure that amendment 32 can stand.

I think that any right-minded person would want to ensure that protections are in place. It is something in which there is a clear public interest, because it is objectionable that universities might have to spend money to fight legal cases against genocide deniers who demand a right to a platform on their campuses. There is also a really important public order point, because when people from the far right are invited to speak on university campuses, there is often, naturally, a reaction from the student body, who protest their presence. Nick Griffin turning up on various campuses over the years has meant skirmishes. Sometimes, such people bring along heavies with them, who will cause problems, start fights with students and make students on that campus fundamentally less safe while they are there. Of course, they are there to radicalise people and bring them round to their far-right cause. They are there to recruit, so the idea that it is an academic exercise is for the birds—these are people coming on to campuses to radicalise young people.

We expect a vote shortly and we want to discuss a lot of other things, but I want to ensure that the amendment is given proper consideration and that those safeguards are put in the Bill to make sure that the well-meaning, I am sure, assurances of the Government do not turn out to be meaningless in effect.

[Matt Western]

Briefly, I thank my hon. Friend for her clear and considered speech in support of the amendments, some of which are in my name, given that we were not entirely sure how they would fall over the four days of the Committee.

In the evidence sessions and on Second Reading, we heard just how concerned people are. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle mentioned the evidence given by Sunder Katwala, but I am think too of the moving comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) about his experience at Leeds University and the prospect of having the likes of David Irving or Nick Griffin coming on to campus to speak. I will also just pick up on the point made by Professor Whittle:

“If, for example, somebody who clearly denies the holocaust wishes to speak at a university, I would think that was not acceptable. There are certain historical facts that are sacrosanct and you cannot say that they do not exist, unless you have extremely good evidence to the alternative.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 39, Q73.]

The amendment seeks to draw a line under the question, what constitutes reprehensible but lawful speech that is inimical to academic freedom? I cannot see any academic benefit to denying any genocide, and it would do great harm to an academic were such views espoused on campus, as well as to the wider academy, let alone damaging student welfare.

[Michelle Donelan]

Amendments 32 to 34 and 69, taken together, seek to exempt providers and student unions from the duty to secure freedom of speech of persons who speak or intend to speak to deny genocide. The Government, however, are clear that genocide denial, including denial of the holocaust, is abhorrent and morally reprehensible. The new director will produce extensive guidance to assist universities, further to the points made by hon. Members. That guidance will make it clear that the European Court of Human Rights has held that holocaust denial is not protected speech under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. As such speech is intolerable in a democratic society, and that holocaust denial, even if dressed up as impartial historical research, must be seen—

[Emma Hardy]

I refer the Minister to the evidence given by Sunder Katwala:

“Comparing the Israeli Government to Nazi Germany, for example, is a lawful position that we wish to stigmatise.”––[Official Report, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2021; c. 102, Q209.]

He complimented—if that is the right word—the Government on trying to get universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition; likewise, we support that. However, that is still a “lawful position”. What this amendment would do is to make that, even though it is within the law to hold those opinions, we do not want them in our universities.

[Michelle Donelan]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will carry on and respond to her point regarding the balancing act that universities will perform.

Holocaust deniers often have clear links with neo-Nazi extremism, and with antisemitic violence and intimidation. As I said on the Floor of the House, the Government are clear that there is no place in our universities for an extremist view that is a complete work of fiction and one that grotesquely seeks to misrepresent our global history.

Let me once again be clear that nothing in the Bill encourages providers or student unions to invite speakers who have denied or deny genocide. The Bill will not give anyone the right to a platform, and on that I am categorical.

[Charlotte Nichols]

As we have heard about the broad range of individuals and organisations covered by the Bill, any student society that sought to invite a holocaust denier or genocide denier on to campus could technically have protection under the Bill as drafted. For example, if a free speech society wishes to test the absolute limits of what its university would tolerate regarding free speech and decided, as the Oxford Union did, to invite Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin along, I think it would be irresponsible of the university to allow such events to go ahead. There is nothing to say that the university has to invite them, but clearly there is nothing to say that a society or the students union could not invite them, or what would that mean for the university if it chose to intervene accordingly.

[Michelle Donelan]

Two points are being made. One is about the right to a platform, whereby an individual can, in essence, demand to speak at a university. In no way does the Bill give anyone the right to a platform.

The second point that the hon. Member is referring to is if an individual is invited by a society, a union or a university itself. With regard to that, freedom of speech is not an absolute right; it does not include the right to harass others, or incite people to violence or terrorism. The Bill requires reasonably practicable steps to be taken to secure freedom of speech within the law. That is the crucial point. The Bill is not about unlawful speech.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

But the Bill does require student unions to allow students to set up societies regardless of their viewpoints; such societies must be able to be registered and cannot be denied. There could be a group of three students—three deluded, holocaust-denying students—and the student union would not be able to deny them an affiliation, according to the Bill, and they would be given a right to speak in the student union. I am just trying to be clear, especially because of the tort element. That is the particular problem here, because that is not in regard to the Office for Students; it is separate to the courts. If there is not a protection here in the Bill, can the Minister give assurances that no group of three students can take a student union to court for tort, for being denied a room to preach genocide denial?

[Michelle Donelan]

The hon. Member is absolutely incorrect, because universities and student unions will only have to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that freedom of speech exists. University student unions or other bodies will also have to balance that with the Equality Act, with the public sector equality duty and with the Prevent duty, and also criminal law may apply. This is about balancing competing duties, not about giving primacy to freedom of speech, which was in fact the aim of the Opposition amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 7

Ayes: 6

Noes: 9

Amendment proposed: 69, in clause 1, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

“‘genocide’ has the meaning set out in Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”—(Charlotte Nichols.)

This amendment defines genocide denial against Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Amendment 54.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 8

Ayes: 6

Noes: 9

[The Chair]

I invite Members who have not already done so in this session to declare their interests for the record.

[Sir John Hayes]

I draw the attention of the Committee and others to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, which cites my professional connection to the University of Bolton, where I am a professor.

[John McDonnell]

I register my interest as an honorary fellow of Birkbeck College, and my wife is a tutor at University College London.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Similarly, I am an honorary fellow of Birkbeck.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I have a professional connection with the University of Sussex and the University and College Union, and I am a trustee of the University of Bradford union.

[Matt Western]

I wish to register that my wife works at a particular higher education provider.

[Emma Hardy]

Again, my partner works at the University of Hull’s degree apprenticeship course.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)

16:18

Adjourned till tomorrow at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

HEFSB20 Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

HEFSB21 Professor Dennis Hayes, Director, Academics For Academic Freedom

HEFSB22 Dr David Merry, a research fellow at the university of Nottingham

Elections Bill (Second sitting)

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Edward Leigh, †Christina Rees

† Anderson, Fleur (Putney) (Lab)

Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Bristow, Paul (Peterborough) (Con)

† Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)

Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Grady, Patrick (Glasgow North) (SNP)

† Hollern, Kate (Blackburn) (Lab)

† Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)

† O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

† Randall, Tom (Gedling) (Con)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Shelbrooke, Alec (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

† Smith, Cat (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)

† Smith, Chloe (Minister for the Constitution and Devolution)

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Chris Stanton, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Professor David Howarth, Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of Cambridge, and former Electoral Commissioner

Fraser Campbell, Blackstone Chambers

Virginia McVea, Chief Electoral Officer, the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland

Ailsa Irvine, Director of Electoral Administration and Guidance, The Electoral Commission

Peter Stanyon, Chief Executive, Association of Electoral Administrators

Louise Round, spokesperson for Elections and Democratic Renewal, SOLACE

Rob Connelly, Returning Officer, Birmingham City Council

Dr Kate Dommett, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Sheffield

Professor Justin Fisher, Director of Public Policy, Brunel University London

Darren Grimes, political commentator

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 15 September 2021

(Afternoon)

[Christina Rees in the Chair]

Elections Bill

Examination of Witnesses

Professor David Howarth and Fraser Campbell gave evidence.

14:00

[The Chair]

Q46 I remind Members about the public health guidance and that electronic devices should be switched to silent. We will now hear oral evidence from Fraser Campbell of Blackstone Chambers and Professor David Howarth, Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Cambridge. Fraser Campbell is appearing in person and Professor Howarth will be on Zoom. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion agreed by the Committee. For this session, we only have until 2.30 pm. Please will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?

Fraser Campbell: Fraser Campbell, barrister at Blackstone Chambers.

Professor Howarth: I am David Howarth, Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Cambridge. I was an electoral commissioner until 2018; before that I was a Member of the House of Commons, and before that I was the leader of a council.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Minister, would you like to ask the first question?

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

Q As this is such a short session, I will ask one question each of our two witnesses. Mr Campbell, it is nice to see you here today; thank you for giving up your time. The Government’s call for evidence on the accessibility of elections showed that one of the main barriers to voting can be the definition of “companion” in legislation. Do you agree that the expansion of the definition of who can act as a companion will be of benefit and will support more elderly voters and voters with a disability in being able to vote in person?

Fraser Campbell: Yes, absolutely. Anything that can be done to make voting easier is to be encouraged. That is why, I suspect, more Members will have questions about some of the provisions that make voting more difficult, but I will not get on to that until I am asked.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Moving on to Mr Howarth—David, if I may—you have been a Member of Parliament, so welcome back; it is nice to see you today. You are a former Liberal Democrat Member, and it is great to have your particular intersection of experience. Knowing Parliament as you do, and knowing how, at its best, it can be a place for scrutiny, debate, insight and experience, do you think it is a positive addition to the accountability and governance of the Electoral Commission that we have a greater role for Parliament coming in? Or do you think that the work of the electoral commissioners and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission as it currently stands is sufficient?

Professor Howarth: First, may I say that it is good to be back? It is just my luck to be giving evidence during a reshuffle. All I can say is, “Chloe, good luck,” and I will understand it if you will be glancing at your phone.

The accountability of the Electoral Commission is twofold. First, there is accountability to the Speaker’s Committee. That is useful, but it is limited, and should be limited, to the use of resources; it is related to the estimate under which the commission is funded. Secondly, on individual decisions the commission is accountable to the courts. That is to say, if it issues a fine or some sort of order against an individual or a party, those organisations or people can appeal to the courts. I think this afternoon you will hear from someone who successfully appealed a fine that had been imposed by the commission. It might have been helpful to hear from people who have been fined and failed in their appeal, or chose not to appeal.

There are two lines of accountability, and I think the danger in the Bill is getting them mixed up. The line of accountability to the courts should not interfere with Parliament, and the line of accountability to Parliament should not interfere with the courts. Secondly, what the Bill actually does is make the commission accountable to Parliament in terms of direction or guidance issued by a Minister, and then obviously agreed to on the nod in the usual way of statutory instruments by the Commons, and they would not trouble the Lords. Nevertheless, that is not accountability to Parliament; that is accountability to the Government—

[The Chair]

May I interrupt? Professor Howarth, we are having trouble hearing you. Could you turn your microphone up, please?

[Chloe Smith]

I am really sorry, Ms Rees. I could hardly hear any of that answer.

Fraser Campbell: I wonder whether I may say a word on the Minister’s question. My view on parliamentary accountability is that of course it is very important. It has to be balanced against the independence, and the perceived independence, of the commission. To the extent that the Bill wishes to introduce scope for the commission to be given a statement of principles and objectives, I think the question arises whether that will be useful and, if it is, to whom.

Based on the Minister’s statement from 17 June this year, which talked about the content that that statement might have, there was an indication that it may lay down principles for the Electoral Commission in terms of impartiality, accountability, value for money, proportionality and consistency. I wonder how useful that would be, because the Electoral Commission, whatever one thinks of its performance, presumably does not think at the moment that it is proper for it to provide poor value for money or be partial, unaccountable, disproportionate or inconsistent.

The question arises, to make a difference, what difference it will make. My concern—Professor Howarth has expressed this in the press—is that there is a danger of an arm’s-length independent body being pressured by the majority in the House of Commons, and the party of Government, to prioritise things that may be perceived to benefit that party and to deprioritise other things, or even to seek to intervene and give guidance on individual cases. If that were done, there would be the potential for very real damage to the perceived independence of the commission and a sense of people who are elected—by definition, the victors of elections—to some extent regulating themselves. I think that would be the intention with the overall aim of the long-established Electoral Commission.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Professor Howarth, could you try repeating your answer to see whether we can hear you?

Professor Howarth: I will try. Can you hear me now?

[The Chair]

Yes, that is much better.

Professor Howarth: I started by wishing Chloe good luck in the reshuffle. The accountability of the Electoral Commission, as Fraser just said, is an important matter, but the commission on individual matters is accountable to the courts, not to Parliament. There is an appeal process. I think there is a witness later this afternoon who appealed successfully against a commission judgment. There are many others who have failed in their appeal or withdrawn it.

It is important not to mix up the legal accountability of the commission to the courts with the accountability to the Speaker’s Committee, which is basically to do with its financial responsibility. The commission operates under an estimate that does not go through the Government. The accountability on the spending side is to the Speaker’s Committee. Where the Bill goes wrong, I think, is in mixing those two things up and subjecting the commission to policy guidance by the Government. The accountability that has been proposed to Parliament is on the basis of the Government’s guidance to the commission and then to Parliament. That reduces the autonomy not just of the commission but of Parliament in holding the commission to account on what it wants to hold it to account on, not what the Government tell it to.

[Chloe Smith]

Q I have one follow-up question, on your time as an electoral commissioner, which as we all know is very different from the election commissioner role, on which we heard from Richard Mawrey earlier today. From your time in that role, David, could you give us examples of when you think there was effective governance and ineffective governance between the commission’s proposals or plans and the SCEC?

Professor Howarth: On the whole, every year there is a useful discussion between the Speaker’s Committee and the leadership of the commission on budgetary matters—issues to do with how much money would be suitable for a particular year. I should really add in parentheses that that will be far more difficult if and when the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 is withdrawn, because it will not be clear whether there will be a general election in any particular year. There is a balance between the ongoing expenditure of the committee on base and the exceptional expenditure that comes about because of the number of electoral events in the year. Over the years, the fact that there were two parts of the budget has been cleared up between the committee and the commission. I think that operates well. It was starting to operate not well by the end. I think that is an example of both.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Q My question for both witnesses is about the accountability of the Electoral Commission and the part of the legislation we are looking at on that issue. It is a balance between parliamentary accountability for the commission but also independence of the commission to be able to do its job. As it stands, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has an in-built Government majority, with five Members from the governing party and three Opposition MPs—I declare an interest as a member of that committee. Do you feel that is effective and what do you think will be the impact of adding another Government MP to that committee? Do you think the Electoral Commission is currently suitably held to account by Parliamentarians?

Professor Howarth: Perhaps I should answer that more than Fraser. I do not think there should be any circumstances in which there is a Government majority on the Speaker’s Committee. It was set up not to have that, but the balance in the House that determines which party gets which Chair of which Select Committee has an effect. I think the legislation has to be adjusted to ensure that the definition of who is on the Speaker’s Committee is not affected by those sorts of changes. The whole idea is for there to be consensus on electoral matters across the parties. That is the main objection to having ministerial guidance in the first place—a Minister from any particular party might be seen to say something in the interest of the party. Similarly, the Speaker’s Committee should never have a single-party majority. The legislation should make that clear.

Fraser Campbell: I agree with what Professor Howarth says about majorities on the committee. Members have to bear in mind the distinction between accountability and direction. It is one thing for the Electoral Commission to be accountable to Parliament, through the Speaker’s Committee and potentially through other mechanisms, in terms of explaining itself and being questioned about decisions it has made or its performance. It is another thing for it to be directed to do particular things.

That is the concern that arises in terms of the statement of principles. One example of that is that it envisages the ministerial statement and directing priorities. One can easily think of examples where it might be quite improper for particular priorities to be set; for example, if there was a hypothetical party that drew disproportionate amounts of support from older people as opposed to students. One can imagine why that hypothetical party might wish to make it a priority for the Electoral Commission to assist in increasing turnout among the elderly, and on whatever grounds it came up with, deprioritise facilitating students living in multiple households to register to vote. If that was a direction given to the commission, that would not really be accountability at all but interference. It would be much better for the commission to be allowed to get on with what are very well established and understood statutory objectives, and for Parliament through whatever means to hold it to account on its performance.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q My question is in two parts. On the plan to give Ministers more control of the Electoral Commission, David, were these plans ever discussed or floated when you were a commissioner between 2008 and 2018? To both of you, why do you think they have now appeared in the Bill?

Professor Howarth: To answer the first question, this would have been unthinkable in my time as an electoral commissioner, and also that was during a time when there had been a Conservative Prime Minister for the whole time. I do not think anyone would have ever imagined this was a good idea. It is an open goal for the opponents of western democracy. If you are President Xi, you might think this is the kind of thing you want—all the institutions of the state lined up behind the governing party—but not in this country. It is completely unthinkable.

As to where it has come from, it is beyond my time in office. All I can say is it looks as if it has arisen out of certain resentments in certain quarters about decisions the commission has made that people disagree with, and the Government must have been scrambling around for ways of satisfying that desire for revenge and come up with possibly the mildest version they can think of, but even this version is outrageous.

Fraser Campbell: I would not wish to make a window into the Minister’s soul, but I think all Members on all sides would want to bear in mind that if they are in Government, they will one day be out of Government, and one would not want to have a position where whatever party happens to be in Government is able to take advantage of an opportunity to influence or exert pressure on the commission while the sun is shining, only to see the boot on the other foot when they are out of power.

One sees this, for example, in the United States where it is very nice for the governing party to be able to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, but it feels much less promising when they happen to be out of power. In my position, it is much better to have a properly independent process, which we have in the courts here. We do not have the same business of political nomination of judges. We would lose something of value were we to have, in any sense, a politicised, oscillating Electoral Commission, whose priorities change depending on who is setting the direction from time to time. That would not be in the long-term interests of any party.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Q The Bill seeks to address the integrity of elections. Would you say this is the biggest problem we face in our elections currently? Are there any other concerns you think the Bill should address or any other proposals or measures you think should be included? Do you have any other concerns about the Bill that you have not been able to address?

Fraser Campbell: Shall I go first this time? I am grateful it is a broad invitation. I think the integrity of elections is not an overwhelming concern in UK electoral law. There have been pockets of extremely bad practice that have been exposed and investigated, and have obtained a high profile, but generally the UK happily leads the world in this respect and should not be shy about that. There are problems though, which are along the themes of needing to encourage broader and freer participation, because that is the best prophylactic against domination by particular vested interests. The explanatory notes rightly draw attention to some dangers of foreign interference or interference by the very wealthy, but one of the things one can do to discourage or balance that out is to have as broad a plurality of participation as possible.

It worries me that certain provisions of the Bill are potentially apt to have a chilling effect on participation by small parties, or those who are not parties at all but are legitimate pressure groups, charities, NGOs, trade unions and so on. An example of that is the power to be given under clause 23 to a Minister, albeit subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to effectively proscribe the types of organisations that can become registered third parties. That is important because, if an organisation is not a registered third party it is subject to a much lower spending limit. The pre-legislative material that I have seen does not give any explanation as to why there needs to be a power to limit the types of organisation that can become registered third parties. I can see why there might need to be some sort of power to quickly expand the list, if it turns out someone is inadvertently excluded.

The only rationale I have seen for this provision, generally, is to clamp down on foreign interference. If that is the case, it does not provide any justification for Ministers to have the power to exclude numbers of categories from that list, which includes trade unions, charities, UK companies and unincorporated associations. It would be of benefit to the process if this Committee were to examine, with the Government, the rationale for that procedure.

There is a tension between that procedure and a general desire, which is expressed by some parties, to avoid lawyers being too involved in the political process. I can tell you, as a matter of simple law, that if a decision to exclude an organisation was made under such a power, it would be more susceptible to challenge by judicial review than if such a decision was made under primary legislation. As a matter of basic law, judges are naturally much less deferential to secondary legislation, because it has not gone through the rigmarole and process that we are engaged in today. It would be a jamboree for lawyers—in a selfish, personal sense I would welcome that—but it has not been explained and it could have a chilling effect. Even if the power was not actively used, people would be participating as registered third parties not knowing what the situation might be in the future. I think that would disincentivise the plurality of participation that can balance out foreign interference and other less welcome vested interests.

Professor Howarth: I agree with Fraser on clause 23; the delegated powers memorandum—[Inaudible.]

[The Chair]

Professor Howarth, if I can interrupt you, we are having trouble hearing you again.

Professor Howarth: Oh right! I thought I had fixed that.

[Chloe Smith]

Could you also lift your head up so we can lip read?

Professor Howarth: The temptation when on a computer is to bend down towards the microphone. I shall try to let you lip read.

I agree that there is a problem with clause 23. The power to add groups that can campaign as third parties is obviously justifiable. The delegated powers memorandum gives no justification for the power to remove or the power to redefine. Those are powers that could be abused.

There is also a change in clause 20 that to most people looks logical, but there needs to be a replacement provision. It is the proposal to end the possibility of parties acting as third-party campaigners. The Electoral Commission’s guidance says that is the main way in which parties can act together in electoral alliances and pacts. If clause 20 remains as it is, with no replacement provision, then parties will not really be able to operate in electoral pacts or alliances. They will be limited to £700 of expenditure if promoting a national campaign of another party. There needs to be a specific provision for pacts that is fair. Obviously, those provisions would have to apply to canvassers campaigning on common ground, but this is too restrictive.

On the question of what ought to be in the Bill, there is a massive Law Commission report on all the problems identified in electoral law, which should be part of this Bill. That report is now gathering dust, as too many Law Commission reports do.

I go back to the Constitutional Affairs Committee and Justice Committees before 2010, which came to an agreement on the crucial issue in electoral reform, which is donations. Should there be a cap on donations? We got a Committee to agree on a very high cap, but also to the principle that there ought to be a cap. If you do not have a cap on donations, the whole system is open to the accusation that it is just there for rich people to buy elections. That is the most important problem in the way we allow elections to be run. We need to get the system on to a completely different basis of small donations by ordinary people.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Q Professor, you asked where this idea of the statement of principles and the policy framework for the Electoral Commission has come from. I hope you were able to hear the evidence in this morning’s sitting, particularly that from Councillor Golds, who gave damning examples of where evidence of widespread fraud was taken by him and others to the Electoral Commission and, in his words, ignored.

Professor Howarth: Let me explain. The Electoral Commission does not have a role in legal contests about individual cases of electoral fraud. It has an overall supervisory role, but its regulatory powers are aimed at parties and their national campaigns. For example, on the spending returns of individuals in parliamentary elections, the commission has a power to look at them, but no power to enforce the law. That is all done by individuals and by the police.

The commission’s power has to do with the national spending limits of the national parties. If you think the commission should be doing more on that, you need to change the commission’s powers so that it can. What the Bill does instead is remove the commission’s power to instigate prosecutions, which makes the situation even worse.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q On that point, is it not right that although the commission claims to have the power currently, it has never once brought forward a prosecution?

Professor Howarth: That is because the Government always opposed it and tried to stop it doing it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Forgive me; if I may ask the question, I will not interrupt the answer. Given that you have never, ever used the power of prosecution, is it fair to claim that removing a power that has never been used is somehow an additional fetter to electoral law?

Professor Howarth: Yes, it is, because it is a power that exists that could have been used, and any proposal to use it makes the Government immediately decide to go back, on whatever grounds. One of the things you should have picked up from Richard Mawrey’s evidence this morning is that the police are not particularly interested in enforcing electoral law and think that electoral offences are not important. If they do not think it is, the CPS will not get many cases and no one will be prosecuted, unless local authorities take it up using their power under section 222 of the Local Government Act, which they might do.

[The Chair]

We have just a couple of minutes left. Perhaps Patrick Grady will ask a short question and we can have a short answer.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Q Very briefly on the ministerial policy statement of direction, the Electoral Commission has a UK-wide remit. The Bill provides for devolved Ministers to be consulted, but not necessarily to consent. Do you have any views on the potential for the ministerial statement of direction to start to encroach on areas that might otherwise be regulated by the devolved institutions?

Fraser Campbell: I think there is a perfectly legitimate concern. We have seen in the Bill, for example, the voter ID provisions. In Northern Ireland, they have their own rules and have had for some time because it is a distinct situation with its own distinct concerns. Those differences are much less pronounced between Scotland and the rest of the UK, but, undoubtedly—this goes back to my earlier point—if the statement of principles is to be anything other than motherhood and apple pie, and if it gives rise to controversy, I imagine it will give rise to controversy between Westminster and the devolved legislatures. Involving the Electoral Commission in that sort of controversy—in other words, having it follow a statement of principles as an arm’s length body that it knows is itself politically controversial, not just within one Parliament but between Parliaments—would be regrettable.

Professor Howarth: The commission has come to a very good relationship with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament over the years—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.

Examination of Witnesses

Virginia McVea, Ailsa Irvine and Peter Stanyon gave evidence.

14:30

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Virginia McVea from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland, Ailsa Irvine from the Electoral Commission and Peter Stanyon of the Association of Electoral Administrators. All the witnesses are on Zoom. Welcome. We have until 3.15 pm for this session. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Virginia McVea: Good afternoon, I am Virginia McVea, Northern Ireland’s chief electoral officer.

Ailsa Irvine: Good afternoon, I am Ailsa Irvine, director of electoral administration and guidance at the Electoral Commission.

Peter Stanyon: Good afternoon, I am Peter Stanyon, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators.

[Cat Smith]

Q If I could begin with you, Ms McVea. Part of the Bill concerns electors showing voter identification at polling stations. That has been a requirement in Northern Ireland for some time. We know that has changed over time: initially not requiring photo ID, then much later having a requirement to show photo ID. Do you have anything that could inform the Committee’s thinking on the way in which that might be implemented in England, Scotland and Wales, and with regard to the speed, if we were to move straight to requiring quite strict photo ID? Obviously, in Northern Ireland you had a much slower transition. Could you outline any of the initial problems electors had in Northern Ireland with access to ID, and what barriers voters who did not have ID came up against?

Virginia McVea: That was obviously prior to my period in office. There are not many records in relation to that. What I can say is that there is no particular difficulty encountered in providing that photographic ID. We have around 370,000 cards and they have been available since 2003. One issue that will be encountered is the administration. Initially records show that the outsourced cost per card was over £14, and that continued. It is now provided in-house, at just over £2 a card, including postage. Part of it will be around comms and how people are able to access them.

For us, there is obviously a time taken per card. Outside election periods, we have had to extend that to a six-week turnaround. I have no record of what the turnaround period was initially in the provision of the cards, but the take-up was much higher. Probably in around 2016, we were looking at more than 20,000 cards being produced in the year. We have found that continuing to tail off.

There has not been any related difficulty in attendance at polling stations of being able to produce ID. Certainly, the data shows a change in the requirement on cards.

We do not know whether people have kept all of their cards—we know lots of cards get lost. We occasionally have visits from various nightclubs when they empty their sports bags on to the table and return the cards that have gone missing. Those need duplicates. A lot of time can be wasted in reproducing cards, but I am afraid that there are very few records that show what the initial difficulties were in engaging and in providing the ID.

[Cat Smith]

Q If I may ask Peter Stanyon to answer a question from the point of view of the electoral administrators, obviously the issuing of free voter identification cards will fall to local authorities and electoral administrators. Can you outline to the Committee some of the pressures that the people you represent in electoral offices up and down the country face on a day-to-day basis? What kind of pressures already exist? How is the requirement to produce ID cards likely to affect electoral administrators?

Peter Stanyon: The expectation is that the vast majority of those cards will need to be issued ahead of the next national electoral event—a general election, for example— when the pressures in the electoral offices are at their greatest. Late registration statistics show that the spikes in registration come towards the end. At that stage, the same people delivering the election—certainly across England and Wales—will be the ones who also have to manage the process of issuing free voter ID cards to individuals. In Scotland, it is slightly different because that tends to be done by the valuation joint boards. There is a difference in the way that is delivered north of the border.

The real pressures are that we do not know the statistics—the numbers of people coming through—and, because of the spikes in registration, we will not know that until literally the last minute. One of the concerns being expressed across the electoral community is as much about what the basic system is: what will it look like? Will it require attendance in person? Virginia mentioned posting out ID—will that be permissible in the remainder of the UK? We do not know that detail at this stage.

It will require a whole-council approach—there is no doubt about that. It will not just be the returning officer or registration officer who is involved; it will be councils, with the pressures they are already under when delivering their day-to-day services. It really comes down to trying to make sure that we do not disenfranchise—it is probably not quite the right word—individuals by simply not being able to get to them the relevant ID they require to present at the polling stations on polling day.

The other factor to take into account is how late in the day it will be permissible for an individual to apply for free voter ID from a local authority. The pilots go right up to the eve of the polls, and we have concerns about the ability to cope with what are expected to be higher numbers when interest in the election is higher because it is a UK parliamentary general election.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Would either of the other witnesses like to comment?

Virginia McVea: Just to say that the statistics that we have in 2019 show that the applications for ID cards will at least double. In Northern Ireland, where we have had nearly 20 years of ID card provision and so have decreased the number of people who might need access to a card, we are looking at around 1,500 or 1,600 applications per month during an election period. That is the information that I can provide in relation to how you might scale it up, bearing in mind that that is nearly at the end of a 20-year process of the provision of cards.

Ailsa Irvine: It is important to ensure that any scheme that is introduced is workable. The voter ID card will play a critical part in making sure that any scheme that is introduced is accessible for those who do not have one of the prescribed forms of ID. It absolutely needs to work, but it also needs to be considered in the realm of the whole administration of elections, including the other changes that the Bill brings forward, to ensure that there is capacity within local authorities to deliver effectively. There must be sufficient time for all this to be planned on an administrative level, with the software suppliers that local authorities depend on, and appropriate resourcing must be in place to support that.

[Cat Smith]

Q I have one final question for Ailsa Irvine. The Electoral Commission reports to and is funded by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd, as well as the UK Parliament. How do you think the changes in the legislation whereby the UK Parliament can set the strategic direction will impact the way in which the commission engages with the devolved nations?

Ailsa Irvine: In general terms, we have concerns about the commission relating to the strategy and policy statement and the impact that that may have on the commission’s independence, going as it does beyond scrutiny and accountability, and potentially into providing guidance about how we carry out our functions on a day-to-day basis.

Specifically on our accountability to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament, which is as important as our accountability to the UK Parliament, looking as we do in those three different directions, it is really important that there is consultation with those Parliaments. At the moment, the legislation focuses on consultation with Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers, but we are actually accountable to those legislatures through the Llywydd’s Committee and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, so it is important to be able to ensure that they are also consulted and involved in the process in an equivalent way to the Speaker’s Committee.

When those consultations take place, whether with the Speaker’s Committee or with the devolved legislatures, it is really important that we are able to see what feedback is provided on any consultation on the statement, so that—assuming that the provisions go through—when it is presented to Parliament, given that it is presented as an all-or-nothing decision, there can be absolute clarity on what those who have been consulted have fed back and on their views on the operability of the statement.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Good afternoon to our three witnesses. Thank you very much for joining us. In our various ways, we know each other well from much work done over the years, so it is good to have you with us.

I will start with a couple of questions to Virginia about the concepts of turnout, fraud patterns and confidence, each of which is important in what we are looking at, particularly for voter identification. I am sure we would all agree that turnout is not a linear trend—it can be influenced by wider political factors—but can you confirm that in the first general election after photographic identification was introduced, the 2005 election, turnout in Northern Ireland was higher than in each of England, Scotland and Wales?

Virginia McVea: I am sorry, but we do not retain those records within the Electoral Office. I can certainly provide the answer to the Committee as a follow-up.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you. I apologise; I meant in no way to put you on the spot. We have a note from the House of Commons Library that contains those figures, so I just wanted to give you an opportunity to expand on them.

I will turn instead to the evidence of fraud, which is perhaps the meat of the issue in some of what we are doing on voter identification. Has photo identification been effective in stopping personation, and does it function effectively as a deterrent? In other words, does it prevent the crime from being able to take place in the first instance?

Virginia McVea: Views across Northern Ireland will not be uniform in relation to the provision of photographic identification. What I can tell you, from looking at the tendered ballots for June 2017, for example, is that 24 were issued across all of the constituencies in Northern Ireland. In 2019, there were 18. Broadly, it would be fair to say that there is a public perception that photographic ID is helpful. We all know that there is a fear of fraud. The data that I hold, and the evidence that is available to me, does not bear out any kind of systemic fraud in Northern Ireland.

We are in a position where we provide those details in relation to the tendered ballots. When our polling station reports are returned—the poll staff are able to document all kinds of things that have occurred during the day—that is not something that occurs in our reports, nor is it something we hear from our polling station inspectors, who travel around. That said, some parties will raise concerns with me, and we are always trying to provide—through data analytics on the number of people who are used as proxies, or on absent votes generally—as much evidence as we can, to be as transparent as possible, because the evidence that we have does not bear it out.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Yes, indeed. I quite understand that. Without wishing to be facetious, for the benefit of the Committee, do you agree with me that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Virginia McVea: Absolutely, but our purpose is to try to inquire as far as we possibly can, so we are now able to lift that out through increased analytics opportunities. Tendered ballots are an opportunity. Feedback from polling stations, and across the board with polling station inspectors, is very helpful. Issues are raised with me; political representatives will contact me throughout polling day, for example. That is not something that is raised in every constituency in large numbers. There will tend to be higher levels of concern in certain areas among certain representatives. Either in situations where people have wanted to move on or where we have thought it necessary in relation to certain polling stations to pass information to the police, there have been no prosecutions.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you so much for sharing your insights. Ailsa, the Electoral Commission’s analysis across various years—I am looking at some from December 2015—concluded that voters’ confidence that elections are well run is consistently higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. Can you say a word about what you know about that from your records? Could you also please explain to the Committee why it is that for many years the Electoral Commission has advocated the introduction of voter identification in Great Britain?

Ailsa Irvine: We do see high levels of public confidence, not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole the UK. We saw that borne out in the elections that took place in May in Great Britain—there were high levels of public confidence in and satisfaction with the processes of voting and registering to vote. It is important to bear in mind that we are starting from a high base of public confidence. Having said that, we know that concerns about electoral fraud are in the mind of the public. From our public opinion survey work, we have found that two thirds of electors said that they would be more confident in the process if they were required to show a form of photo ID at the polling station. So that is relevant and a consideration for some voters.

Essentially, we recognise that, in the polling station process, no safeguards are in place to check anybody’s identity before they are issued with a ballot paper. That stands out quite strongly from other parts of the process. If you are applying to register to vote, your identity is verified beforehand, and if you are casting a postal vote, your identity is verified through that process. It does mean that there is a vulnerability in the polling station process with no check on the identity of voters—as has been found.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much.

Peter, thank you very much for joining us. On a different topic, may I pick your brains on supporting voters with disabilities at the polling station? We have a measure in the Bill that will widen the existing law, which includes a highly specific requirement for support for voters who are blind or partially sighted, into support for any disability. What are your thoughts on that, and how would you expect your members to respond to it?

Peter Stanyon: We welcome less prescription. One of the biggest challenges presented in polling stations at the moment is the prescription brought in by the tactile voting device. It works in itself, and there is nothing wrong with it, but it is the one thing available to work with under the legislative framework. The widening of the ability to use alternative methods has to be welcomed, as long as there are base standards that the returning officer is expected to follow. That is not to remove the TVD from polling stations, but to add in additional potential mechanisms that will be of assistance to individual voters.

You may have seen the evidence I gave to PACAC last week. We are making the point that this is the sort of area in which people in the third sector with experience will be able to advise returning officers of the best solutions to allow individuals to vote independently in the polling station, whether they have visual impairment or are there as a regular voter. The key point of the whole process is to give them that ability, and if that means that they are able to use something that is suitable to them—that the returning officer is aware of and that does not break secrecy or introduce risk to the process—we would fully support that. It is about having that ability to provide the flexibility for local circumstances. That said, there does need to be a minimum base standard that any voter walking into a polling station will be able to expect, if they require that level of assistance.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you, Peter; that is so helpful. Might the standard that you refer to reasonably be something that would be provided in guidance and training?

Peter Stanyon: I think so. It is the sort of thing that may come into such things as performance standards, which the commission oversees. It will come down to what sorts of things returning officers should be considering, and ensuring that staff in the polling stations are au fait with the options available to them. That will come with a number of strands to it, rather than being the very tight prescription that we have at the moment, which can fail as a result of its not being used correctly.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Q Good afternoon. My first question is to Virginia. What advice would you offer the Electoral Commission with regard to the implementation of voter ID and how to communicate it to the public, based on your experiences in Northern Ireland?

Virginia McVea: Most of the comments from Northern Ireland will have to be heavily caveated. All present will be aware that the context in which this change was brought about in Northern Ireland was very different from that in which the discussions are taking place here. That must always be borne in mind. There are some practical difficulties, which colleagues have mentioned, in terms of being ready for this. There is the initial cost. Funding was provided, as I understand it, for the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland, but the costs were considerable at a point in the early stages where, for example, the cost of card production was well over £100,000 back in 2004.

There is the cost factor, and there is also the time factor. We may have been able to reduce the cost down now to just over £2 per card, including the postage, but the time factor becomes relevant, and the fact that the photographic ID can be used for other things. People will approach us not for voting purposes, and outside election periods. For example, in January 2019 we had 517 and then 537 applications. The fact that ID cards serve other purposes for members of the public has to be borne in mind in relation to the administrative impact and the time that is taken in terms of staffing—ensuring that your process is watertight, essentially—so that there cannot be further issues in relation to fears among the public about the process itself.

There have been huge efforts in Northern Ireland to ensure that the administration works, but cost and time are big factors. We do not, unfortunately, have records. I have picked the brains of those who have gone before in relation to the difficulties experienced. The passage of time can dim some memories, but it is my understanding that it was not an easy process without its challenges and challengers. However, it is now largely accepted. It has to be borne in mind that we are talking about an almost 20-year process. We do not get conflict in polling stations or challenges in relation to the provision of ID. We do not have a lot of problems in polling stations with people bringing the wrong ID. It happens occasionally, but it is generally not a problem. The bigger teething issues will be, as Peter says, to ensure that the authorities are prepared for it, and have proper processes, sufficient funding and some expectation of the demand that is projected.

[Peter Gibson]

Q Do you record any data in respect of voters intending to vote with the incorrect ID or no ID, who are effectively turned away from the polling station?

Virginia McVea: No, we do not. As you might imagine, in terms of queues it would probably take too long. We have had those kinds of discussions. Where you will get it anecdotally is in polling station logs and review processes, post election, with polling staff and polling station inspectors. It is not a common occurrence or a particular difficulty, but you also have to bear in mind that the parties are also very familiar with this process, so there is a lot of messaging that goes out beyond my standard messages on radio and local television. Just prior to polling day, the parties themselves do all they can to make sure people do not forget. As I say, it is a long process—over 20 years.

[Peter Gibson]

Q Thank you, Virginia. Ailsa, on the evaluation of the ID trials and pilots that took place, was it your finding that the majority of voters were able to vote without any issues?

Ailsa Irvine: Yes, that was our finding. We found that the majority of people took their ID with them when they went to vote, and of those who did not, or did not have it with them initially, most returned to vote.

That said, there is a significant public awareness task when the scheme is rolled out. That cannot be overstated. Even in the pilot areas, significant activity was undertaken by the individual local authorities and the parties locally to raise awareness and make sure voters understood what to do. That is something that would need to be replicated on a national level to make sure that it is supported when ID is introduced in Great Britain as a whole.

Indeed, at the commission we are already thinking about what our role would be in supporting that public awareness to make sure there is the broad awareness among everybody who needs to bring ID with them. There are specific types of awareness beneath that. We are working very closely with partners from across the third sector to make sure those who are less likely to have the required forms of ID know what they need to do to be able to go and cast their vote.

[Peter Gibson]

Q Thank you. We have heard from a number of witnesses today that the offence of personation is not a significant problem. Could I ask you to speculate a little? Do you believe it is underreported because the victim of the crime—the person whose vote has been stolen—is unlikely to be aware of it if they are not attending the polling station themselves? Could you comment on the view expressed by Lord Pickles in his report, where he says that it is harder to take out a library book from many local authorities than to be handed a ballot paper at the polling station?

Ailsa Irvine: It is difficult to speculate. We always want to be led by the evidence, which is why we collect data from police forces across the UK, which are responsible for recording and investigating allegations of personation. We see from that that there are relatively low levels of reported electoral fraud. Virginia mentioned earlier the point about tendered ballot papers. If we were seeing lots of people turning up to vote whose name had already been marked off, we would see that coming through in high levels of tendered ballot papers being issued in polling stations, which we have not seen.

It is a challenge. I am not saying it is easy, with personation as an identity crime, for that to be followed through, but any speculation about the level of that would be difficult, and that is not something that I would want to get into. As I said earlier, there is a vulnerability in the process, which we have recognised and highlighted over a number of years, if there is not any requirement to provide any form of ID.

[Peter Gibson]

Q May I ask you one further question on that? Obviously, following an election, a marked register is available to political parties, so they are able to identify voters who regularly attend the polling station and vote, and which elections they voted in. If it were available to a fraudster who intended to carry out the offence of personation, and they were able to use the identity at the polling station of a voter who does not regularly cast their ballot, would the offence of personation in that instance be available as evidence?

Ailsa Irvine: It would be difficult to see. Obviously, access to the marked register is controlled. It is only available for inspection in certain circumstances, and the use of it is only available in certain circumstances, so it is not widely available. It would be very difficult to know in any of these instances. It would be very much dependent of the individual facts of each case.

[Peter Gibson]

Thank you.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Ms Irvine, if I may carry on questioning you, you are obviously aware that the Electoral Commission has recommended the use of photographic ID, and you are in very good company. We heard earlier this morning from Lord Pickles who, as you will know, produced a report three or four years ago in which he listed a number of organisations that have come out in favour of photographic ID for our election system. That list includes the Association of Electoral Administrators, SOLACE and the National Police Chiefs Council domestically, but also international recommendations from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. There is a groundswell of advice coming the Government’s way to introduce photographic ID to protect our electoral system from vulnerability to fraud. Can you expound for us the impact that vulnerability has on our democracy and the way people experience it?

Ailsa Irvine: We have highlighted that vulnerability for a number of years. As I said earlier, we see high levels of public confidence in our electoral process as a whole. That said, there are a proportion of voters for whom this is a concern and who would be more confident if a requirement was introduced. There is some evidence to suggest that some people would become more confident if that was introduced.

However, the one thing we said in our evaluation of the pilot schemes was that, in introducing any scheme, as well as ensuring it has an impact on increasing security, we ensure that its introduction does not have an impact on the accessibility of the voting process and that it is workable in practice. While there is a vulnerability and it makes logical sense for it to be looked at, it must be looked at in a way that not only protects security, but continues to ensure the ability of everybody to cast their vote.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q That is a very good point, and it brings me neatly on to Virginia McVea, if I am allowed one further question. You have a lot of experience of the practical application of photo ID in Northern Ireland; I heard your evidence a moment ago that, now it is bedded in, the run rate is about 1,500 card applications a month—is that right?

Virginia McVea: That is usually during election periods. Outside an election period—

[Jerome Mayhew]

So it peaks?

Virginia McVea: Yes.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q That is a very good indicator for us to extrapolate from the population of Northern Ireland being 1.86 million. We will all be busy with our calculators later.

The other advice you gave was that for the overwhelming of people there is not a problem—this is not an issue in Northern Ireland voting now, albeit after 20 years. Does that suggest that effective steps have been taken in the Northern Irish political process to raise awareness sufficiently to remove the concerns that some politicians expressed last week in the general debate, that many voters would be disenfranchised because they would turn up at a polling booth and they would not have the right ID? Is that a false fear once the system is bedded down?

Virginia McVea: We would have to time-travel back to the early 2000s to get a proper feel for the electorate’s response, but if there is sufficient communication and if there is availability of the ID card, much of which will be down to the capacity of the administrators, it is something that people are now accepting of. We have challenges to the office in relation to access to absent votes and discussions around that, but we do not have discussions about photographic ID with any of the parties. Ensuring that those smart passes can be used in polling stations is helpful, so yes, there is a general acceptance.

When you are doing your sums, being mathematically challenged myself on occasion, be careful: we work to the eligible electorate, which may possibly be around 1.45 million, rather than the 1.8 million, which would make the sums even harder dealing with the small figures from Northern Ireland.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

I have Paul Bristow, Chris Clarkson, Nick Smith and Fleur Anderson remaining to ask questions, and we have until 3.15 pm, so can we be kind to each other? Thank you.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Ms Rees. I will only ask the one question, to Peter Stanyon. We have heard evidence today from Gillian Beasley, the chief executive of Peterborough City Council, who does a fantastic job of making sure that our elections in Peterborough are done freely and fairly. She outlined some of the things that she has undertaken in Peterborough, such as CCTV, and the professionalism of her team and her staff. We have also seen how well some of the pilots have gone with voter ID. I have every confidence in the AEA and election administrators across the country to get this right. Do you have that confidence, too?

Peter Stanyon: I would echo the words that Gillian said this morning. At the end of the day, Peterborough has some challenges, and they face up to them superbly well. Whatever is expected of administrators, they will once again step up to that mark, but we should not underestimate the challenges that are being levelled not just by voter ID, but by the other elements of the Bill that make it harder and harder—more challenging—for elections to be delivered. I do not think you will find one electoral administrator who does not want to enfranchise people, who does not want them to cast their ballots or who does not want to provide that free and fair election. That is what it is all about; it is just becoming harder and harder to do so. There are resource and training implications, but the really good practice that local authorities such as Peterborough are able to demonstrate is really helpful and is shared across the whole electoral community.

[Paul Bristow]

That is very reassuring to know. Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

I call Chris Clarkson.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

The question that I wanted to ask has been asked.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call Nick Smith.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Q This question is to Ailsa Irvine of the Electoral Commission. Imprints and identification of publisher are important safeguards in our system. I have been a party agent previously, and we are well aware of the importance of fair comment and our libel laws. However, are digital imprints sufficient to improve transparency and prevent interference or misinformation, particularly from overseas?

Ailsa Irvine: Requiring digital campaign materials to include an imprint is something that we have been calling for for a number of years—it has been widely called for for a number of years—and it should go a long way towards providing voters with some information and clarity about who is paying to target them with campaign information. Given the massive boom in the number of people campaigning online, it is something that we know has concerned voters, and voters are telling us that currently they do not feel that they have confidence about where that information is coming from.

This requirement will go some way towards that, although the detailed provisions that are in the Bill at the moment will have some workability challenges around them—for example, by not requiring any unpaid campaign material from those that are unregistered to include an imprint. Although the Bill will bring more people into the category that will require them to register as a campaigner, there is still potential for unregistered campaigners to spend significant amounts of money on creating material and then disseminate it organically, and that would not be required to have an imprint. There is still a bit of a risk and a challenge around the provisions as drafted.

The inclusion of an address in the imprint is an absolutely critical factor, and that will help to demonstrate where a campaigner is based, and whether they are in the UK or otherwise. Again, if there is any activity taking place from outside the UK, although it would be transparent in these instances from the commission’s perspective, and we would have a role in regulating this in relation to non-party campaigners, our remit stops at the UK’s borders. We would not be able to go beyond that.

We have just got experience from the recent elections in Scotland where digital imprints were introduced for the first time. What we saw was that we have a community of campaigners who generally want to comply with the law. We did see good levels of compliance there, with people putting an imprint in place. When we became aware of any instances where that was not the case, we took steps to call up the campaigners to try to bring them in line with compliance. We saw that this was something that can make a real difference to voters.

[The Chair]

Virginia and Peter, would you like to add anything to that? No. I call Fleur Anderson.

[Fleur Anderson]

Q Can I ask Peter Stanyon about the practicalities of issuing a voter ID card on the day? I think we all know of local elections where it is literally a handful of votes—I was involved in one ward where there were five votes between three candidates—so we know that it is really important that every single person who is eligible to vote can vote on the day. I think Virginia said that there is a six-week waiting list for ID cards in Northern Ireland. Can that be compressed to the day? What, practically, will happen when people turn up and they have just not got around to it? As you have all talked about, we saw that spike just before the elections, as with the pilot when ID cards were only issued up to the eve of the poll, rather than on the day. Will it be practical to get ID cards out to everyone on the day, so that everyone who can vote is able to do so?

Peter Stanyon: It is almost an impossible question, because you will not know the level of expectation until the day. If it was one person coming into the office to be issued with a card, then yes, that could be done. However, if it was 1,500 people on the day, then that is a different ball game. The reality is that if there were provisions to allow that on the day, we would need to know that very early in advance. We would need to get the structures in place and accept that there would be a cost. Resourcing would have to run almost independently of the election, because the election takes over the day itself.

Going back to my earlier comment, we all want to make sure that everybody is able to cast their ballot when entitled to do so, and to make that as easy as possible. However, even within the current electoral timetable, there are deadlines throughout the day: 5 o’clock for lost or undelivered postal votes; 9 o’clock on the day for changes to the registers. It is not right up to the last minute—there are already accepted deadlines.

Whether it is possible would depend on what is expected, which mechanisms are in place and the expectations on the individuals. Do they need to come to the office? Is it done on a regional basis? Whatever the resources, if that were the system, we would have to make sure that it was financed, resourced and actually deliverable, so that we do not have No. 15 through the door being turned down simply because they could not process that card at that time.

Virginia McVea: Could I clarify the timeline for the Committee?

[Fleur Anderson]

Please do.

Virginia McVea: The six-week turnaround period is what we use administratively outside of an election period. We do not have any complaints in relation to ID cards not being turned around within election periods, but that is only the case because of the significantly increased resources which ensure the cards are turned around very rapidly.

[Fleur Anderson]

Q How many additional staff do you have?

Virginia McVea: During an election period, we could have around 70 additional staff. We have a core staff of 30. So you can see why, when there is no electoral purpose, we need that six-week turnaround. Most cards do not take that long, but we give ourselves that space. In an emergency, such as the death of a loved one, when someone needs to travel and has no other photographic ID, we will turn the card around in 24 hours. The standard is to allow ourselves six weeks, and it is the significant scaling-up of staff during electoral periods that allows us to turn around the ID cards so quickly.

[Patrick Grady]

Q This issue came up in an earlier question by one of our Labour colleagues, but I would like to ask Virginia to say a little more about the practical process of applying for the electoral ID card in Northern Ireland, and in particular what identification is needed to be issued with the voter ID card.

Virginia McVea: Many of the applications are done in person. We do ID clinics, where we take an image of the individual, and then they fill out an application form so that we can verify their data across the data sets in Northern Ireland. We work using date of birth, national insurance number and so on.

[Patrick Grady]

Q So you do not need a photo ID in order to get your photo ID?

Virginia McVea: You do not need a photo ID, no. We have so many situations—this will happen to any administrator—where people use this ID for other purposes, such as accessing banking facilities and travel, because they simply do not have another form of photographic ID. Administrators have to be ready for that as well.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Louise Round and Rob Connelly gave evidence.

15:15

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Louise Round of SOLACE and Rob Connelly from Birmingham City Council. We have until 4 pm, so would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Louise Round: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Louise Round, and I am the spokesperson for the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which speaks on behalf of returning officers. I am also the chief legal officer for Merton London Borough Council.

Rob Connelly: I am Rob Connelly. Thank you for inviting me. I am the returning officer for Birmingham City Council, and through my background as a lawyer I have dealt with Birmingham’s election challenges and petitions since 2004—hence the reason I ended up as the returning officer.

[The Chair]

Minister, would you like to ask the first question?

[Chloe Smith]

Q I am happy to go first. Good afternoon and welcome to both our witnesses. It is great to have you with us; thank you for giving up your time in all the ways that you do, including a sliver of that this afternoon.

Rob, if I may start with you, this question goes on from the conversation we have just been having, which I think you were listening to, about the ins and outs of voter identification. As you mentioned in your introduction, regrettably in Birmingham there is that history of having had a major fraud event. I am interested, first, in your reflections on leading a council out of and onwards from that, because it cannot have been easy to do that, and how you might go about trying to give confidence to the city’s citizens that they can trust in their elections.

If you need a moment to draw your breath, I will give you my second question as well, which is to invite you to provide some insights into the work you have been doing with other leaders of councils to look at what might be needed to implement voter identification—for example, training of polling staff, particular support that might be needed at polling stations and the many detailed questions that I know you have begun to give thought to.

Rob Connelly: I will take the first question to start off. As you say, Birmingham hit a low in 2004 with the various fraud cases that were going on, which resulted in a number of election results being set aside. I joined the elections office in 2009 in the capacity of a deputy returning officer, but even after five years we were still struggling to move away from those issues. I think it was not until 2018, when we had our last all-out elections, that I felt we were able to put the ghost of 2004 to bed for the final time.

When I joined in 2009, the biggest issue for me was not so much fraud itself, but the perception of fraud that remained. When allegations of fraud came up, they would be investigated; we were very lucky that West Midlands police took it seriously and had their own specialist unit that helped us with that. We would obtain evidence in polling stations and, if allegations came up about personation, for example, we would challenge it by asking, “What is your evidence?”

I remember something that put it into context for me. I asked a senior politician at the time what evidence he had of personation, and his response was, “I haven’t actually got any, but I just know it goes on.” That was not very helpful for me or West Midlands police in challenging it, so we decided to be quite “aggressive” in challenging people back: “Why do you think that? The data from our polling stations, which we get from our staff at the frontline, would actually paint a very different picture. There are very few allegations in that particular area of personation.”

We would start to understand why people could not vote—maybe because they were marked as a postal voter. What happened there? Again, we have started to establish slowly over time, certainly for our elected members, that we could be trusted, and it is about restoring that integrity. I think this is part of that road trip.

[Chloe Smith]

Q As a follow-up, if my memory serves me correctly the judgment in the Birmingham case—we had Richard Mawrey with us this morning—included quite a few scorching comments that you do have to look for such things. It is not enough to look away and claim that it is not plausible that it could be taking place, and therefore never be prepared to look for such evidence. In fact, he said you would have to be ostrich-like to not want to look for the evidence and make it better, as clearly you were seeking to do.

Rob Connelly: Absolutely. We cannot rest on our laurels simply because we do not know about it—that does not mean it cannot happen. Again, it comes back to that working partnership with West Midlands police, but also with all the political parties at a local level, because we often have post-election reviews with them. I go to my oversight committee, any issues are raised with me there and then, and we will take those away. If they have concerns and if we can improve things, we will work with them to implement those changes.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Yes, indeed. You are doing that to give residents confidence. Do you get a measure of that back from residents?

Rob Connelly: I suppose the way we get that is from the number of complaints about the process and, bearing in mind our electorate, we get very few. A lot of complaints come via members or MPs. We assure them about the processes, and we can have confidence that we have done everything we are supposed to do. I think that process does take time.

We have also been subject to a couple of reviews by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, where they have looked at it completely afresh and picked up a couple of issues, which we then dealt with. One of the biggest issues they came up with was, as an example, people in some communities go in and huddle together in the polling booth. We picked up on that very quickly and we sorted out giving instructions to all our staff on how to deal with it. We put up extra notices in polling stations saying only one person is allowed in at a time.

I also appointed some independent observers, such as former police officers and council employees, to go around independently—I would not know where they were going—to give me a warts-and-all impression of what it was like in our polling stations. I have nearly 500, so it is very difficult for me to know the ins and outs of every single one. That is why we put in extra resources—totally independent of me. The report is done and I then share that with my political groups, so they have it uncensored and we can work together to make those improvements.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you. Would you be able to turn to my second question?

Rob Connelly: When we learned about IDs potentially coming in, we set up a working group based on a number of authorities, mainly core cities. One of our concerns with the pilots was that they did not reflect a large urban area, such as Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool. We had some very basic concerns about how it would work. I caught the tail end of the evidence of the previous session. We have the same issues: how can we do this? It has been calculated that about 2% of people have not got ID. That is the equivalent of 15,000 people in my electorate.

If they all come in during the election period, how can I make sure that no one will be disenfranchised? That is quite a big task, and that is the same across the board. We are working closely with Cabinet Office officials. We have the opportunity to put those questions to them and help them understand some of the issues we have at the coalface. That is sort of progressing. We are not just looking at voter ID. We are looking at all elements of the Bill. We have to be careful because it is not just about voter ID, but the impact of the whole Bill together and the impact that will have on administrators and our ability to deliver the election. There is an awful lot there, and it will impact us at a very particular time in the election process.

I have additional concerns from a Birmingham perspective, because potentially the first time this is introduced could be at a parliamentary election in 2024, as we will not have elections in 2023. That in itself would be a major concern for many. I do not think I am alone in that; there may well be other areas that will have that concern.

We meet monthly with the Cabinet Office. We take an element of the Bill, dissect it and feed back, and we are starting to get that information out. We have now started expanding. We have more authorities coming on board, who are very different from Birmingham and are more rural. How will they cope? We have asked the AEA and the Electoral Commission to start looking at it, so we have a joined-up look at how we can do this and give feedback to all administrators, to make sure they understand the implications and they can start planning now.

[Chloe Smith]

May I ask one more question to Louise and then I will hand on to other colleagues?

[The Chair]

Of course.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Louise, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the Committee.

Acknowledging the breadth of what your members will be involved in, and I imagine you will be able to tell us a bit about how in many cases that spans from the registration process all the way through to delivery of polling day and much more, there is often discussion that says, “Well, let’s just get this done in our elections, let’s get that done. Let’s add a scheme here, add a scheme there.” I acknowledge that that can add up to a lot of asks on you and your teams, and those of your members.

With respect to overseas electors in this Bill, could you give us an insight into what has to be done at present to support the participation of overseas electors? What more do you think members will be doing to support a larger group of overseas electors being involved? Might you also make a comment about the number of days that you end up doing that during the election itself?

Louise Round: I would probably be right in saying that overseas electors is one of the areas that takes the most resource and the most ongoing year-round resource for most election teams. In many teams, there will be one person who is more or less dedicated to contacting overseas electors and reminding them to renew their registration. The proposal in the Bill to extend the period of time for which they can be registered without having to renew is welcome, in terms of reducing that burden.

As with all these things and a common phrase that you will hear us using, most registration events are driven by elections. We can do lots and lots of reminding, and we would, but it always tends to be the case that as soon as an election is announced, particularly a general election, suddenly people remember to renew their registration. It is a full-time, ongoing programme that takes an awful lot of time and energy.

During the run up to the election, when suddenly there is a whole load more work to do, it obviously diverts people who are also dealing with all the other many aspects of the election. The time by which people can register makes that particularly challenging, added to which you have the issue of postal votes. Naturally, the further away someone lives, the longer it takes for their postal vote to go out to them and the longer it takes to get back. There is an awful lot of trying to make sure that voters are enfranchised and have a vote, but also dealing with fall out and complaints when it gets to election day and their postal vote has not been received.

Yes, it is a huge amount of work and the proposal to extend the number of people who can be registered as overseas voters will obviously create even more work, but the idea that you can be registered for a bit longer now is welcome. I could not say how many days and I probably could not put a price on it either, but it is a lot and it will depend on how many overseas electors any particular registration officer has.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Picking up on a recent debate in Parliament, Louise, would I be right in thinking that you would not like to see the electoral timetable reduced from 25 working days?

Louise Round: I think that would make what is already a very difficult task nigh on impossible.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you very much for your insight. Is there any more that you would like to say about the particular processes that will be required to support overseas electors in demonstrating their connection to the constituency they are registering in?

Louise Round: As with all these things, some of the detail will come out in secondary legislation. At the moment, it is really tricky because registers are not nationally open. If someone has to show that they have not been on a register apart from in the constituency in which the particular registration office is operating, there is no way really of registration officers checking that, so in a sense it is taken on trust. There is no way for them to check the register even of a neighbouring constituency, let alone one at the other end of the country.

The obligation to be satisfied that someone has a local connection is obviously really time consuming, and it depends how well prepared the person wishing to register is and what evidence they can adduce. At the end of the day, the registration officer has to be satisfied. There is wording in one of the clauses around whether, had they applied a long time ago, they would have at that point been able to demonstrate a local connection, which all begins to get a little existential, almost, and very theoretical. We are not trained detectives, so there is a balance, as in all registration activity, between not wanting to make the requirements so tight that no one can ever be registered and ensuring that we are not registering people who are not entitled to be registered and might be constituency hopping, as it were, to find the most convenient place to register for a particular election depending on what is going on there.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Thank you very much for joining us. This morning, Richard Mawrey talked about the widescale postal vote fraud in Birmingham. What have you done to tackle that? What in the Bill helps you to further tackle that wide-scale postal vote fraud, and is anything missing from the Bill that would help you were it to be added?

Rob Connelly: I am not sure that something is missing from the Bill. What always surprises me is the number of postal votes that we get handed in on the day. We are talking perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 at a parliamentary election. We also recorded, as part of what happened, how many people brought the postal votes and in what numbers, and we often asked for names and addresses. There is no legal obligation to tell us, but in case there was a follow-up we tried to address that problem.

After the problems we had in Birmingham, the law was changed to deal with some of the issues that arose. To be honest, I am not aware that we have had major wide-scale problems in Birmingham, but it is not something that we can be overly confident can never happen again; it may do. We just have to be extra vigilant. That is where the joint working comes into play.

Restricting the number of postal votes that you can bring into a polling station may help, but we need to understand in a bit more detail the reasons behind it, because one of my concerns with the Bill is that you might be restricted to bringing in two postal votes into a polling station, but what is stopping you going to another polling station in the constituency and handing in another two? I also worry that by limiting it to such a small number we are potentially disenfranchising the honest person as opposed to your determined fraudster. A bit of work could be done around that.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Would it be safe to say that your biggest headache would be around postal voting, and being able to police how postal votes are managed and handled?

Rob Connelly: No, because with postal voting at the moment—I always put that qualification in—we have not had any issues. This is where we work closely with political parties, because we share information on how many we are getting back by ward and by constituency, so that they can spot any potential areas. We have always had a system in place that, if we have more than six new postal applications from a particular household, that would be flagged up and we would have a closer look. We have always put in measures to raise red flags. Individual registration and having to supply, for newer registers, national insurance numbers and dates of birth is helpful. We have the IT equipment whereby we do the signature checking, which is, again, very helpful. IT has moved on a lot since 2004.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Finally, how widespread have you found personation at polling booths since you joined the council in the early 2000s?

Rob Connelly: It is not a major issue that has been raised with me by either electors or political parties. We did keep some stats in polling stations as part of how to restore confidence in Birmingham. We would record, when someone came in, why they could not vote—for example, it could be that they come in and their surname is already marked off on the register. We have to do a number of years of research into that, looking, checking the numbers.

The two biggest reasons are, first, it was a simple error on the part of the poll clerk—often, it was a big family and they have just put the mark against the wrong person—and, sometimes, they came in but were marked as a postal voter. Again, it was a simple case of forgetting that they had applied for a postal vote. When we got that information back, we undertook that we would look at those cases, to establish whether there was any possible personation or other types of fraud. However, as I say, we have not picked that up and it has not come through to me from any source that personation has been a major problem. We cannot say that it has never happened or does not happen, because we do not know, but I am fairly confident that if it were widespread at a local level, it would have been picked up by party activists who would report it to us and to West Midlands police.

[The Chair]

Louise, do you have anything to add to that?

Louise Round: Just to echo what Rob said: the incidents of personation in all the years that I have been doing this have been zero—at least, that we have known about. There is a question about whether the cost and extra administrative burden of voter ID is strictly speaking necessary. As Rob said, it does not mean that it does not happen; we just do not know whether it has ever happened.

[Cat Smith]

Q Louise, in your earlier remarks, you were talking about overseas electors and how administering the applications and registrations for voting takes up the most time of electoral officers. With the removal of time limits—the 15-year limit on that connection—how much more resources would you expect local authorities to have to make available to service overseas electors? Also, you said that when overseas electors registered, there was an element of having to take it on trust. Do you believe that potentially opens it up to electoral fraud by overseas voters?

Louise Round: In relation to the additional work created by removing the time limit, it is hard to say at this stage. It will depend on take-up. We do not have—or I certainly do not have—any access to any information about how many people who have moved abroad but have not been on the register might now suddenly decide that they want to be. It is a bit of a “How long is a piece of string?” question. What local authority election teams will not be in the business of is gearing up to a just-in-case position. They will have to wait and see, prudently, what extra work comes their way.

On fraud, I do not think that is so much the issue as it is that if somebody has fallen off the register, as it were, then reapplied to be an overseas elector, they cannot have been on the register in a different place from the one they are now applying to. That is the bit where we cannot necessarily check that they have not been, but it does not mean that they are not entitled to be an elector in this country: it might just be that the place they are trying to be an elector in might not strictly speaking be the place they ought to be an elector in.

[Cat Smith]

Q I have a couple of questions for Rob. In your opening remarks, you mentioned how you had managed to put the “ghost of 2004” behind you in Birmingham. Does that mean the existing legislation on the statute books has clearly been sufficient for your council to turn that around?

Rob Connelly: Sorry, I couldn’t quite hear the question. Will you repeat it, please?

[Cat Smith]

Q In your opening remarks, you said that you had moved on, in that this was no longer the problem that it was in 2004. Does that indicate that the current legislation is sufficient to combat the problems that you faced in Birmingham?

Rob Connelly: I would come back to the point that we can never rest on our laurels. There is always room for improvement. If we think something would improve the perception of the integrity of our system, I am all for it. As I said, the biggest problem for me was not about fraud itself; it was about the perception and how we dealt with that. For me, people have to have confidence in the system, otherwise how can they have confidence in their elected officials? That has always been the starting point.

That is why we have always gone over and above our statutory obligation. I know we had no alternative, but we found it beneficial. If we do more, we restore that integrity and confidence. I have read in recent reports that there is a fairly high confidence level in our electoral system at the moment, but, again, if we can improve it, we should look to do so at every opportunity.

[Cat Smith]

Q My final question is about the practicalities of a local authority running the polling stations. The legislation would require voters to show photo ID. The Minister has said in the House that there would be provision for privacy screens so that voters who wear headscarves for cultural or religious reasons can prove their identity. I think you said that you have about 500 polling stations in Birmingham.

Rob Connelly: Just under 500.

[Cat Smith]

Q Are you confident about being able to provide a female polling clerk at every one of your polling stations?

Rob Connelly: We have been talking about this as two considerations, really. We will have to start reviewing all our polling stations again to be able to have privacy screens in place, because some of them can be fairly small. We have a couple of huts, and we would have to revisit those. Again, on polling day, I probably employ around 2,500 all told, including the count, and maybe 1,600 at polling stations alone. Our ability to put a female poll clerk or member of staff in each one is something that will cause us some headaches, and we will have to revisit all our processes to make sure it happens. As it is, we struggle to recruit and retain staff, who come to the polling station literally for one day a year. They do not do it for the money; they do it because they want to part of the process—I am a very firm believer in that. That is a concern for me.

[Chris Clarkson]

Q Rob, I have just consulted the oracle that is Google by putting in “Birmingham electoral fraud”. It goes all the way back to 2005, and then there are articles from 2011. Interestingly, one from 2016 says:

“20,000 voters vanish from Birmingham’s electoral roll”.

That was around the time that individual electoral registration came in. Obviously, a lot of work has been done to combat some of that fraud already, and you should be commended for that, as yours is the largest authority in Europe. How far do you think the measures in the Bill will go towards challenging the perception of fraud, which is still there?

Secondly, you have both said that there are fairly low levels, or no levels, or personation that you know of. Do you accept that, although there is no voluminous information, it is quite an easy thing to do? By using a bit of nous or looking at a marked register, you can work out who does not normally vote, rock up and claim to be them, and vote without any challenge. Do you accept that the measure will go some way to adding extra safeguards to prevent that from happening in great numbers without detection?

Rob Connelly: The short answer is that, for ID, I think it will, yes. I do not know whether Louise has anything to add to that. It will add to that protection, and it will stop your casual fraudster from thinking, “Actually, I know they’re not here, so I’ll nip down to the polling station and act as Joe Bloggs.” It will prevent that type of scenario.

[Chris Clarkson]

Q Do you think it will give people more confidence in the electoral process?

Rob Connelly: Yes, I do.

[Chris Clarkson]

Fantastic. Louise, do you have anything to add?

Louise Round: I think it is self-evident that if people have to produce some form of ID, it minimises the risk of fraud in so far as there is any. Although confidence in elections is really high—the Electoral Commission’s report, which was published yesterday, made that clear—some people certainly raise the odd eyebrow when you explain to them that they do not have to prove who they are, so it probably would help with confidence, yes.

[Chris Clarkson]

That has been my experience, too. Thank you very much.

[Fleur Anderson]

Q Rob, I would like to go back to the practicalities and your thinking about how you would roll out voter ID. How many additional staff do you think you would need all year round for the applications that come in? We heard earlier that Northern Ireland has ID clinics. How many additional staff do you think you would need for the election period and on the day itself?

To add to that, which groups are you concerned might be disenfranchised by this measure, meaning that you would be working harder to include them? We have had representations from organisations representing older people, people with disabilities, people who are black, Asian or minority ethnic, and women fleeing domestic violence, for example. Are you concerned about those groups, and might other groups be disenfranchised?

Rob Connelly: First, in terms of staffing numbers, I do not know the honest answer to that. We are trying to figure that through. I am already very much leaning towards saying that this cannot sit with my core elections office, because it is too big. What I would worry about is that they become swamped and that they will not be able to deal with their core election job: delivering the election itself.

I was interested when Virginia talked about 70 additional staff at the time; I had not even thought that it would be that high. To be honest, that is going to have to be a corporate response from the whole local authority. It is not something that returning officers can do in isolation. I am absolutely certain of that now. We have tried to figure out what that could look like, but until we know a bit more detail it is quite difficult. One of the questions that I have raised is, as I have 10 parliamentary constituencies, do I just have one core centre, or do I have to have something in each constituency to ensure that I do not have any barriers to people coming in? Why should they have to come into the city centre? I do not know.

In terms of who it potentially disenfranchises, that is a really good question. Back in November, I brought a report to one of my committees in the city council, just to flag that voter ID was potentially going to be introduced. They are better placed than I am to identify the vulnerable groups within their communities, so I am going to push the burden on them a bit to tell me who those communities are—older people, students or vulnerable people. I get on my hobbyhorse about students, because my son is 19 and at university. He has already lost two forms of ID, and that was during lockdown—[Laughter.] My advice to him would be: go to your local elections office and get an ID card. I know that it will not have any date of birth, as I understand it, but you have to be 18 to vote, so over time that could itself drive demand.

The other, related scenario is that my son is registered in Nottingham and in Birmingham. If he had lost his ID—like his passport—would he have to come back to Birmingham to collect something and then return to Nottingham to vote? The way the Bill is currently worded is that you will potentially have to make a declaration that you have no other forms of photographic ID. That is just one of those little areas that I had not given much thought to until my son was asking for something to replace his driver’s licence. We automatically assume that, because they are younger, students have ID, but that is not always the case. We have to be a bit wary of that.

Some of my members have said to me, “I don’t have any current form of photo ID.” These are people in their mid-30s or mid-40s. Again, until we actually get into the nitty-gritty of it and put it into practice, I am not sure whether we will entirely know—until the day or week itself.

[Nick Smith]

Q Louise, my sense is that you are pretty sceptical that much voter personation actually occurs. It was interesting to hear Mr Connelly talk about the difficulties that young voters may have in having voter ID easily to hand. My view is that simple systems boost participation and simple messages are key. What measures do you think you will have to use across the UK to inform our diverse communities that they will need voter ID, and what are your concerns?

Louise Round: I think that it will need to be tackled on a whole range of fronts. There will be a national campaign, and obviously the Electoral Commission will have a massive role to play in relation to that. However, if you take the vaccination programme, which was the most recent analogous experience, our experience is that small and local works. In Merton, as in many other councils, we used local community champions, in some cases from the same ethnic backgrounds as some of the harder-to-reach groups: younger people and older people who can actually talk to people who may be less inclined to, or may not even know that they need to, apply for voter ID in a language and with experience that those people can tune into. It will take a huge concerted effort by the Government, the Cabinet Office, the Electoral Commission and local returning officers.

To pick up what Rob was saying about voter ID cards not being an electoral services responsibility, teams in London range from three to five people, so there is no way they can take on issuing voter ID cards in the middle of an election—as I said, I suspect that, however long the run-up, that is when all the pressure will be piled on. This is a corporate responsibility, and returning officers, generally speaking, are senior managers or chief executives in councils, so they will need to mobilise all their colleagues and make sure that everybody puts all hands to the pump so that we do not disfranchise people.

[Peter Gibson]

Q I have two questions for Rob. In her evidence, the returning officer from Peterborough outlined that they had explored using CCTV in their polling stations. Could you comment on whether you have done the same and on whether that would be of benefit? Could you also outline whether all your polling station clerks are fully trained in the applicability of tendered ballots?

Rob Connelly: CCTV is something we explored in around 2010 or 2011, but we had a number of concerns, including that it might go the other way and affect people’s confidence in the system, in that they might be worried that we were spying on them or would be able to identify how they were voting. We opted not to go down that route. We invested more in additional training for our staff. We even considered looking at CCTV outside polling stations for people who were entering. Again, we did not think, if there were allegations of personation, that that would really help us. We had discussions with West Midlands police about the evidential side of that, and CCTV would not necessarily help you identify who had committed any crime of personation or when. We know it would have been very difficult to prove. As I say, we invest more in our staff who are delivering the ballot papers, and what have you.

In terms of the question about tendered ballot papers, that is something we make sure we reiterate every election. We introduced a form for our polling station staff. If they gave out a tendered ballot paper, they had to give an explanation as to why—what was the reason? We would then spend some time collating that information post-election. That would do two things. One, if there were particular problems with particular polling stations and polling station staff, we could pick that up with them to find out why they were doing those things and fix that for next time. Two, we would then report that back to our members and give out numbers over the whole city, saying that x number of tendered ballot papers had been issued and giving the reasons why. I will be honest with you: there were times when they were probably issued wrongly, but that helped identify the issue so we could eliminate that from the process.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q Mr Connelly, you were asked a moment ago about disenfranchisement, with specific reference to the first clause in the Bill, on voter ID. Although the Bill has one clause relating to voter ID, it has five clauses relating to proxy and postal voting. We heard really powerful evidence about that from Mr Mawrey QC this morning. When he was asked his view about disenfranchisement, his evidence, which was absolutely stark, was that it was the Bangladeshi community who had had their votes stolen and harvested and who were overwhelmingly disenfranchised as a result of voter fraud. Would you agree with that expression of opinion?

Rob Connelly: When we had our 2004-05 issue, I don’t think it was with that community.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I should make it absolutely clear that he was making direct reference to Tower Hamlets in that series of questioning. Rather than pinning it all on the Bangladeshi community, what I really want to focus on is that it tends to be minority communities who have had serious examples of electoral fraud—the kind of fraud that is dealt with in the proposed legislation. That is the area where most disenfranchisement has taken place historically.

Rob Connelly: As an example of that, there was a local election in which complaints were raised with us about potential fraud in the community by one of the candidates. People were potentially going to polling stations, and what have you. We did additional training for our polling station staff in that particular ward—myself and a police officer from West Midlands police—to explain what the particular allegations were and also what they could do to identify offending. In the petitions we have had, people have questioned the integrity of our polling station staff, which we vigorously defend, because 99.9% of the time they are absolutely honest. As I say, they come in for one day a year and without them we cannot deliver elections.

The sort of scenario you are talking about is often identified before an election, because the communities can sometimes be split by party lines. They will flag these issues up with us and we will work not only with the police, but with the political parties. I always think that to combat fraud, there are three parts of the jigsaw puzzle: the returning officer, the police and the political parties. If they all work together, that is how you combat fraud.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You mention the police as one of the triumvirate. How important is it that the police take electoral fraud seriously and get actively engaged?

Rob Connelly: West Midlands police always have done because of what happened in 2004 and the criticism they got at the time. It was a lesson well learned for them. Ever since then, they have taken such allegations very seriously. We work very closely with them and we have a point of contact. We will meet them in early January or in February to start preparing for the next May elections.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q That is a definite improvement. Prior to 2004, complaints were called “Operation Gripe” in West Midlands police.

Rob Connelly: Yes, you are absolutely right.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is fair to say there was room for improvement.

Rob Connelly: Yes.

[The Chair]

This will be the last question.

[Paul Bristow]

Q You said in your evidence that a feature of elections in Birmingham in the past has been people turning up at polling stations with a collection of ballots. That is a feature I know all too well from Peterborough—it happens all the time. There is clear evidence of postal vote harvesting. I know that it goes on. We see people knocking on doors down the street collecting ballot papers and postal votes. Do you feel that the provisions in the Bill will go some way to ending what is a pretty murky practice?

Rob Connelly: They do—I would like to think so. One thing we have to be careful about is that if we introduce voter ID, one of the unknown consequences could be that people say, “I can’t be bothered to go and get my ID card.” Will they then think, “I’ll go and get a postal vote instead.”? We just have to be mindful of that.

[Paul Bristow]

Q What about party activists collecting ballot papers and handing them in? The Labour party once had its own mock ballot box that it was taking around and asking people to put their votes into. I think we can all agree that that is a practice we ought to end, and we could end it.

Rob Connelly: After 2004, all the political parties undertook not to—

[Paul Bristow]

That is absolutely true.

Rob Connelly: The Labour party have signed undertakings before every election following that. It gets undertakings from its candidates and activists that they will abide by all the guidance. It shares that with me and gives clear instructions that, certainly in Birmingham, its party activists will not go anywhere near postal votes.

[Paul Bristow]

Q There is no excuse for it—do you agree?

Rob Connelly: The only reason you would allow it is if a disabled or elderly person wanted some help, but that is a service we can offer.

[Paul Bristow]

Yes, indeed. Thank you.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence and we will move on to the next panel.

Examination of witnesses

Dr Kate Dommett, Professor Justin Fisher and Darren Grimes, gave evidence.

15:46

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear evidence from Dr Kate Dommett of the University of Sheffield; Darren Grimes, a political commentator; and Professor Justin Fisher of Brunel University London. We have until 5 pm for this session, but we might be interrupted by a Division. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Professor Fisher: Hello, my name is Justin Fisher, and I am a professor of political science at Brunel University London.

Darren Grimes: Hello, I am a political commentator, and I campaigned for leave in the 2016 referendum.

Dr Dommett: Hello, I am Dr Kate Dommett and I am a senior lecturer at the University of Sheffield.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Cat Smith?

[Cat Smith]

Q Thank you, Chair. My first question is for Dr Dommett, regarding your research on digital campaigning. Obviously, for about a decade now, there has been widespread support and campaigning for additional imprints to be part of transparency around online campaigning. Do you feel that this is sufficient? Do you feel that it is future-proofed, and are there any changes or additions that you would like to see in the legislation, given your specialist knowledge in that area?

Dr Dommett: Thank you very much, Cat. First, it is very good to finally see imprints being tabled into electoral law. This is something that has been called for for 10 years. I have sent evidence to the Committee that outlines some small changes, but broadly I think there is support for this and it is likely to be welcomed. There are questions about the implementation of the proposals as drafted. For example, there is a lot of vagueness around what it means for an imprint to be “reasonably practicable”. From my perspective, that appears to be quite a big challenge in implementation. Is it going to be down to a campaigner, for example, to determine what is reasonably practicable? If that is the case, we are going to see imprints being placed not directly on the material itself, but on external websites. That starts to pose significant challenges not only for oversight, but for researchers such as me, who will be tasked with collecting all these instances to offer any scrutiny. That is a point of concern that I would raise.

The other issue is the distinction between paid and unpaid material, and the implications for what is regulated under each type of content. This is a very challenging issue, and it comes to your question about what is and is not being covered in future-proofing. It is notable that, in focusing on page content, we are talking about a very specific type of page content in relation to imprints. This is about being paid for dissemination, and it is a reflection of the huge growth in online political advertising and payment for dissemination on platforms such as Facebook. It leaves a big gap, so we are already seeing, particularly in other electoral contexts, things like influencers being paid to produce content that they then disseminate organically. That material would not be required, if it was being disseminated by an unregistered non-party campaigner, to contain the kind of imprint we are talking about. There are some questions about what will be left out under the Bill as currently drafted.

There are also issues of confusion around paid and unpaid content. One phenomenon that we see very often is that a piece of content will start paid and will then begin to be disseminated organically or, vice versa, it can begin as an organic piece of content and a campaigner can then decide to pay to boost it. Depending on the origins, it could create ambiguity about when an imprint is required.

I think there is also a challenging question, and I see both sides of it, about the regulation of unregistered third-party campaigners. There are of course valid concerns about the regulatory burden placed on those actors, but it does create an opportunity for something we have seen evidence for: a lot of organic groups that are very small in scale co-ordinating to disseminate messages across social media. They would not have to carry an imprint under these rules. There is a very good example in Scotland, where this has already been tested and where both paid and unpaid material from all actors is required to have an imprint. I think it is interesting that the Bill is diverging from that practice, and I would raise a question about that.

On your bigger question about whether this is enough for the regulation of digital campaigning, I think my answer can only be no. That was being called for 10 years ago, and you only have to think back to 10 years to think about how much the digital space has evolved. There are huge questions around the regulation of digital campaigning, particularly about the power of our electoral institutions and processes. The democratic institutions that we have to oversee elections do not have any power to intervene in the activities of social media platforms, which now provide an incredible and very valuable platform for campaigning. The Electoral Commission in particular has minimal powers to compel information from those actors.

As a researcher, I may be expected to say this, but there is an incredible lack of transparency around digital campaigning because of the lack of data access available in that space, as it is a commercial realm. That means that it is virtually impossible to scrutinise what is happening in the digital space, and given the range of concerns emerging in that area, the Bill misses an opportunity to provide avenues for more information about what is happening online. Broadly, I would say that it is good to finally see this being taken forward, and I think there is potential for it to work well with a couple of clarifications.

[Cat Smith]

Q You touched on the issue of third-party campaigners, and beyond the digital side, the legislation actually gives the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to remove the ability of a campaign charity, for example, to campaign in an election. Do you have any concerns about that? The recent legislation change in Scotland means that there would be a disparity in the UK. Do you think that could lead to confusion, particularly for UK-wide third-party campaigners?

Dr Dommett: Yes, there is definitely potential for confusion. One of my headline thoughts about the entire Bill is that it is a real missed opportunity to fundamentally rewrite electoral legislation to provide greater clarity, which has been repeatedly called for because we have a mismatch of regulations, so I think there are potential concerns. I have forgotten what you asked about—was it third-party campaigners? Apologies.

[Cat Smith]

It was about third-party campaigners and the Minister’s power to remove their ability to campaign.

Dr Dommett: I have concerns about the powers of ministerial discretion in a number of areas in the Bill. That comes to a different area of my research that is not focused so much on the digital side but on public perceptions. The importance of electoral processes—especially electoral oversight—being seen to have a high degree of independence is absolutely pivotal for public trust. I would have concerns about the Minister’s ability to exert discretion here. I think that is fine for parliamentary oversight, but Government interference could raise public concern.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Good afternoon to all three of our witnesses.

I will try to ask a question or two of each. Kate, sticking with you to start—very good to see you—will you give us an insight into the international picture of digital imprints? My understanding is that it is not a very long list of countries that have yet been able to address this and put it in place. I acknowledge your point that it has been a long time coming but, in turn, you will appreciate that is because we have taken time to do technical consultation quite comprehensively, which is needed here. Given that context, is it not the case that not very many other countries have managed to do this yet and we stand a chance of being in the lead?

Dr Dommett: You will have to forgive me, in that my research focus is largely the UK, so I cannot speak with as much authority here as I would like. There is some precedent for this around the world. What I am most familiar with is not national Government efforts, but the efforts made by social media companies in this area, where we have seen it rolled out at scale very successfully. As in a number of areas of electoral law, the UK is leading the way in terms of transparency, so I certainly agree that this is something that would help set a good standard, but there are certainly improvements that could ensure that this specific intervention marks a gold standard for what is done.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you, that is helpful and one of the things that we will be aiming to do. Will you also recap for us the goal, or the problem, that you think the absence of a digital imprint gives rise to that needs to be solved? We did not start with principles, but went straight into the details of how we might improve the idea.

Dr Dommett: From my perspective, it is interesting to read the Cabinet Office’s ambitions for this particular goal. They are extensive and varied. Primarily, this is about aiding electoral oversight and making it clear which actor is responsible for campaign materials, therefore providing a trail in order to determine whether any of the existing regulations have been violated.

In addition to that—this is where there is less evidence, interestingly, but where emphasis is often placed—this is about public transparency and increasing confidence and trust in the electoral process. In current debates, an awful lot of weight is placed on the ability of imprints to advance that goal. I would question whether we had the evidence that that is actually the case. It is something on which we have current live research ongoing here at Sheffield. We are looking at the relationship between seeing an imprint and a resulting increase in public trust. The primary goal, however, has to be that important one, which is providing a clear steer on where that information is coming from. That is vital because, from the public perspective, it helps. We all use cognitive shortcuts, so it helps us to orientate and understand the motive with which that actor is placing the content, which is very important.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Yes, indeed. May I quickly pick up on the third-party campaigning definition question which you have just discussed with Cat Smith? Will you confirm for the Committee that there is already a provision in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 —namely, section 88—that allows for a list of categories of entities that are able to give a notification or, in other words, to register with the Electoral Commission as a third-party campaigner? That already exists in law and as a concept.

Dr Dommett: I am afraid that I am not an expert on PPERA, so I will not be able to comment.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Not to worry, we will pick that up later. Thank you so much for joining us. I turn now to Professor Fisher—welcome—and the notional expenditure part of the Bill. You have kindly already supplied some evidence to the Committee in which you say that you endorse the Bill’s approach to that question.

Professor Fisher: The question of notional expenditure has exercised electoral law since the introduction of PPERA 2000. Essentially, before that we had no national expenditure as such. It has caused some difficulty with questions surrounding the role of national parties and their targeting strategies, and the accusation has been that candidate expenses are bypassed.

There are a number of ways one can look to solve the problem, but having looked at all the ones that have been suggested, it seems to me that they would cause more problems than the current situation. I welcome the Bill’s attempt to bring clarity to that situation; for example, the notes around the Bill talk about the “leader ‘soapbox’ visit”. In the research I have done on campaigns, I came across a slightly ludicrous situation in the last campaign where a candidate needed to hide from their party leader to ensure that the expenditure did not fall on the candidate.

However, in recent years there have been a number of cases that were distressing for those investigated and, in one case, the investigation led to a prosecution. The prosecution that followed the case in the 2015 election was very interesting, in that the person who was prosecuted was from the national party, rather than the responsibility falling on the agent or the candidate.

I welcome the attempt to clarify that; I have some concerns about the wording in the Bill, which refers to being “encouraged” to engage in some activity. It seems to me essential that the candidate, the candidate’s agent and the relevant member of staff in the national party should be protected from any false accusation and that, therefore, there should be a proper documentary trail. That being so, the word “encouraged” leaves one open to misunderstandings and difficulties. It would be better for the principle to be in line with the acceptance of donations, where everything has to be on paper.

Coupled with that, it would be sensible for there to be a responsible person at the national party headquarters for authorising party expenditure in a constituency. There is no suggestion that that has happened, but it would perhaps protect junior members of party staff from taking the blame for something that had been authorised further up.

While I endorse the Bill, there need to be some safeguards, because in the past there have been suggestions that perhaps candidates and agents have had to take the blame for the actions of national party headquarters. Indeed, that is precisely what happened in a tragic case in 1997, and in a number of the cases I referred to that did not reach the court in 2015, there was some suggestion that candidates and agents were left rather more exposed than was necessary. I endorse the Bill. This is a difficult area, but on balance I think this is the best approach. It recognises both the electoral system and the traditions that we have in this country—but there should be some tightening of the language in it.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you. That is a very thoughtful reflection. I have always been struck by the need to continue to allow grassroots activists, volunteers and people who are not steeped in electoral law to be involved. Do you agree that there is a way here to encourage people to get involved without overbearing legal risk?

Professor Fisher: Definitely. In some ways, this refers back to the questions posed to Dr Dommett. I have some concerns about the over-regulation of elections. We have to accept that there is some activity that we simply cannot regulate, and one cannot have a situation where people who voluntarily engage in politics, which is a good thing—the vast majority of electoral agents are volunteers, and we would not want to prevent them from getting involved—find themselves on the end of a legal investigation as a result, perhaps, of a misdemeanour of which they were unaware. That is particularly true of electoral agents. The vast majority of them, more than 80%, are volunteers. It is some job to stand up and take on that role, in the knowledge that you could find yourself in prison.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you. I am sure there may be some other questions around that later on, perhaps bringing in our other guest who also has experience there. Sticking with you, Professor Fisher, I want to ask about the provision on third-party campaigner registration—the new lower tier for registration—and the Bill’s aim to restrict third-party campaigning to UK-based entities. You say that both of those make good sense, and hope that they serve to enhance transparency at an election. Can you explain why you take that view?

Professor Fisher: It seems to me that any piece of electoral registration around finance should be principally about transparency and trying to have an equal playing field, as far as that is possible. The tier for registration in England is out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom, so it makes good sense to harmonise that.

There is a real danger of third-party expenditure from outside the United Kingdom. It is right that the Bill seeks to regulate it, but I think that we must recognise that we will never be able to prevent it entirely. The internet falls outside of UK jurisdiction; we can deal with imprints, but it would be very difficult to stop a concerted campaign on Twitter or Facebook by a foreign actor. The principle is absolutely sound, and is something that has been practised since PPERA was introduced in 2000. The attempt to keep foreign activity out of elections is a problem that is found across the globe. This is a step in the right direction, as long as we recognise that we will not be able to stop all of the activity.

[Chloe Smith]

Q Thank you so much. I will turn to Darren. Thank you for giving your time this afternoon. I am going to adopt the tone of Professor Fisher about the need to consider how much regulation is too much regulation, and how to encourage grassroots activists to be involved. Perhaps this is an area you might make a comment on?

Darren Grimes: Absolutely. I agreed with everything that Professor Fisher said. Briefly, as someone who was just a volunteer, and who does not know much about laws or statute books, I will set out why it is right for the law to make it easier for people to be part of the democratic process. Looking at what happened to me and others, a key concern for me is that if there were to be another referendum—and God help us if there were—people would be unwilling to put their heads above the parapet and be a responsible person for a registered campaign. I think that is a pretty damning indictment of where we are at in our democratic process.

Ultimately, as you have all said, a democracy that relies on volunteers would be left wanting if it was to be unable to recruit them. We would be poorer for the loss of their contribution. I have to say, with my hand on my heart, I would certainly not put myself forward as a responsible person in an election ever again—for as long as I live. It is not worth all the money in China for me to do that. That is pretty sad, and we should do anything that we can to make the process easier and more transparent, and for the Electoral Commission’s role in dealing with those registered to be permitted participants in elections role to be much more transparent. Anything we can do to make the process much more streamlined, much more transparent, and much clearer will be beneficial for a volunteer-based democracy.

Professor Fisher: May I comment on that? So that there is no misunderstanding, I think we have to protect volunteers, but a difference emerges once you start spending money. I think that is a very important distinction.

[Chloe Smith]

Understood.

[The Chair]

For the benefit of witnesses, there is about to be a vote in the Chamber, so I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and the Committee will meet again here at 11.30 am to take oral evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)

16:25

Adjourned till Thursday 16 September at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

EB01 Dr Katherine Dommett

EB02 Professor Justin Fisher

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 15 September 2021

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

Back British Farming Day

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. I call Theo Clarke to move the motion.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Back British Farming Day and the future of domestic agriculture.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fruit, vegetables and horticulture, I am delighted to have secured this debate. I met my Staffordshire farmers last Friday, and having spoken to the National Farmers Union at the Staffordshire County Show last month, I am very conscious of the circumstances that farmers currently face while trying to feed our nation.

The debate could not be more timely. It should be clear from the sea of wheatsheaf pin badges, displayed on many colleagues’ lapels, that today is Back British Farming Day—a day to celebrate all that our farmers do to produce high-quality, nutritious and delicious food while also caring for our environment and maintaining our iconic British landscapes.

Fruit and vegetables are the staple of our diets, and we all know how important it is for our health and wellbeing to eat our five a day, so I read to my dismay that as a country we are only 16% self-sufficient in fruit and 54% self-sufficient in fresh vegetables. The coronavirus pandemic has reminded us all of the importance of good, sustainable, local food supply chains. My constituents in Stafford have definitely become more interested in buying products close to home. It goes without saying that there are always going to be some types of fruit and vegetables that we will not be able to grow in this country, simply because we do not have the right climate. Of course, we can all enjoy bananas and citrus fruits from other countries, but we should aim to produce much more of the fruit and vegetables that are good at growing here.

Last year, I sat on the Agriculture Bill Committee, where we scrutinised that very important legislation line by line. The Bill advocated the importance of food security, which is why I backed that landmark Government legislation.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Theo Clarke]

Yes, I am delighted to give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for securing the debate. She talks about the Agriculture Bill. It is really important that, as we move to make sure that we sustainably produce food in an environmentally friendly way, we also produce enough food, really good-quality food, more vegetables, more meat and more milk. As we experience climate change—we are a country that has a climate that can produce food—we must make sure that we can produce enough food in future.

[Theo Clarke]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was going on to say that I was very pleased that, in the Agriculture Act 2020, the Government commit to producing a food security report at the end of this year and for three years after that.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Agriculture Act works in tandem with the Environment Bill, and that that will help my local farmers in Hastings and Rye not only to thrive but to increase productivity and thereby food security in the UK?

[Theo Clarke]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was about to say that we are an island nation, so it is extremely important that we are self-sufficient as a country. That is why British fruit and vegetables are so important.

Let me take two examples, of apples and pears, which are two traditional fruit trees that have been found in our country for centuries. In domestic production, total apple demand accounts for only about 38% and the figure is 18% for pears. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs data shows that there has been a significant fall over the last 30 years, so I urge the Minister to work with farmers to reverse this declining trend.

On the other hand, strawberry production is a very positive story. Last Friday, I was lucky to visit Littywood Farm in Staffordshire, where they grow thousands of strawberries, raspberries and cherries every year. I was very interested to hear that they are using modern farming techniques to significantly increase their yield of soft fruit and that they have invested in state-of-the-art polytunnels to make the harvesting process more efficient. That means they have been able to extend the strawberry season from two months to seven months this year, so this is a fantastic, positive story that is being replicated across the country, and I note that since 2010, figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that domestic strawberry production has grown by almost 50%. In 2019, UK production reached a new record of 143,500 tonnes; Members will be pleased to know that that is about 350 million punnets of strawberries, so we will definitely have enough to feed the crowds at Wimbledon and our tennis matches next year, and more. This is a very good example of a model for fresh fruit produce items, which shows that it requires people and real investment.

I will now talk about some of the challenges that farming has faced. We are all aware of the role that weather and mother nature have in determining a crop’s success year on year. Does it rain at the right time? Is the sun shining when wheat is being harvested? Of course, this is very much out of our farmers’ hands, but so much of farming does fall within the Government’s remit, and I hope the Minister will agree that it is very important that decisions made in Westminster have a positive impact in our constituencies in the countryside. I would like to share a story that I heard last week from one of my Staffordshire strawberry growers, which is really quite devastating. They told me that 3,000 tonnes of strawberries were thrown away this year due to not having enough labour to pick the fruit. That equates to approximately £1 million of turnover loss by this farm in just one year. I know we all talk about statistics, but let us remind ourselves that this is fresh food that could have been eaten on British dinner tables this year, but is being thrown away and wasted. Those are not just destroyed strawberries: that represents lost jobs for fruit pickers, and lost income for our farmers.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I was vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fruit and vegetable farmers for quite some time, and we had the then Farming Minister, who is now Secretary of State, come along to us some years ago. He was warned quite firmly by the fruit farmers there that this crisis was coming. Does the hon. Lady not agree that it should have been foreseen, and that steps should have been in place to make sure there was an adequate supply of agriculture workers so that we do not have food rotting in the fields?

[Theo Clarke]

The Government have taken steps to ensure there are seasonal workers, and if I make progress in my speech, I will come on to that topic shortly.

I was interested to read an industry-funded report last year that revealed that during the pandemic alone, labour costs have increased by 15%, which follows a 34% increase in wages over the past five years. I have heard from my farmers in Staffordshire that they are very concerned about the cost for growers: they have been told that they may have to pay for workers’ visas, travel, and covid tests in future. To put that in context, one of my local farmers told me that this could cost his business an extra £1,000 per seasonal worker, and on the basis that a farmer might employ 200 or 300 workers on their farm, that is hundreds of thousands of pounds of additional investment. A lot of my constituents will be asking, “Should fruit and vegetable farming remain? Is it economically viable?” That is why I urge the Minister to look into this issue.

It is very clear from the conversations I have had with local growers and businesses that it has been very difficult to recruit domestically. Very admirably, they worked hard to try to recruit domestic workers, but I was told that unfortunately, the manpower just is not there. I will give the Minister a particular example from my constituency, which I heard about at my meeting last week. One farm received 7,500 applications to be a seasonal worker. One hundred and fifty people were shortlisted, and 85 were offered jobs, of whom only 48 turned up. Thirty-two of those left after one week, 24 after two weeks and five after three weeks, so we can see that that farm put a huge amount of effort into recruiting workers, but the labour was simply not there.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Theo Clarke]

I would like to make some progress in my speech, if that is okay, because I know that many colleagues are waiting to speak.

That story, I am afraid, was replicated for growers from across the country, including Dearnsdale Fruit in Staffordshire, which I heard from as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fruit, vegetables and horticulture when we hosted a roundtable on seasonal workers earlier this year. Access to labour is absolutely critical for ensuring the sector has the labour it needs. When it comes to perishable crops, such as strawberries, it is right that we have the workers that are needed at that moment. I commend the Government on the seasonal workers pilot scheme, which they expanded last year to 30,000 visas. It was a lifeline for many businesses and I thank the Minister for the role she played in getting the scheme set up.

Many colleagues would agree with me that there is uncertainty about the scheme. We need to know what it will look like in the future, so that farms can plan ahead. I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues at the Home Office to come up with a solution.

I move on to the environmental schemes in Stafford. I am a member of the Conservative environment network and am very supportive of the Government’s environmental agenda, particularly ahead of COP26 in Glasgow this year. Flooding is an all-too-frequent phenomenon in my Stafford constituency. I welcome that the new legislation works to incentivise farms and landowners to implement measures that will improve our environment and reduce the incidence of floodwaters entering people’s homes.

Part of the Agriculture Act 2020 is the environmental land management scheme, which is currently going through various trials in Staffordshire. I was dismayed to hear last week that some of my local NFU members are considering dropping out of the scheme. My constituency is predominantly made up of small farms. The farmers have told me that they find the costs associated with being part of the scheme prohibitive.

At this point, having talked a lot about fruit and vegetables, I should also say I wholeheartedly support our dairy and red meat sector. From correspondence with constituents and talking to them at the Staffordshire county show in the summer, I appreciate that bovine TB remains a highly emotive topic. I urge the Minister to work with DEFRA to come up with a long-term solution that means the lives of many animals will be saved in years to come, and that ensures my farmers’ livestock will be protected.

Last week I heard some pretty distressing stories about mental health from my farmers—the mental health of those living in rural areas is a subject I feel very strongly about. As a new MP, I set up the Stafford mental health network and we hold regular mental health roundtables. I am very pleased that my farming community is represented on that by one of their NFU members.

My farmers are concerned about the devastating impact of High Speed 2 on their farms and our rural areas. I want to share one shocking story. I heard last week that two farmers have been so severely affected by dealing with HS2 that they have had their shotguns removed, for their own safety, due to a mental breakdown because of not receiving compensation. To be frank, my constituents have been treated with absolute contempt by HS2. No one asked for their farms and villages to be cut in half by the proposed line. They feel they are being treated like an inconvenience. They have had land taken away and have not yet even had payment for it. Others are stuck in protracted negotiations.

It is fair that constituents should be paid the market value for their land or business, and I do not think that is something they have yet received. If HS2 has lessons for any of us, it is that compensation and right of access laws must be tightened to ensure a level playing field. It is a very practical example of where more action is needed to back British farmers.

I want to talk about increasing the volume of British food in public sector food procurement, which is a major opportunity to showcase British food’s high standards and environmental credentials to everyone. I was very pleased to sponsor the Food Labelling (Environmental Sustainability) Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). It would have required food manufacturers to better label their products to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins, which would help consumers make more informed choices about the sustainability of the products they buy.

Supermarkets play a vital role in our local food supply chain and they have a very important role in ensuring consumers have the ability to make informed choices about the food they purchase. I have a policy idea to suggest to the Minister. All supermarkets should have what I am calling “an aisle for the British Isles”. Britain has some of the highest food standards in the world. I think the public want to buy food from British farmers. A recent survey said that 80% of respondents supported the increased procurement of British food in schools, hospitals and Government agencies. I totally agree.

The main reason people shop in supermarkets is for convenience. Would it not be a great idea for the consumer to know there was a whole aisle where everything in it was from the British Isles? There could be a local section or shelf for products from Staffordshire. I hope colleagues will support my idea of an aisle for the British Isles and that the Minister will commit to backing this concept, which would improve the situation for British farmers.

To conclude, although today is Back British Farming Day, I believe it is essential to back British farmers 365 days a year. To do that we need to deliver policies, not just in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but across Government, that work for our farmers who go out in all weathers every single day to ensure that we are fed as a nation. Let us not take that for granted.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

It will not surprise Members to hear that I am going to call the Front-Bench spokesmen from 10.28 am. Many of you are standing and I do not wish to impose a formal time limit, but I may have to, unless you are all capable of doing the maths for yourselves. I will start with Kerry McCarthy.

09:46

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing the debate. I am sure we will all—including the Minister—profess to be united in our support for British farming, but over recent years not everyone has been prepared to back up their words with action, which is what British farmers need right now.

We have spent a long time in this place discussing the future of farming, through the passage of the Agriculture, Trade and Environment Bills. It was clear what the farming sector needed, which was for British standards to be protected, but the Government and many of their Back Benchers consistently voted down amendments to achieve that. That means that farmers have been badly let down by the Government. We see that now with the Government stalling over the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission and, in the trade negotiations with Australia, brazenly allowing unfettered access to Australian imports produced to unacceptably low standards, and trading away references to limiting global warming to 1.5°, just to get the deal over the line.

That is not the only way in which the Government are failing British farmers. We also see empty shelves in our supermarkets and food left to rot in our fields because of a lack of forward planning. We have a shortfall of 90,000 lorry drivers, as well as a critical shortage of agriculture workers, which we have just heard about. One producer in Scotland this week reportedly had to waste 3.5 million heads of broccoli and 1.9 million heads of cauliflower due to supply chain disruption. That is not just a scandal when farmers are struggling to earn a living and families are struggling to put food on the table. They will struggle even more if the £20 cut to universal credit and the rise in national insurance go ahead. It is also contributing to our environmental failure, given that 8% of global emissions are attributable to food waste.

Backing British farming should mean the Government pulling out all the stops to fix the supply chain shortage, rather than what I see as a shadow Transport Minister, which is Ministers across Departments burying their heads in the sand and just hoping it will sort itself out. On a more positive note, backing British farming also means supporting a sustainable agriculture mode fit for the future. It means embracing agroecological practices that ensure farming and nature benefit each other. It means pursuing rewilding, protecting biodiversity, promoting agroforestry, reducing reliance on pesticides and farming less intensively to protect topsoil. The Agriculture Act 2020, with its “public money for public goods” approach, goes some way towards promoting those practices. That is a welcome step in the right direction, but there is more to do on that front, to make those practices the norm, rather than the exception.

We cannot ignore the contribution of industrial animal agriculture to many of the issues we are facing, from the routine overuse of antibiotics and intensive systems to the destruction of the rain forest for cattle ranching and producing livestock feed. It was reported this week that in the Netherlands they are considering plans to force farmers to cut livestock numbers, due to the sheer scale of ammonia pollution. I am glad the NFU has thrown its weight behind the ambition for net zero but, if net zero is to become a reality and we are to have a genuinely sustainable food and farming system, all these issues must be addressed.



I am proud to be a Member of this House who backs British farmers through my words and my actions. I have consistently supported better scrutiny for trade agreements, pushed Ministers to embrace more sustainable models for agriculture, and called for action on the growing crisis in our supply chains. With both COP26 and the Christmas rush approaching, I hope that all Government Members, not just the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), will join me in pushing the Government to act.

09:49

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who I know has much interest in this area. I should first like to declare that I am a farmer’s son in my home constituency of West Dorset. When we talk about hands on, I mean hands on in terms of calving cows the night before the general election, and I would like to think that I can offer some insights to the debate and to the House.

It is increasingly clear to me that we, in this House, need to step up to the plate, because our farmers, I am afraid, are under attack from all sides, whether it is the environmental lobby, those who believe in a vegan agenda or others. It gives me considerable cause for concern when it comes to farmers’ mental health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) mentioned in her opening speech. Whether it is environmental campaigners or not, we need to think about the supply chain, and about our supermarkets, because the thing that really concerns me is that our supermarkets are in a very dominant position. I do not share my hon. Friend’s view. I believe that they abuse that position with our farmers, and I think it is time we called them out for it.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator is, in my opinion, a complete waste of time. It does not do what it should do. Why is it that supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s can, on the back of a milk contract, threaten a farmer that if they do not provide or sell their cows to that supermarket they will tear up that milk contract? That is fundamentally unacceptable, and every one of us in this House should stand up and call it out for what it is. I encourage my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to support me in doing so.

We also need to bear in mind some of the things that have happened over the past year when it comes to animal welfare. No one in this House feels more strongly about animal welfare than I do. I appreciate the support, earlier this year and last year, from all Members of this House for my private Member’s Bill, now the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; however, we need to put the record straight on a few examples. Previously in debates in this House we, and I am afraid the Opposition particularly, have given the impression that animal welfare is substandard in this country, and that the Government have somehow given in on animal welfare standards. I remind the House that the Government have been very clear on our import standards, and I continually seek reassurances from Ministers that they will not be changed. For the record, that means that hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken will not be permitted in this country. I want to be crystal clear on that.

We should also call out those whom some of my farmers refer to as “environmental do-gooders”. By that I specifically mean those people who genuinely believe that it is better for the environment to eat an avocado that has been flown from 5,000 miles away to the breakfast table rather than some meat or produce that has come from around the corner. That is the sort of attack that our farmers are under, and I believe that we must stand up and push back on those things much more.

We have mentioned, and I am sure we will probably mention it a little more, the supply chain, which has been progressively under pressure over the past six months. We have seen the “best before” date of milk in the supermarket getting closer and closer to the day we buy it. Some people say that is a problem. I believe that it is the biggest and best opportunity that our farmers have had for a very long time, because it is putting pressure on a very centralised and commercialised supply chain that provides the supermarkets with considerable profit. Our farmers, including dairies in my constituency such as Hollis Mead, now sell their milk almost literally on the doorstep. They provide small shops with their milk, which is cheaper than if bought from the supermarket.

I am conscious of the time, Ms Nokes. I thank you once again, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on securing the debate. I would like to place on the record my continuing support for our farmers—not only in my constituency of West Dorset, but across the entire nation.

09:55

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) for setting the scene and for giving us all an opportunity to participate. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply, and I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister and her staff for all the responses that she gives us on the issues that we raise. We are especially pleased to see her in her place, and we look forward to having a working relationship in the future.

I am a keen supporter of Back British Farming. I always say that we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are better together, which does not become less true the more times I say it. As a proud representative of a rural constituency, and with the joy of living on a farm, I always offer my support for British farming. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, and I give a personal commitment to the Back British Farming campaign. Every day before I go to work, I have two eggs—I go to work on an egg or, in this case, two eggs. I eat eggs in the morning, and I probably do so in the evening as well. If anybody is backing the egg industry in the United Kingdom, it is probably me.

Statistics from the Ulster Farmers Union indicate that there are over 25,000 farm businesses in Northern Ireland, producing a wide variety of raw materials. The union says:

“Farming in Northern Ireland is not just a job but it is a way of life and we are extremely proud of our family farming structure.”

The farming sector in Northern Ireland is worth £4.5 billion a year, supporting one in eight jobs in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, we make exceptional-quality products, and I want to see them sold all over the world, as is the case. Like other hon. Members, however, I look to the Minister to reassure us, because it is important that our produce is not in any way disadvantaged by trade deals. Beef, sheep and dairy are the largest commodity sectors in Northern Ireland, but we are being impacted on—I am a Brexiteer, by the way—by the effects of Brexit and the insidious Northern Ireland protocol. Lord Frost is very clear about how we should go forward. We support him in that, and he supports us, but we need the Prime Minister and Government to support us as well.

According to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, the total income from farming in Northern Ireland fell some 23% between 2017 and 2018. The agriculture industry is at the fore for everyone and, in some way, benefits us all. Hon. Members have referred to farmers’ mental health. Like the hon. Member for Stafford, I have seen a real issue for farmers’ mental health in my constituency. I am not quite sure whether it is due to the pandemic—it is probably the pressures of life and environmental issues. For the record, the National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers Union, which are sister bodies, have committed themselves to net zero carbon by 2030. There is a commitment from farmers to work with the Government, and we need help with issues such as jobs for seasonal workers.

Increasing prices and delivery delays are not helping our families. My constituency of Strangford is a very strong farming community. In addition to the impacts of Brexit, the protocol gives absolutely no reassurance, so I agree with some of the comments made in previous speeches by the hon. Member for Stafford in the Chamber and elsewhere. We have seen sluggish improvements to our agriculture situation since Brexit, and there is no doubt that improvements are needed.

British farming goes above and beyond to create a countryside that works for everyone. UK farming contributes over £120 billion a year, which is an incredible amount of money. According to the statistics, UK food and drink exports exceeded £23 billion and went to 220 countries worldwide in 2019. We in Northern Ireland are doing our bit. We can do more, and we need our Government to support us.

In conclusion, I want to speak up for Willowbrook Foods, Mash Direct, Rich Sauces and Lakeland Dairies, all of which have created over 1,000 jobs in their factories. They work alongside our farmers, which, in turn, creates tens of thousands of jobs. When it comes to ensuring that we produce the goods, I believe that we must stand up for British farming and scrap the Northern Ireland protocol. It is always there and can never go away.

09:54

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing such an important debate on Back British Farming Day.

The Meon Valley constituency has a range of farms and agricultural businesses contributing to a thriving economy, from traditional family farms to vineyards. I pay tribute to them and their employees, who work so hard to bring high-quality produce to the market in the UK and around the world. I also pay tribute to all our farm shops, such as Westlands Farm Shop in Wickham, for selling British food and, as mentioned before, getting local food into local shops, so that local people can buy it. That is very important.

I keep in contact with producers throughout my constituency and I recently visited Hambledon Vineyard, one of the oldest commercial vineyards in the UK and one that is winning international awards for the quality of its English sparkling wine. The climate in the south downs is perfect for wine growing and, as climate change hits us, I am sure that English wines will dominate around the world, and certainly should dominate shops in the UK. If we are going to be self-sufficient in fruit, we should also be self-sufficient in wine.

I hope that, in time, my colleagues at the Treasury can be convinced to review the taxation of English sparkling wine, which attracts a higher duty rate than non-sparkling wine. We have a growing export trade, but it would help our vineyards to thrive if we allowed wine drinkers in the UK to enjoy it more with lower duty rates.

When I think of what our farming does for the environment, I am reminded of my visit to Manor Farm, when I walked the farm with Jamie Balfour and a number of other farmers from the area. We saw that it makes sense to incorporate rewilding alongside the management of woodland. Jamie manages extensive areas of woodland on his farm, and although we want to promote tree planting through schemes like the National Forest, we must also remember how important farmers are for managing woods and the wildlife they are home to.

A few months ago I visited the Horam family on their farm near Droxford, where we discussed just how high-tech and forward-looking agriculture is now, aiming to save water, to recycle, including the plastics used on the farm, and to use satellites and drones to monitor the health and growth of crops. The investment that farmers make in machinery and technology is enormous.

We have so many farmers who take great pride in the stewardship of the environment, promoting natural and organic methods. I am pleased that our support, post-Brexit, focuses on environmental goals through the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Environment Bill. The future is looking bright, and I pay tribute to the National Farmers Union for all the work it is doing to keep us on the right track to make sure that happens.

10:02

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) for securing the debate as we celebrate Back British Farming Day. I also put on record my thanks to the farming unions across the United Kingdom, especially our own Ulster Farmers Union for the work it has done in making this day such a success, showcasing the best of British farming and raising issues that are pertinent to the industry at this time.

I have the privilege of representing a constituency that has a large number of farming families and many agrifood processing facilities. Together, they work day and night to bring world-leading produce from farm to fork, safe and traceable, with the very best welfare and environmental standards. They also sustain thousands of jobs providing household incomes that, in many cases, have been established through generations of farming families.

It is this tradition and this economic lifeblood in our rural communities that must be supported for future growth. Yet, on this Back British Faming Day, these farmers and processors face the threat that arises from the pursuance of free trade deals that do not offer the protections needed or demanded by our farming community.

It has been a matter of deep concern to me, shared by many colleagues across the House, that in securing the agreement with Australia the Government showed no regard for protecting the world-leading standards we demand of our farmers. The same fear exists around negotiations with New Zealand. Rather than equivalence on food welfare and environmental standards being a prerequisite to agreement, no such protections for either producers or consumers are being sought or secured. That makes the Government claim to back British farming questionable.

Like many hon. Members here today, I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is a great champion of British farming. On 21 July in this place, he eloquently outlined five asks of the Government that would protect our standards and support our farmers, yet I see little evidence of any progress on those asks. That is a matter of deep regret and concern. We need the Government to step up and let their support for British farming be evidenced in actions, as their words—as we know in Northern Ireland—have counted for little.

The Northern Ireland protocol must be addressed in a way that restores our place within the United Kingdom’s internal market. No barriers should exist for potato producers who want to bring seed potatoes into Northern Ireland from Scotland. The hiatus on approvals for plant protection products threatens local growers. Those are just two examples of some of the ridiculous restrictions that our farmers and producers are facing in Northern Ireland because of the protocol. In that regard, the clock is ticking louder and louder and time is running out fast. The Government must act and the protocol must go.

Finally, our processors of these fantastic British farm products need labour to maximise output and to transport it. Yes, we need a long-term strategy, but in the short term we need urgent flexibility in terms of short-term visas to help alleviate the labour shortage.

10:06

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing this debate. If Jeremy Clarkson’s farm show on Amazon has proved anything, it is that farming is not an easy career choice. Even for those who present car shows, it is still incredibly difficult to turn a profit. That is the interesting point about the debate that we are having today—the difficulties that the farming community face, both now and in the future, and the opportunities that are being presented to us outside the European Union. I believe that there are significant opportunities for farmers outside the EU. Not least, as has already been referred to, is the point about public money for public good. The ELM—environmental land management—scheme has huge potential, but it has the potential to work only if it works in conjunction with farmers. Across the House, both here and now and in previous weeks, I have heard from many colleagues that the ELM scheme is already looking too difficult, that there is not enough information about it, that the schemes are too complicated to even apply for and that the variety of funding schemes are also too difficult, so if I may make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister in the short time that I have, it would be to ensure that the co-operation with farmers is far greater than it currently is.

There have been interesting pinch points in the two years since I was elected as a Member of Parliament in which I think DEFRA has taken the wrong approach. I am thinking of the animal transportation consultation, the badger culling consultation and, now, the new rules for water. Those have all antagonised the farming community to a significant degree and they make farmers think that the Government are not trying to work with them. As the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), is here in the debate, let me say that I will be writing to him to ask whether his Committee could inquire further about the rules on water and the difficulties that they will pose for farmers across the country. If anyone would like to join me in writing that letter, please see me afterwards.

There are huge opportunities. I should declare my interest as a champion of regenerative agriculture in the Conservative Environment Network—and, indeed, my other half is someone who worked in that field. There are new opportunities to see how we can farm, so that this is not just preaching about do-goodery when it comes to climate change, but is about how we can lower people’s costs to produce more productive food. Whether that means no-till farming, regenerative agriculture or looking at how we grow non-monocultured crops, the opportunities are very much there.

A number of colleagues have referred to the point about trade. I serve on the International Trade Committee, and we do scrutinise the deals that are being signed. I think there needs to be more co-operation between the EFRA Committee and the trade Committee, so that when deals are struck, they can be reviewed together. I will be pushing for that and I hope that there can be more debates in the Chamber of the House of Commons. But as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) said, there are already pieces of legislation in place under the sanitary and phytosanitary standards that require a vote in Parliament for any changing of the standards. It is worth bearing that in mind.

We have a fantastic opportunity in this country, through our trade deals, to export our world-class produce to new markets. We should embrace that and see the opportunity it presents to embolden our farmers, not reduce them. Of course there should be caution, but let us make sure that we can also open those new markets.

Finally, there is a huge opportunity in our schools to talk about seasonal variety and how we farm on this land. We are doing ourselves an injustice when we fail to teach about farming in our schools.

10:10

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to highlight our farms. What a fabulous showing we have on the Government side, particularly from south-west colleagues. It is great to see.

I will not repeat what others have said about how brilliant our farmers are and how well they are doing in very difficult circumstances. I just want to put on the record my thanks to all the farmers in Truro and Falmouth, many of whom I have met over the past year, and some of whom I met only a couple of weeks ago. I want to raise a couple of points, from the horse’s mouth, that came out of that discussion. I know that Committees are doing an awful lot of work on the trade deal, and I think we can do better on our communication to farmers; that is where we are falling down.

The farmers had particular concerns about beef carcase imbalance, and thought that any import of cheap food is wrong. They came at it at a very different angle from what I have heard today. They think it is morally wrong that we sell cheap meat to people. People on low incomes should not have to be forced to choose the cheap meet; everybody should have the best-quality meat at a reasonable price. That was the angle they were coming from. They were not trying to be protectionist.

The farmers said that labelling is key. I mentioned that we have lots of work going on on that, and they were very supportive. It is not fair that people get poor-quality or not enough information, so hopefully we can do more on that. From the horse’s mouth, those farmers believe that the Red Tractor system has failed and should be scrapped. They think that there are too many audits on farmers and that there should be one simple standard to follow to allow farmers to concentrate on what they do best.

The farmers also mentioned public procurement. They think there is no reason why we should not be doing that, now that we have left the EU. There are many major purchasers in public procurement—we have mentioned schools and hospitals—and we should absolutely be concentrating on British and sustainably produced produce. When feeding our children and our most vulnerable, why would we not want to give them the very best?

However, I want mostly to talk about daffodils—sorry, I got in first. This is a huge issue in Cornwall, and one that is racing towards the end of the clock. When can export our daffodils to the US and the middle east, and they are worth more than £100 million to our economy—hon. Members may come up with other figures. If the Treasury is listening, that is 20 million quid in VAT receipts. At the moment, we do not have anyone to pick them and we are facing a massive brick wall when it come to the Home Office. Please, Home Office, listen to our plea! I am afraid that when I speak to the Home Office about this—I will be quite strong and robust—it tells us that this is now a Department for Work and Pensions issue, and that British people can be recruited to do the job. They cannot. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford a story about picking strawberries. Growers can put a plea out to thousands of people, and in the end, after two weeks of work, they have got nobody left.

There are different solutions to that. I would like to see an extension of the seasonal agricultural work scheme. It is time limited. The season is from January to April—it is very exact. It cannot be mechanised, and British people will not and cannot do that work. We have to come up with a solution. That is a plea not to DEFRA, which I know is on side, but to the Home Office, to do something about it. Otherwise, we will see all those daffodils rotting in the fields.

In addition, there needs to be a focus on encouraging the young generation into farming, from abroad and also at home. One suggestion was made particularly for daffodil pickers, although it could also be used for a wider agricultural recruitment scheme. At the moment, there are 5.6 million people with European settled status, and people from outside the EU, who cannot come back to the United Kingdom to work, purely because of quarantine rules. Can the Government look at paying for that quarantine so that we can get agricultural workers back into the field?

10:14

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing this debate. I have a couple of comments on the debate so far, which I have really enjoyed. One is that it is strangely devoid of an understanding of farming as a business and the risks that come with it. From the content of the conversation we have had so far, it seems to fall to Government to insulate farming against every business risk. I suspect that that is not the intention of farmers, and that is something for us to ponder.

To my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), I would say that farming is a place of ambitious targets, perhaps nowhere more so than on the environment, but suggesting we might be self-sufficient in wine production is a target too far.

I pay tribute to Aberconwy’s farming community. The last 18 months have presented farmers throughout the UK with unprecedented challenges. It is impossible to forget the scenes from the early days of the pandemic, when supermarket shelves were empty and people feared they were going to run out of food. However, farmers rose to the challenge, food was produced, demand was met and our shelves were restocked. I would like to take the opportunity to thank our farmers for all they have done in those difficult times. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi gyd.

Livestock farmers across Aberconwy, Wales and the UK have deservedly earned a reputation for producing the finest quality produce in the world. Our beautiful landscapes and mild climate in north Wales mean we have one of the most sustainable places to produce red meat, and I share the pride of the farming community and so many of my constituents that our sheep and livestock farmers operate to the highest animal health and welfare standards anywhere in the world.

However, as has been recognised this morning, farming has been criticised as a major contributor to climate change. These attacks are grossly unjustified, as British farming practices are not only sustainable, but play a key role in addressing the climate change challenge. British beef and lamb farming are among the most efficient and sustainable in the world due to their extensive grass-based systems. We know that agriculture accounts for just 10% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, but actively managed pastures and grasslands, such as in Dyffryn Conwy, are hugely effective carbon sinks, with several studies finding that grassland could be a more reliable carbon sink even than woodland. I remind those who love our landscapes and those summer staycationers who have been exploring Eryri, our national park of Snowdonia, that the spectacular scenery they are enjoying is the product of the hard work of our farmers. It is an industrial landscape, and our farmers are the custodians of it from Llanfairfechan to Ysbyty Ifan.

In conclusion, I have two asks of Government. First, as we approach COP26, I urge the Government to champion the contribution that farmers are making to our national effort to reach net zero by 2040. Secondly, I urge the Government to challenge robustly the myth that British livestock farming is a major contributor to climate change.

10:17

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) for securing this important debate. I rise to speak in this timely and necessary debate to demonstrate that I back British farming, which is something people across the UK have done with great enthusiasm during the pandemic as we all learned how precarious our food supply chain can be.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), it is time for the Home Office to take the opportunity to demonstrate its support for British farming. I say that because our farmers do not yet know if they will be given access to foreign workers through the seasonal agricultural workers scheme in just 14 weeks’ time. SAWS is not a new idea. It has been serving the food and farming sector for decades by giving access to foreign workers through visas, but it has been necessary to revive it due to the Government quite rightly bringing an end to free movement of EU nationals.

The Home Office must act quickly to help British farmers harvest their crops. This year, farmers from across my constituency have raised with me issues of staff shortages affecting the harvesting of potatoes and other crops. They are very concerned about the situation they will be in in a few weeks’ time. For many, the crop is already in the ground.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Derek Thomas]

Certainly, but please be brief.

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly will. The hon. Gentleman has tempted me, but I thank him for giving way. It is not just about the crops in the fields; the pig-producing factories cannot get workers either, and those jobs are fairly skilled. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have a duty to not only those who bring the crops in, but those who work in the factories and produce the food as well?

[Derek Thomas]

I welcome that intervention, but that is a slightly different issue because that work is—it is often 12-month work, and the resettlement status and various other things can help with that.

I talk unapologetically about the need in Cornwall, but we need people to be able to come and harvest the crops, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned includes daffodils. The Home Office can help farmers by agreeing to our demands to continue access to seasonable agricultural workers next year and by addressing the urgent need facing Cornish MPs, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, the DEFRA Secretary—it might be awkward for him—and myself. The truth is that we will be driving to London next January, February and March staring at fields covered in beautiful yellow flowers. I appreciate the view, as will anyone who comes to Cornwall on holiday, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, £100 million-worth of daffodils are picked in Cornwall—we provide 86% and the UK provides 95% of the world’s daffodils—and to see those flowers sitting in the fields for us to enjoy is not fair on those in London and elsewhere who should also be enjoying them. It is also not fair on HMRC.

There is an urgent need to secure a workforce to harvest our daffodils. SAWS is limited, as we know, to edible crops. My ask, and that of my colleagues and Cornish daffodil growers, who produce almost 80% of the nation’s daffodils, is to simply extend the SAWS pilot to include daffodils. That would extend the visa to nine months, rather than six, to cover January to April and would include the harvesting of non-edible crops. If the Home Office is really concerned, it could just specify daffodils. We would be happy with that.

I have not heard any local dissent regarding the fact that citizens from overseas work in west Cornwall and on Scilly. If the Home Office is concerned about immigration numbers—I do not believe that this is not immigration, but seasonal agricultural work to meet a demand—the scheme to keep the 30,000 workers for nine months would suit its desire. This year we needed a further 1,000 daffodil pickers. The Home Office believes that a workforce is here in the UK, but my daffodil producers tested that. They increased pay, advertised widely and locally, and increased the hours available to work. Despite that, we lost 20% of our daffodils, and 274 million stems were left in the ground.

This is an urgent issue. I have spoken to the Prime Minister, the Chief Whip, DEFRA, a Home Office Minister and the Home Secretary about it. When I spoke to the Home Office Minister, he said that we need to demonstrate that the work is not poorly paid with poor accommodation. In fact, the producers increased the money to attract the pickers. The average hourly wage was £12.08. Some were earning £1,000 a week, and each year the accommodation is inspected by the migrant workers officer. Daffodil growers have rightly improved pay and conditions because they know they will lose their pickers to perhaps much more enjoyable work such as—dare I say it?—strawberry picking. It is amazing that strawberries in the sunshine are being left in the ground when it is so much easier to pick a strawberry than a daffodil.

I will leave it there, but this is a devastatingly important issue. I will finish with a quote from Churchill for the Home Office to hear. At the height of the second world war when ornamentals were not allowed to be picked, he said:

“These people must be enabled to grow their flowers and send them to London— they cheer us up…in these dark days”.

Let us do what we can to protect an industry that does so much to cheer up the nation.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

I still intend to call the Front-Benchers from 10.28 am. Danny Kruger is next.

10:23

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is very good of you to call me at all, Ms Nokes, as I was late for the beginning of the debate, for which I apologise. I beg your forgiveness and also that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke). I am sorry to have missed the first minute or two of her brilliant speech. I served with her on the Agriculture Bill Committee and I remember the incredibly erudite and impressive to and fro between the Front Benchers arguing over what happens when sows roll over and that sort of thing—I learnt a huge amount. During the passage of the Bill I was pleased that food production was inserted as a public good. The principle that the Bill now represents standing up for British farmers and ensuring that the industry can thrive in this new world is to be greatly welcomed.

Let me say a word on our trade policy. It is absolutely right that we pursue a policy of free trade in agriculture. It is the right thing for the world and for our country. Obviously, we have been through this over the centuries. The principle of consumer price and choice and the competition that trade induces, including over quality, are absolutely vital and not to be overlooked. The policy is also an enormous export opportunity. Wiltshire is home not only to farmers who produce glorious food for domestic consumption and export, but to some of the most innovative technology, new engineering techniques and methods of protein manufacturing. Those have enormous potential for our county and our country, in the context of the huge challenge of feeding the world, including the urbanised population of China. I hope that our country can play a role in that through our trade policy. That policy is also of great benefit to the world’s producers. One of the great advantages of being outside the common agricultural policy is that we can genuinely welcome the products of the world, as we are no longer in a protective racket that excluded African producers, in particular.

I am also concerned—I know that the Minister shares this aspiration—that our agricultural policy ensures that we eat more of our own food in this country and that we consume more domestic produce. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) about the quality of food eaten by our population. I worry about creating a two-tier system, where wealthy people eat glorious British produce while poorer people are expected to eat lower quality food produced abroad, possibly to lower standards. I know that the Minister shares that concern.

It is good and right that we support production through the new subsidy system. In general, we do not do that—and we should not—but farmers have a role in maintaining this country’s greatest natural asset: our land and countryside. Roger Scruton, who should be quoted as often as possible, said that the beauty of the English countryside is testament to centuries of inherited property rights. The principle of supporting those landowners and tenants is important. Secondly, there is the importance of resilience: we are seeing the rise of economic nationalism around the world, and we have learned in the last year and a half the incredible importance of a secure supply of our essentials, including food. I am pleased that the Government are putting food security at the heart of their strategy and that we are developing a national food security strategy.

My thanks to all Members and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for securing this debate. My thanks to Wiltshire farmers and particularly to my friend Peter Lemon, who started the Southern Streams project in the Marlborough Downs in Wiltshire, which has secured the protection of the streams in my area. Farmers do an amazing amount of work, not only in securing our food but in maintaining our environment.

10:27

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) for securing this debate.

I begin by saying a huge thank you to farmers in my constituency. They put in tireless hours and are often very underpaid. Farmers are essential workers; they put food on our tables throughout the pandemic—they did not let us down. Yet, they are consistently let down by the UK Government.

The Government should heed the title of this debate and back British farming—not just with rhetoric, but with action. Farming is an essential sector for Scotland: it employs around 67,000 people and supports thousands more in jobs across urban and rural economies, generating a gross output of £3.3 billion annually, directly resulting in a contribution of £1.3 billion to the Scottish economy. However, it has been dealt a hard blow by Brexit.

Just before Christmas, during the chaos preceding the trade and co-operation agreement, a variety of constituents wrote to me; they were blackface sheep farmers and stood to lose thousands of pounds. In Scotland alone, the blackface sheep industry stood to lose £750,000 of sheep if lambs could not be moved to Northern Ireland. That had never posed a problem before Brexit. The then Cabinet Secretary in Scotland, Fergus Ewing, wrote to the DEFRA Secretary of State to raise the issue urgently. It took over three weeks to receive a reply.

Meanwhile, farmers, including some of my constituents, had no idea what they would do in the run-up to Christmas and how much money they stood to lose. That is just one example of how farmers were let down by Brexit, although there are many more. It is hard to see what the advantages of Brexit were for farmers.

[Jim Shannon]

It is good to have the support of the Scottish National party to oppose the Northern Ireland protocol, because that is what the issue is. Farmers in Scotland and Northern Ireland are suffering and something needs to be done. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[John Nicolson]

Unlike the majority party in Northern Ireland, we opposed Brexit. We thought it was going to be a disaster, and we opposed the Brexit agreement. I know the Democratic Unionist party has suffered considerably electorally since the results of their folly in supporting Brexit have been gauged by the Northern Irish electorate.

The UK-Australia trade agreement, when it was signed, was yet another blow for UK farmers. The UK Government, in their desperation to sign anything that might make Brexit appear less of an ongoing calamity for the economy, agreed to a terrible deal with Australia. I guarantee that champagne corks were being popped in Canberra the night that deal was signed. According to NFU Scotland, it was

“a slow journey to the Australians getting unfettered access to UK markets and with no guarantees that the promises of other safeguards will address the fact that very different production systems are permitted in Australia compared to here in the UK.”

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[John Nicolson]

I will make some progress, if I may. The deal as a whole will deliver one 200th of the benefits of the EU over the next 15 years, and is worth only 0.01% of GDP. That causes two problems for farming. The first is the fact that Australian livestock farms will mean that farmers in the UK who operate on a much smaller scale will not be able to compete on price. On the price issue, in the UK we pride ourselves on high animal welfare standards. The same cannot be said of the Australians. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals chief executive Chris Sherwood warned that it is legal in Australia to mutilate the rear end of sheep, while chicken can be washed with chlorine and almost half of cattle are given growth hormones. That is a shocking record of animal welfare.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Nicolson]

I will pursue my point for a moment. Although the Prime Minister assured us that hormone-induced cattle will not come to the UK, we all remember he also promised at the last election not to increase taxes.

[Chris Loder]

May I just respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that what I said earlier still stands? The import standards for this country do not permit that. It is a matter of law, and if it ever changed there would be a vote taken in Parliament. Hormone-injected beef is not permitted to be imported into this country, and the same is to be said for chlorine-washed chicken.

[John Nicolson]

Let us see. Many of the assurances we were given on Brexit have proved very different in reality. Climate pledges were secretly dropped from the deal. Paris agreement temperature goals never made it into the final deal after pressure from the Australian Government. For 0.01% of GDP and to get a post-Brexit win, global Britain ditched essential climate change goals in the lead-up to the most important international climate summit in years.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[John Nicolson]

I will pursue my point. I have already taken two interventions and there is a limit to how many I can take in a speech. The impact of global warming on temperature and weather will be felt most acutely by those in the farming community. The Australian deal sets a worrying precedent for trade deals going forward. If any future deal with the United States throws farmers under the bus as much as the Australia one did, many more farmers will struggle.

I cannot finish without mentioning the litany of complaints from the hon. Member for Stafford about Brexit labour shortages and food rotting in our constituency fields. The hon. Lady sounded shocked, as indeed she should, at the appalling waste. But it is hardly a surprise. Once upon a time, right-wing tabloids and Brexiteer MPs assured us that, post-Brexit, townies would be jumping on trains to the countryside, filled with “Pick for Britain” zeal, and would return ruddy-faced from their exertions in the fields. It was never going to happen. It has not happened; Brexit has led to chronic labour shortages, and we on this side of the House clearly warned that that would happen. So please, let us not affect surprise at the clearly foreseeable consequences of Brexit.

We in Scotland have a choice; farmers, and the rest of us, have the option of re-joining the European Union as part of an independent Scotland and to have free movement once again. Farmers play such an important role in society, and I am proud to back them. I wish the UK Government would do the same.

10:35

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing the debate and for a passionate and honest account. It will probably not be any help to her for me to say that it was a devasting critique of the Government’s position—a critique we heard from a number of others. I am grateful for the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) for his kind words, and for unveiling the truth of the plan, which is the two-tier system that we all worry about.

It is a pleasure to speak on Back British Farming Day. We all thank the NFU for organising across the country, and in Westminster, and for putting the issues that farmers face at the top of the political agenda. As many Members have already said, today is an opportunity to celebrate all the incredible work done by farmers, farm workers and all those in the processing sectors who produce the best quality food in the world. We thank the key workers for all the work they did, and continue to do, to keep everyone fed during covid; the whole sector can be proud that fresh and affordable food continues to reach people across the country. Previous generations would have marvelled at that, and it should never be taken for granted.

This is why we are so committed to standing behind our farmers and food producers, with Labour’s campaign to buy, make and sell more across the UK. Today, as part of the plan, we are calling for public bodies to buy more British food all year round. Under a Labour Government, public bodies will be tasked with giving more contracts to British firms, and we will legislate to require them to report on how much they are buying from domestic sources with the taxpayer’s money. This is a genuinely ambitious plan to make sure the public sector helps support our British farmers. Frankly, it goes much further towards providing sufficient support to our food producers than the efforts of the current Government, who wheel out hollow gimmicks, such as the Cabinet Office switching from Dutch to English bacon for a couple of weeks during British Food Fortnight. We can do so much better than that. Our plan will assist the economy to recover from the pandemic, and help our British farmers and food producers, who need and deserve our support both now and in the years ahead.

Labour is committed to supporting food producers, whereas the actions of the current Government mean that, on Back British Farming Day, farmers are actually facing a perfect storm of uncertainty, dodgy trade deals, imminent cuts to support and, as we have heard, crippling labour shortages. It is not backing British farming to cut trade deals that undercut farmer’s livelihoods by leaving them vulnerable to overseas agricultural imports produced to lower standards—as was so well explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

[Chris Loder]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, I will not give way because I want to give the Minister plenty of time to answer these difficult questions.

We have heard a number of Conservative Members attempt to big up the Government’s shaky position on trade. I think that in their heart of hearts they know that no one trusts the Prime Minister on this. They know full well that the Australian trade deal has sold out British farming, just as it sold out the climate talks, and just as any future trade deals they make are likely to.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, I am not going to. When the outlines of a possible deal were announced, it was Labour who stood firm with farmers and demanded that the Government did not compromise on our high environmental, animal welfare and food standards. That is what backing British farming really looks like.

Sold out on trade deals, and also sold out on basic support; it is not backing British farming to slash farm support and pretend that environmental payments will somehow fill the gap. This is just as we predicted in our lengthy debates on the Agriculture Bill, as some Members have already mentioned. With the clock ticking, the new payments are still in the process of being designed, tested and piloted, way behind schedule. We predicted that it would be hard—none of this stuff is easy.

The Minister and I have discussed this on many occasions, and she challenged me to go and see for myself. So, I did. I went on a summer tour to Yorkshire, to Northumbria, to Exmoor; I met those who were doing the trials, and I found brilliant, inspiring and lovely people working really hard. The lessons were clear; it is complicated. It is a good thing to do—I support ELM and the principle of rewarding farmers for environmental improvements—but these schemes are too complicated and inflexible.

The sustainable farming incentive was a panicky fix that might plug some of the gap for some, but in so doing, I was told on the ground, it also risks undermining ELM in some cases. The life support that has kept Britain farming for many decades is now on a timed exit. It will expire, and I feel it will take a good many British farmers with it. That is what I heard, not just from those pilots but from the other areas I visited—from farmers in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and the midlands at the Great Yorkshire Show.

It is not just me saying this; it is farmers saying it. An excellent report published today by the National Audit Office shows that DEFRA has lost the trust of the farming industry, citing the low take-up of the new schemes. I exhort Members to look at an excellent paper produced by DEFRA last week, the “Farmer Opinion Tracker”. The very first figure, for the number who

“understand Defra’s vision for farming”,

shows that it was just 10% in 2019. Well, guess what? After two years of Government effort, it is now 5%. If it was not so serious, it would be funny. There is more in that report: 40% of farmers are

“not at all confident that their relationship with Defra and Defra agencies will develop positively in the future.”

So, there is not a lot of confidence.

These cuts in support will have profound consequences for rural areas. We calculate that rural England stands to lose more than £255 million this year as a result of the cut, putting as many as 9,500 jobs at risk, and that is in just one year, with a 5% cut. By 2024, it will be 50%. It is huge: not backing British farming—slashing British farming.

Then, to complete the hat trick, there are the labour shortages. We have heard a lot about that. It is not backing British farming to take out the pool of workers who not just farming, but the whole food system has depended on for years without a proper plan to achieve that transition. It is not just me saying that; listen to every voice across every sector. We know the problems, which are well documented: people not being able to get to Nando’s; the milkshakes at McDonald’s. We have heard about the crop pickers and the meat factory workers, as well as the lorry drivers, and about the huge pressure on vets.

I have to say, I am astonished that I have not heard anything from the Government Benches about what is happening on pig farms and poultry farms. It is Labour, it seems to me, now speaking for them, because the birds and pigs are packed up on—

[Chris Loder]

Where are the Labour Members?

[Daniel Zeichner]

There will be many more here after the next election from rural areas, and we will be supporting those people, because those birds and pigs on those farms are packed up, at risk of being destroyed if they cannot be kept in good welfare conditions.

The British Poultry Council warns that the labour crisis will lead to less British food being produced. The National Pig Association reckons that there are backlogs resulting in 85,000 extra pigs on farms across the UK, increasing by 15,000 a week. I spoke yesterday to the renowned Yorkshire pig farmer Richard Lister, who told me that people are on the brink of destroying animals on farms. People are understandably very distressed—to pick up the mental health issues raised by the hon. Member for Stafford. He says that this is one of the worst times he has ever known and he fears, as do many, that what we are actually doing is exporting our pig industry. It is really, really serious.

There is much more to be said, but time is short, so let me finish with some direct questions to the Minister, which I am sure she can answer. First question: where on earth is the trade and agriculture commission? It was used as bait to get the Bill through. Where is it? On food security, when will we get the first assessment, as discussed when we took the Agriculture Act 2020 through? It is due soon, surely. It was promised; when will it be with us?

Is someone from Government actually going to respond to Henry Dimbleby’s review? It was a huge piece of work, taking two years. It was called “The Plan”, in marked juxtaposition to lack of a plan from DEFRA. What is DEFRA’s plan? Will the Minister perhaps explain to us why the Prime Minister could not find time to talk to Henry Dimbleby? That was a really hard-worked report, with a range of people involved in presenting it, including the president of the National Farmers Union, Minette Batters. It tackles the key issues of the time, environmental degradation and the problems in our food system with obesity. Is it really of so little significance that the Prime Minister did not have time to talk to Henry Dimbleby?

In conclusion, given this catalogue of failure, it sticks in the craw when we see Government Members supporting the wheatsheaf, when British farming faces so many problems as a direct consequence of their own Government’s actions. It is not everybody: I know that many on the Government Benches have felt unease. Some were brave enough to stand up for farmers over the trade issues, but frankly it needed many more. The contrast is stark. Labour backs British farming, today and every day of the year. Unlike DEFRA, the Department that forgot rural affairs, we are committed to ensuring that rural issues are properly addressed, and there will be much more from us on that over the coming weeks. We back British farming, and we wear the wheatsheaf with pride.

10:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

On Back British Farming Day, it is important that we thank all farmers for the delicious and nutritious food their businesses provide every day. On this side of the House, we will always back British farming.

I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) and congratulating her on becoming co-chair of the excellent all-party group on fruit, vegetable and horticulture. She has briefed me on the recent meeting she had with her local NFU. I know she enjoyed her local county show, and she is already encouraging me to go to the English Winter Fair in her constituency. I loved my hon. Friend’s idea of aisles for the British isles, and we will certainly continue to work closely with supermarkets, as we always do, to ensure that buying local and buying sustainable become the watchwords of the future.

Other hon. Members who were unable to speak today include yourself, Ms Nokes, who spoke to me this morning about Tom Allen, a pig farmer in your constituency. I would not want anybody to be under any illusions that Members on my side of the House do not regularly raise difficulties on behalf of their pig and poultry farmers. I will come on to labour very shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) is not only an excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary, but also a stalwart champion of farming. I was pleased to visit farmers in her constituency with her earlier this year, including a pig producer.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) was concerned about intensive animal farming; she has spoken about this subject often.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) was concerned about fairness in the supply chain. We have, as my hon. Friend knows, done a great deal of work on the dairy supply chain, but possibly the time has come to begin thinking about fairness in the pork supply chain.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) goes to work on two eggs, and long may that continue. I would like to reassure him and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) that I met the Ulster Farmers’ Union at breakfast today, and we talked about labour.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) spoke passionately about English sparkling wine and woodland management and gave us a great tour of the farms and farm shops in her constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) has been watching Jeremy Clarkson, which does not surprise me at all. I would love to fill him in on the current position with the farming rules for water because some progress has been made in that difficult area of muck-spreading, something that Jeremy Clarkson writes very well about in The Sun today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), my south-west colleagues, talked extremely passionately about difficulties with daffodils. I can assure them that the Secretary of State is very well seized of this issue indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) was understandably focused on livestock production and spoke lyrically about how actively managed grassland can be—and often is—a carbon sink. He also spoke, very importantly, about how the look of our countryside is the result of many generations of careful management.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) covered both the corn laws and Roger Scruton with his paeon of praise for free trade and agriculture. He is rightly concerned about two-tier food, which is something we all need to talk about a great deal. It was good to hear about Peter Lemon and his Southern Streams project. That is absolutely the sort of project we will aim to encourage and promote with our future agricultural subsidy support.

Labour shortages are undoubtedly a great challenge in agriculture. They always have been. I grew up on a plum farm and our Secretary of State grew up on a strawberry farm. We had an interesting collection of people picking our plums when I was a child, including me. It has been made more difficult by the extraordinary disruption of the pandemic and, of course, changes in immigration law to which people have to adjust. It has to be said that the work is temporary and the work is hard, but it is definitely not low paid, which is an important message to get out.

We in DEFRA are working extremely hard to address this problem. We have extended the seasonal workers pilot. We have 30,000 visas for both EU and non-EU citizens this year. We will work across Government to see if that can be extended again, as it has in previous years—this is not new. We also have people with pre-settled and settled status, many of whom sadly went home for the pandemic and have not come back. We are leading a review into automation, which will conclude in the next couple of months. The ultimate aim must be to reduce our complete reliance on migrant labour, if we are to have a sustainable labour force. That is a cross-Government piece of work that has to be supported by the Department for Work and Pensions, going into the future, and we are working hard on that. I do not shy away from how difficult that challenge is, nor would I pretend it is entirely new.

On global competition and trade—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

I will not; I have a lot to get through, I am afraid. It is important that we do not view our trade policy as a race to the bottom. We have extremely high standards in this country, not least on animal welfare, which I for one am determined to promote. I have rehearsed many times before—and will not go into now—the various tools in our toolbox for protecting standards. I draw attention to one new piece of work, which is our consultation on labelling. The more we can encourage people to be aware of the food that they eat, the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth touched on that with her remarks on insurance schemes.

I am pleased to announce that we are increasing our range of agrifood counsellors to help break into new export markets. We have two at the moment, in China and the UAE. They work with a large team of people in the embassies who promote food and drink. They are experts who work in a granular and technical way to break open new markets and help our traders to export abroad. The NFU has called for that for some time and I am pleased we have got that through and that it will help our traders.

Regarding Henry Dimbleby, of course we will respond as a Government. Nothing has changed; I have always said it will be a six-month process and we are working hard; I work on it every day. We are aiming for the end of the year, as we always have been. Food security was always promised in December, and the report will come in December, as it has to. Nothing has changed on that.

On future farming, this is a seven-year transition. It is challenging. We are transforming the way that those who farm are supported in this country. That is a major benefit of Brexit. I am off to the G20 after this debate to tell them what we are doing on sustainable agriculture. They are very excited and interested in the progress we have made. These are the biggest changes to the sector in more than 50 years. We will no longer pay people for the size of their farm. We will pay them to promote environmental and health and welfare outcomes.

The schemes are being rolled out, as we know. Yes, it is difficult; yes, it is challenging; yes, there have been calls for more information. Now there are calls that there has been too much information and it is all too complicated. No, we will not get it all right at once. This is iterative; we are working with thousands of farmers to pilot and test. Nevertheless, I am sure that the vision is there. At the end of a five to seven-year period, British agriculture will be in a much stronger place, to argue, if it needs to, for Government help on exports and for support to promote environmental outcomes. I am determined to leave it in a strong shape.

I will conclude, as I want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford a few minutes. We are in a significant period of change for British farmers. The first sustainable farming incentive agreements will start in November. We have an exciting story to tell. It is difficult but, if we get it right, the prize is enormous. We, as farmers, are always at the mercy of the weather. We can demand that the Government provide a decent system of support to back and encourage us. As we think today about the great work done by British farmers this year, showcased by Jeremy Clarkson, not so far from my farm, I hope we realise that British farmers are worth backing and supporting. We on this side of the Chamber will always ensure that that happens.

10:52

[Theo Clarke]

I welcome the Minister’s announcement today. It is fantastic to have such support from across the House, particularly from my Conservative colleagues, backing Back British Farming Day.

It is important that we have policies that mean farmers can keep farming, feeding us, caring for the environment, helping to prevent natural disasters, such as flooding, and maintaining the varied and beautiful landscapes in Staffordshire and across the whole UK. Listening to colleagues today, it is clear that there is recognition of the vital role that farmers play in providing us with high-quality, healthy and nutritious food. That is certainly a message I will take back to my constituency.

It is important that we never take our food or the people who get it to our tables for granted. Farmers and our rural communities face unique challenges that the Government need to recognise. The coronavirus pandemic has shown us the importance of food security for our island nation. The British public support backing British farmers and we need to implement schemes such as the aisle for the British Isles, as I suggested today.

I hope the debate will provide a catalyst for some positive progress, particularly on seasonal agricultural workers. I am committed to working with my Staffordshire farmers and Ministers to back British farming.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Back British Farming Day and the future of domestic agriculture.

10:56

Sitting suspended.

Geothermal Energy

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]

10:47

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, may I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission? Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered opportunities for geothermal energy extraction.

I look forward to today’s debate, and it is encouraging to see so many colleagues in attendance. Tapping into the abundant energy stored in the heat beneath the Earth’s surface is not a new idea, but exploiting those vast resources has often been overlooked in favour of other forms of renewables that are more readily captured on top of the ground. We have come a long way since first using sources such as onshore or offshore wind, tidal and solar energy to decarbonise our electricity supplies, and Scotland now produces about 97.4% of its electricity consumption from renewables.

There is a still a long way to go on decarbonising heat, with heating and hot water making up around 40% of the UK’s energy consumption. The potential for geothermal energy to help plug the gap, providing an indigenous, low-carbon and green alternative for heating homes, is huge. The British Geological Survey’s report into unlocking geothermal potential estimates that resources in the UK

“are sufficient to deliver about 100 years of heat supply for the entire UK”

and to provide the equivalent of 85% of Scotland’s, or 9% of England’s, current electricity demands. Of course, being theoretically available is very different from being technically available, and how easily it can be exploited depends on the detailed nature of geology, the closeness of the population base and the sheer scale of projects, depths drilled and the method of extraction to be considered.

Geothermal energy ranges from shallow-depth ground source heat pumps that are already operating on a small scale to heat individual homes, up to deep geothermal extraction such as the United Downs geothermal power project, which is the deepest production well on UK soil, at 5,275 metres, and which extracts power from the naturally hot water in the granite rocks deep beneath Cornwall. Somewhere between those two scales, we find a happy medium: geothermal used for district heating networks for local homes and businesses. There is so much potential for development of these types of heating schemes, and at far more efficient cost, if we can take advantage of the maze of disused mines full of warm water that is below our feet.

For communities devastated by the pit closures, it would be a fantastic change of fortune to see the legacy of the industrial past being repurposed for a green energy future. I have a particularly keen interest in this option for my constituency of Midlothian, which has a long coalmining history and a vast labyrinth of old pits beneath the ground. We are from unique, as an estimated quarter of UK homes are situated on former coalfields. Repurposing the infrastructure to extract energy from the coalmines yet again, but this time in a sustainable way, is an tremendously exciting prospect.

Although we have the potential, widespread use of geothermal resources is still very limited in the UK. There are many challenges to overcome, including ownership, planning and regulatory frameworks, upfront costs and risks, and the identification of suitable sites. On the latter, I welcome the work by the Coal Authority and British Geological Survey to identify abandoned mines that are potential sources of heat for nearby homes, and to make such information available openly to developers, planners and researchers. Increasing the understanding and knowledge of geothermal at a local level has a long way to go, but it is going in the right direction.

Detailed research under way through the UK Geoenergy Observatories is producing open-access data to assist in developing geothermal from potential to commercial reality. The Glasgow Geoenergy Observatory, which officially opened in December 2020, is focused on mine water and produces what its science lead, Dr Alison Monaghan, described as

“an unprecedented look into the subsurface.”

That is vital to understanding the role that shallow mine-heat energy could have in decarbonising our energy supply, the risk involved in environmental management, and the regulation needed.

The ambitious scale of research facilities should help to kickstart technical innovations and to tackle some of the challenges of geothermal that have perhaps slowed progress in the past. We have been looking into geothermal for quite a while now, without making the most of its potential. Early feasibility studies included the 2004 Shawfair mine-water project in Midlothian, which looked at the potential for using mine water and heat pump technology to supply a new community heating scheme on the site of the former Monktonhall colliery. The report concluded that there was a potential for such a scheme, with mine water contributing up to 1,708 GWh of heat per annum. Frustratingly, progress stalled because of issues around ownership, although much of the work has helped projects in other countries around Europe—so it was not all for nothing.

The British Geological Survey’s report “Unlocking the potential of geothermal energy in the UK” looked at the progress of projects in European countries, such as France, the Netherlands and Germany, that have similar geothermal potential to the UK. It found that geothermal energy was

“contributing ever more significantly to the decarbonisation of the energy mix”,

generating jobs and helping to stimulate the economy. The report says:

“Experience in these countries has shown that the success of geothermal development is closely linked to their governments’ commitment to support this technology through policies, regulations, incentives and initiatives. Such success is linked specifically to 1) the availability of a long-term, stable regulatory framework and 2) the willingness of the state to share economic risks.”

The landscape is messy, and there are many measures that could be taken by the Government to help geothermal to progress more quickly from early stage to establishing a market. Perhaps it is unsurprising that, between 2000 and 2006, after the EU had concluded a major €20 million study into geothermal energy extraction from closed mines in both Midlothian and the Netherlands, the findings were only implemented on the continent, and Midlothian never saw the benefits. That highlights not only the value of the kind of cross-border research that has been stripped away by leaving the EU but also the important role that national Governments play in fostering the success of such schemes.

Among the steps that need to be taken are a reliable financial incentive for geothermal technology and clear, more streamlined regulations to underpin projects. It is fair to say that the Government’s commitment to renewable energy has been half-baked at best so far—remembering the former Prime Minister David Cameron’s flip-flop from “the greenest government ever” to getting rid of the “green crap”. I am sure that there is now an honest enthusiasm for geothermal, but there is ground to be made up, and that requires a commitment to drive things forwards. We need a clear geothermal roadmap, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plan in her response.

On a positive note, while there is much to be done, I am pleased to see that we are taking steps in the right directions. Some aspects of the political landscape are, of course, the responsibility of the devolved Governments. While Scotland does not yet have large-scale geothermal projects, Scottish Government funding has supported a number of feasibility studies. The Scottish Government have been working closely with stakeholders to build on the experience of two small-scale geothermal developments in the central belt, which each ran for over a decade. They have also sought to clarify the regulatory framework for deep geothermal projects, producing guidance documentation in liaison with the relevant regulatory authorities. Heat networks will have a key role to play in supplying Scotland’s geothermal heat in the future, so I welcome the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021, which became law earlier this year and will create the circumstances needed to unlock the full potential of the sector and support its growth.

Mine water is not the only overlooked energy resource that can fuel our green ambitions, but it can pose a danger if left ignored. In Midlothian, for example, there are serious concerns about mine-water discharge from the old colliery at Bilston Glen into the River Esk contaminating water, damaging natural habitats and increasing the risk of flooding. Temporary solutions, such as water treatment schemes, might look good in the short term, but they do not deliver anything for communities, and there is no benefit to those who would be impacted by such an outpouring of water. A long-term solution to keep the water levels under control is required, and would help generations to come. That is the kind of forward-looking outlook that the Government need to encourage and foster in the industry.

The green industrial revolution must not leave people behind but get people on board, and geothermal is one way we could do this. With the right support in place, it offers a fantastic opportunity to develop low-carbon heating systems, regenerate local economies and reawaken energy extraction in coal field communities sustainably. The development of mine water geothermal across Scotland alone could deliver economic growth equivalent to £303 million and about 9,800 jobs.

The timing of the debate is critical, as COP26 is just around the corner and the climate crisis is already upon us. I urge Governments of all nations to put aside their differences and work together to find practical solutions, not just warm words, to address it. Let us put meat on the bones of our ambitious geothermal technologies, and help them contribute much more significantly to our low-carbon energy mix. Let us get the policies right and make geothermal a critical part of the green revolution.

14:40

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Thank you for being so kind in allowing me to speak early and leave early in order to deal with childcare, which I found out about before I came to the Chamber.

I commend the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for securing this critical debate. I want to use this opportunity to celebrate the fact that we have a united front here. Who would have thought that the Scottish nationalist party—I know they hate me calling them that—and the Conservative party could be united in the belief that geothermal is of huge potential? I do not want to have a colliery-off with the hon. Gentleman, but if we want any colliery, we have to look at Chatterley Whitfield colliery in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, which is the largest complete deep coalmine site in the whole of Europe and was the first colliery in the United Kingdom to produce 1 million tonnes of coal, not just once but twice. If you ever want to come to visit it for a heritage visit, Mr Robertson, let me know, and the Chatterley Whitfield Friends will certainly give you a tour.

Geothermal energy could be a key element of our future energy supply, but it could hold even greater importance, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier, in ex-coalmining areas, such as the one I am proud to serve in in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. Those coalfield communities are often overflowing with geothermal energy potential, and I am pleased to say that the same is true not just in Stoke-on-Trent but in the whole of north Staffordshire.

I want to focus on one site in the constituency—Chatterley Whitfield colliery. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) will be talking about geothermal potential in her constituency. Stoke-on-Trent should absolutely be a test bed when it comes to this energy sector. Chatterley Whitfield colliery is currently a sleeping giant. It used to be a powerhouse for the coal industry, and it now has the potential to be at the forefront of the UK’s green industrial revolution. Discussions with the Coal Authority have revealed that the site has exciting geothermal potential, and infrastructure already exists on the site that could help with the development of a mine energy project, which could provide heat and energy for the local area.

Attached to the complete site is not just the colliery but a 10-hectare piece of land that was formerly brownfield but has become greenfield. If we get geothermal right, I do not see any reason why we could not build 300 or 400 houses on it that would be powered from the colliery that sits next door to it, giving people of Stoke-on-Trent the opportunity, and the Government the test bed they need, to show what geothermal can do in such an area.

The mine energy project would recover heat from below ground level, and with the help of a heat pump bring it to the surface. Based on early discussions with the Coal Authority, an initial pump is expected to deliver 1 MW of thermal output—enough to power 500 homes. That would build on the district heating network that Stoke-on-Trent City Council has been working on to bring low-maintenance, affordable heating to thousands of properties and businesses through a network of underground pipes that will harness the deep geothermal energy that lies more than 3 km beneath the surface of Stoke-on-Trent.

One of the main benefits of that source of heating is that it removes the need for traditional boilers, in line with the shift away from boilers, and has no risk of carbon monoxide. Chatterley Whitfield has an important role to play in our geothermal future, and Councillors Dave Evans, Carl Edwards and James Smith of Baddeley Green, Milton and Norton, Councillor Janine Bridges of Great Chell and Packmoor, and the Chatterley Whitfield Friends have been working to draw up a plan for the future of the site. Exciting discussions are under way about the site’s future, including how to preserve Chatterley Whitfield’s industrial heritage for education and tourism. If we harness the vast energy that lies beneath that silent colossus, and the vast potential of the site above ground, we can ensure it remains at the heart of Stoke-on-Trent’s story.

The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) in Prime Minister’s questions today urging the Prime Minister to look at the idea of a long-term fixed tariff like we see in mainland Europe, which is unlocking millions of pounds of private capital. I want to support my hon. Friend in that, because ultimately if we do that, we give the protection that the private sector needs to heavily invest and unlock the potential. That means that we do not have to keep knocking on the Treasury’s door but can harness the ability of the private sector to do what it does best and find solutions to our problems.

14:44

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for securing this important debate.

As we are now only 43 days away from the COP26 conference in Glasgow, this is the perfect opportunity to showcase some of the vital work that British companies are doing to pioneer green technologies, including the use of geothermal energy. In particular, let me tell the House about the incredible work that Titan Electricity, based in my constituency of Birkenhead, is doing with the support of the University of Liverpool and the Manufacturing Technology Centre. It has developed an artificially enhanced geothermal process that uses abandoned oil infrastructure to provide deep wells, in a process called thermogenesis. The oil in abandoned wells is converted into geothermal heat. These very hot fluids are then used to power a geo-engine, which has been designed by Titan and developed with the help of Lloyd’s Register, using a UK Energy Catalyst award.

The process is net zero, with no emissions, and the by-product is large volumes of cheap and clean hydrogen. While oil reservoirs on the UK’s continental shelf are commonly considered to have little future on the road to our 2050 net zero targets, the technology could have the potential to convert those fields into a net zero energy resource for generations to come. I urge the Minister to look seriously at the role that this technology could play in delivering green energy and highly skilled jobs, and in helping to meet the Government’s pledge to achieve 5 GW of hydrogen capacity by 2030. The large quantities of hydrogen created by this process can also be used to power the dismantling of legacy oil infrastructure, with as few emissions being released as possible.

Titan’s invention, made in the north-west, has immense possibilities to create green energy and reduce carbon emissions, not just here in the UK but across the world. Domestically, its manufacture would also create thousands of skilled jobs and apprenticeships in my town of Birkenhead and in the many left-behind communities like it that the Government have promised to level up.

Today I ask the Minister whether the Government will prove they are committed to making the UK a world leader in the innovation of green technology by helping to roll out the geo-engine and get it to market. Far too often, the Government’s record on green energy has failed to live up to their rhetoric. A commitment today to support this invention would provide an example for our presidency of COP26, by showing the world that the UK’s words are matched by our actions.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.

14:47

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Robertson, to serve under your chairmanship and I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this important debate.

In relation to the technology around coalmines, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who could not be in Westminster Hall today, is very supportive of it and has been working with the Coal Authority as well to push that agenda.

I will also put on the record my thanks to the Minister for the time she has given to date to those of us who are interested in this issue. I have been very grateful for the interest that she has shown, because this really is a critical time for us to get things right in this country. We know that we have huge challenges when it comes to switching to renewable energy and, perhaps even more relevantly, switching to heating our homes in a greener way. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to getting this process right, but we will not deliver if we are not using all the tools in all the toolbox when it comes to going green, and I believe that geothermal is a vital tool in that toolbox, with huge potential in some parts of the UK to heat millions of homes and provide energy as well.

Crewe is potentially one of the best places in the country to tap geothermal heating power. Crewe is home to a geothermal basin, which could be harnessed by energy companies and used as a clean source of energy and heat, and a breakthrough locally would lead to hundreds of good new jobs and to investment. After years of reports and studies, without results, I want to achieve progress for my constituents in Crewe and Nantwich. As we have heard already, there are similar opportunities in other places, such as Devon and Cornwall, Worcestershire, large parts of the north-east, Wessex, Scotland and even Ireland as well. For the Government to deliver on their levelling-up agenda, they need to ensure that investment and jobs to support the transition are spread as far as possible around the country.

I recognise that there are potential pots of money available, focused on grants for various elements, such as the transition from oil or the transition to heating differently. However, the industry has a clear ask, which I think is a better approach. What it wants to see is a replication of the renewable heat incentive at £55 per megawatt of heat as a long-term tariff and, importantly, just for the first 30 sites, so that the Government have a clear idea about what their outlay is up front. In exchange for that, industry will take on the risk and put in the capital. If they drill and do not get what we are expecting, then they have taken the hit and not the taxpayer. That is fundamentally a more conservative approach to getting this done, rather than industry having to go cap in hand to Government to ask for money for each project or bit of kit. We unleash the capital in the private sector and let it make the decisions about where this approach will work.

Where that approach is taken in other parts of the world, it is making a difference, particularly in Europe. In February this year, Vulcan Energy raised $120 million for geothermal development in Germany, and we have seen other investments by the likes of Kerogen and BP in countries where the Government have stepped up and put in place a tariff that gives them some security of return on their investment.

If we consider two issues in the news this week, we can see the importance of the contribution from the geothermal sector. Despite a surge in renewables, at times we are still forced to pay for coal power at very high rates when weather conditions diminish what we get from solar and wind energy. Geothermal is reliable and not subject to weather conditions.

When it comes to heating our homes, the Government have had no choice but to take the route of paying for new gas boilers because, with our current spread of technologies, it is not realistic to switch to other ways to heat homes in the short term. Geothermal can allow huge progress to be made on heating homes in the short term and on projects that we could see on the ground in the next few years.

The Government might ask themselves, “Will all this happen anyway? Will the market deliver anyway?” That is a fair question, but the investments are happening right now in other parts of the world where support from Government is delivered. We are missing out on that because we are not stepping up and doing the same thing. There are already 450 plants across European countries, delivering for their economies and green agendas.

We also need to think about the economic shock from coronavirus, which was felt not just in the UK but globally. We have to ensure we are opening up as many economic opportunities as possible right now. The Government can use long-term funding and their access to finance to back investment in the longer term, while creating jobs and economic growth in the here and now, when we need them.

Other successful renewable industries in the UK started out with help from Government and got themselves on a journey to free market support. With the right approach, an entire industry can develop in this country. As we have heard, the industry is confident that, after developing 30 sites with Government support, it will be able to stand on its own two feet.

There are other opportunities that we will discover as we develop this technology. Drilling at the Eden Project has found concentrations of lithium that are higher than any other concentrations of lithium elsewhere in the world. We might expect to find that in other parts of the UK.

The industry can create 10,000 direct jobs, through £1.5 billion of investment and deliver on levelling up across the UK. I know there is a willingness from the Minister and, as the Prime Minister explained at Prime Minister’s questions today, policy support from the Government. We need to take a step back and think about what is the cleanest, simplest and quickest way to get this industry going. The ask from industry around a tariff is the best way to do that. We may be able to look at the pots of money that are already available to deliver that. On that note, I will finish and again thank the Minister for the time she has given today, and before, in supporting this industry.

14:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for setting the scene and, in doing so, giving us the chance to participate in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is clearly knowledgeable on this subject.

Across the United Kingdom, we see a growth in businesses with methodologies and ways of harnessing renewable energy. There is an exhibition at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre about Northern Ireland’s centenary and about businesses in Northern Ireland. I was about to tell the hon. Member for Midlothian about one of those businesses, which is not geothermal but it is in the renewable sector, but he was called to speak and I did not get the chance to tell him much.

The business is not just about harnessing renewable energy, but storing it. It is called the Electric Storage Company and Chris Doherty, its programme manager, told me how it can galvanise renewable energy and store it in a battery system for such times as it can be used on the grid. Again, this is innovative, thought-provoking and workable. I have to say that, in all honesty, I do not have a lot of knowledge of what the hon. Member for Midlothian has presented today, but I like to learn. Even though I might be of an age, that does not mean that I do not want to learn. I learn something every day, and today, by listening to other speakers, especially the hon. Gentleman, I have learned a wee bit. I have also done a wee bit of research about geothermal energy in order the understand how it works.

I have always had a particular interest in green energy. As everyone knows, I represent the Strangford constituency, the door to which is the Strangford lough, which the constituency is named after and which used to have a SeaGen tidal turbine. At one stage, it was said to be large enough to meet the electricity needs of one large town or perhaps a couple of large villages close by. The Electric Storage Company has told me today that it is discussing how the sea turbine in Strangford lough can be put to better use. Queen’s University Belfast, through its biology station in Portaferry, has been instrumental in that process. This is about having really good ideas, being visionary for the future and making those possibilities real. With SeaGen, we have the potential to become less reliant on overseas production and more reliant on what God has given us—a reliable, twice-daily tide and strong undersea currents. The Electric Storage Company says that it is about harnessing nature’s energy, and that is also true of the project referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Although we cannot write a blank cheque to fund research into renewable energy, we must still invest in producing energy that does not harm this beautiful country. Geothermal energy is one such approach and it has massive potential to reduce the impact on the countryside that we love. I am not as knowledgeable on the subject as the hon. Gentleman, but I am intrigued enough to want to know more and understand how it can be used to help the environment.

In the deep subsurface of the Earth, ground temperatures are no longer affected by the sun but result from heat that is generated from the Earth’s interior. That reminds me of the film, “Journey to the Centre of the Earth”, which Members are probably familiar with. I am of a vintage that can remember when it first came out many years ago. That was science fiction, but today we are looking at things that are possible, and I believe that this is one such thing.

Ground temperatures increase with depth—around 2.7°C per 100 metre depths in the UK. The feasibility of extracting this heat depends on several factors, including the availability of feasible geology, whether the target temperature can be reached at economically drillable depths, and whether the geothermal source is located near areas of heating demand, such as cities. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who has just left the Chamber, referred to coalmining, as did the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and others. The main party spokespersons will probably refer to it, too.

Extracting heat requires the drilling of deep boreholes of 1 km to 3 km for use in heating, and of up to 5 km for electricity generation. Deep geothermal plants can provide heat directly to high-temperature district heating networks without the need for a heat pump. Individual plants can provide heat for thousands to tens of thousands of households. Let us not underestimate the impact and possibilities of this particular energy resource. Although this seems to be the stuff of science fiction films, there are Members in this Chamber, including the Minister, who are blessed with the ability to make the resources meet people’s needs. We must give them the opportunity to do so.

The hon. Member for Midlothian referred to people in his area, which I will refer to towards the end of my speech. I told him earlier—and I meant it—that I am always impressed by the ingenuity across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Scotland has on many occasions given us food for thought on what we can use elsewhere. That is what I see in this project; it is a way forward.

The Library briefing, which is always helpful, has produced some interesting statistics on geothermal energy. In 2017, a study estimated that the UK had enough resource theoretically available to easily surpass all its energy demand in 2015. Wow—that is a big statement to make, but even if that is halfway true, it is something we cannot ignore. It has potential and possibility, and we need to chase it up.

The amount technically available was much smaller than the theoretical resource, of course, and recovery would depend on depths drilled and areas targeted, but there is potential, and we need more investigation of this matter to better gauge what we can get out of it and how we harness that.

Similarly, in 2018,

“a study estimated that the available heat from deep geothermal resources (sedimentary basins, ancient warm granites) and flooded mines”,

which some hon. Members have referred to, could be,

“equivalent to approximately 100 years heat supply for the entire UK.”

We have only ever had two mines that I am aware of in Northern Ireland, one a coal mine and one a salt mine, so our potential here may not be great, but there is potential and it cannot be ignored.

I have been excited by the plans to build a large-scale renewable energy park in Aberdeenshire, which the hon. Member for Midlothian referred to and which I know the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), will mention as well—designed to deliver up to 200 MW of environmentally friendly power to the Scottish grid. I am anxious to see the results of that, but I am concerned, and I am happy to put this on record—I hope the hon. Member for Midlothian does not mind my saying so—that the funding for it is coming from Chinese investment.

I will not say I am against the idea of Chinese investment, but I suspect that everything China does has an ulterior motive. When it comes to this particular project, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman, who is also a friend and whom I support in many of his debates in this House, I believe we should be beholden to no one, especially not the Chinese. I was pleased today to see that we in this House have told the Chinese ambassador that if our MPs and peers cannot go to China, he cannot eat his sweet and sour pork in this House either. I am particularly pleased about that—maybe that is facetious, or maybe I digress, but it makes my point.

We must be able to resource these projects with British funding. I have seen plans for new energy formats coming to Northern Ireland, and there is a real fear of the unknown. The Government must lead the way in looking into this new way of doing things, so I look to the SNP spokesperson, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—and ultimately I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I believe we have the potential to supply our own energy, relying on external influences, and we must invest in ourselves, in our potential and in every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together, we can work forward together and do well together.

15:03

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this timely debate on the UK’s opportunity for geothermal energy extraction.

This topic is really important to me as the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central. We are a pioneer city, at the forefront of exploring the geothermal option. I am delighted that this debate places a spotlight on geothermal, which is more environmentally friendly than conventional fuel sources, provides a more reliable clean energy source than other renewable options and offers an operational lifespan of more than 100 years. In addition, geothermal supports the transferability of skills and jobs from the oil and gas sector and provides development opportunities in regions such as the midlands, bringing new jobs and investment to areas that do not currently benefit from renewables such as wind power.

Crucially, the technology supports our transition to net zero. As we look to reduce our carbon footprint through a circular economy based on the principles of reducing, reusing and recycling, it is fitting that Stoke-on-Trent is at the forefront of this movement. The Potteries, home of pots and pits, retains a huge underground maze of former mine tunnels. The coal from those mines fired the kilns and the steelworks, and blackened the skies across the city at the height of its heavy industrial past. We are now powering our city up again, but this time as part of a new green industrial revolution, reducing pollution by investing in improved public transport, growing our nature recovery network, reusing the infrastructure of a former polluting industry to deliver new, clean energy, and recycling the hot water within the mine tunnels through our district heat networks.

Several factors make Stoke-on-Trent an ideal location for the development of this technology. First, the area has ideal geological conditions. Its geothermal gradient, which shows how much the temperature increases as we dig deeper, is greater than expected due to an ancient volcano deep beneath the surface providing untapped potential. We are leading the way with the Stoke-on-Trent district heat network. I thank the Government for providing £20 million for this pilot project. The district heat network features 18 km of piping and has led to affordable and clean energy for a community in the city and the first dedicated skills academy.

The project led by GT Energy to develop a deep geothermal heat plant in Etruria Valley in the city already has planning permission. The development would be the first of its type in the UK and would comprise the initial drilling of two deep exploration boreholes to a depth of approximately 4,000 metres. I believe it will be the first in the world to feed into a district heat network. The proposed development has the potential to bring a host of benefits to the local area, including creating green economy skills and jobs, reducing carbon emissions by 11,000 tonnes per year and generating heat equal to the energy needs of around 4,000 homes.

The exciting project is shovel ready and could be weeks away from starting with the proper Government support. I am grateful to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for enabling Stoke-on-Trent City Council to create a procurement framework to engage with local suppliers of district heat networks. This provides the council with a crucial link to local companies that can complete the required work and enables best practice to be shared more widely as the market grows.

Fundamental to the development of the geothermal market is, as we have heard repeatedly, early Government support. Government support for this early stage technology will unlock private investment, support the industry’s development and reduce cost to consumers over time. Early Government support has been shown to work in other countries in developing geothermal markets by providing confidence to geothermal developers and their investors. With increasing project delivery, market confidence grows and projects become more cost effective and sustainable, requiring less Government intervention as the market matures.

We have heard that this has been the case in other countries such as France, which now has a more mature geothermal market that is cost effective without the need for ongoing Government support. I welcome the Government’s support for the sector through initiatives such as the heat investment network project. Can the Minister confirm that geothermal energy, as a low-carbon technology, will be within the scope of the new £270 million green heat network fund running from 2022 to 2025?

As we approach COP26 and call on our global partners to step up their commitments towards achieving net zero, it is right that we should consider how we can harness the UK’s potential. Does the Minister agree that shovel-ready projects, such as the geothermal project in Stoke-on-Trent, are vital in developing this key energy source ahead of other countries, further demonstrating our commitment to carbon reduction?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

We come now to the Front-Bench speeches.

15:08

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I thank my friend and colleague the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for bringing forward this debate. As he said, it is not a new idea, but it is certainly a good one. As part of the mix of renewable energies, it must have its place. In every single speech I have heard the word “potential”, but we need to take it further. We need a road map, commitment and investment. From Lothian to Birkenhead, to Strangford, to Stoke-on-Trent—North and Central—and to Crewe and Nantwich, there is a hunger to see this succeed.

The scars that our landscape left behind after the decimation of the coal mining industry could finally pay a legacy, which would be a fitting tribute to generations of proud coal miners. As we transition from oil and gas, we must not let those skills be lost to foreign investment or simply discarded.

Today I am wearing my James Watt tie. He was a fellow Grenockian who has sometimes been wrongly credited with inventing the steam engine. What Watt did was look at ineffective technology and refine it—in his case, with the steam condenser. Hey presto! We had steam engines that were powerful, safe and practical. The industrial revolution was born. Bearing in mind the damage that that might have caused the planet, we may want to debate on another day whether that has been a good thing, but today I see those comparisons. The viability of geothermal heat has increased with every report that has been produced by the House of Commons Library since 2012. Technology that seemed to be just too expensive to be practical has become viable. Rather than add to the pollution, geothermal harnesses the Earth’s natural energy.

We have heard about a number of potential sources, but primarily it has been mine water. I want to add unused railway tunnels to the list, and not just because I have miles of them within my constituency of Inverclyde. Whenever a new technology comes along, there will inevitably be a cost associated with developing it, but I would venture that when it comes to clean, green renewable energy, we should factor into that the material cost to our planet if we do not develop clean, green renewable energy. We will get to a tipping point, when no amount of money, research or ingenuity will save our planet from overheating. That is the true cost of not investing in renewables now, and it is a cost that nobody wants to pay. In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the UK Government do not bury their heads in their sand, when we could be burying deep thermal bores into the ground instead.

15:12

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to reply to this afternoon’s debate on behalf of the Opposition.

I am in a particular position as far as geothermal energy is concerned. I am not standing up to say what a good idea geothermal energy would be for the future, if it were to be introduced, but to say what a good idea geothermal energy has been already. It has been introduced, and it has been running in my constituency since 1986. Indeed, in a former life, I was substantially responsible for getting the scheme into place in Southampton, with a little help from the then Department of Energy, which had drilled a test hole in Southampton to see how the water came up. The responsibility for capturing the water coming up, converting it to steam and putting it into a district heating scheme lay entirely with Southampton City Council, of which I was leader at the time. The results of that can be plainly seen by all. The water comes up at 74° Celsius and is therefore easily convertible into very high-grade heat and a substantial electricity production facility. Indeed, it produces something like 40 GWh of heat, and about 12 GWh of electricity, per year in and around Southampton—a heat network of about 18 km.

I am hardly likely to stand here this afternoon and say anything negative about geothermal energy. I congratulate every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate on their focused commitment to that form of energy and on their understanding of the processes, which leads them to bring that focused commitment. That is a testament to the support that there is across the House for getting that form of energy seriously on the map. Having mentioned my background in Southampton, I regret to say that the one in Southampton remains the only geothermal energy plant operating in the UK, from 1986 to this day.

I am very encouraged by the United Downs development, which is drilling at the moment, and the activity that is starting in Stoke-on-Trent, which is really encouraging for geothermal for the future. I am also encouraged by the developments mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley)—the use of deep mine water and repurposed existing boreholes for geothermal purposes. All of those are encouraging developments.

The deep mine hot water that is available is essentially geothermal water that occurs in parts of the country where the heat of water is considerable, as it is in Southampton. That is what is coming into the bottom of those mines. It is a lucky accident of history that the mines were dug where that water is hottest. That is a tremendous resource that is beginning to be harnessed as water for steam and electricity production.

Geothermal is not a resource available uniformly across the country. We need to be clear about that, so that we do not get any Members from East Anglia advocating deep geothermal, because that would be a quixotic pursuit.

[Dr Mullan]

I appreciate that there are the obvious sites that we know about; but I know from my discussions with people in the industry that they feel that the areas mapped and identified so far are an underestimate. There may be places where we think we cannot reach but where, as the technology develops, it will be possible to unlock sources.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is right. According to what has already been mapped and known about via the British Geological Survey and other agencies, it so happens that every Member present this afternoon has a constituency right on top of an area of sedimentary laid-down rock associated with aquifers, all of which are ideal for deep geothermal exploitation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not actually on a sedimentary rock formation but is next door to one. His efforts could be directed at persuading his neighbouring Members of Parliament to get going on geothermal projects just down the road from his constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

Although I might not be able to claim specifically for Strangford, I can say that all of Northern Ireland should take advantage of where those opportunities are. This debate is about how we can all do it better together. If we can do that, we can all gain an advantage.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. The other point I would make about availability is that we are not just talking about sedimentary rocks. As we know from Cornwall, we are talking about hot rocks, granite batholith formations, which can extract heat just as effectively for geothermal energy. That is the geology lesson over and done with.

As hon. Members have mentioned, we have this tremendous resource in front of us in the UK. In a recent report, the Renewable Energy Association estimated that if we delivered, say, 12 heat projects per year over the next 30 years, the UK could expect to generate up to 50,000 GWh of heat annually by 2050 and about 400 GWe—a huge contribution, in particular to net zero energy extraction and use. As hon. Members have said, geothermal is about the cleanest energy configuration that we can think of. It is infinitely renewable and completely reliable, as it just carries on producing the heat and electricity for ever and a day once it is in place.

We have a tremendous resource, but we have heard about the frankly isolated projects going on in this country. As far as the development of geothermal is concerned, they continue to be isolated. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) mentioned just how many projects are already under way in the rest of Europe—hundreds of projects in Germany, dozens of projects in France, a lot of projects in Italy. They are way ahead of us in exploiting this resource.

That is my particular concern. Over a number of years, we have dragged our feet on getting going on geothermal. I am sorry to say that the last incentive in Government support for geothermal energy development expired in March 2021, with the ending of the renewable heat incentive commercial and industrial element assistance. As far as I know, although the Minister might helpfully be able to disabuse me of what I am about to say, nothing else is planned for the immediate future. The Energy White Paper certainly made no mention of geothermal energy, other than an inset about some mine water extraction about halfway through. That is a terrible omission given the depth of the resource that we know we have, the relative ease of exploitation and the tremendous benefits that would come from such exploitation.

I want to say to the Minister—I hope and trust that she will still be the Minister at the end of this afternoon’s proceedings although, more likely, she will still be a Minister, but in a much more elevated position—assuming that I am still talking to her tomorrow, that when she goes back to the Department and looks at the progress of the heat and buildings strategy, which I think is still being discussed and not quite out yet, but almost ready to go, she should jump up and down, and thump on the table, and insist that the strategy contains a serious planning mention of the role that geothermal energy can play in the process over the next period. As we have heard this afternoon, it could play a tremendous role. It would be simply unthinkable if, over the next few years, we were not to exploit that resource to the best of our ability, because we need to—for net zero purposes, for clean energy purposes, and for local energy that does the business for local communities from what is absolutely under their feet as they go about their business.

I am sure that the Minister will be able to respond to me positively, to say that that is what she will do pretty immediately, at the end of our proceedings this afternoon; because the Opposition, at least, are wholly committed to the idea that geothermal should take its rightful place in the UK’s energy economy. I hope that the Minister not only shares that commitment, but is willing and able to make that commitment a reality within the next few years.

15:25

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this very important debate. It is so important that we focus on making the best use of all our renewable resources in the enormous challenge of achieving net zero by 2050. That is our contribution to the global challenge of reducing the climate change shocks that are affecting not only the most vulnerable countries around the world, but all of us in our own communities.

The Government are committed to decarbonising our energy system, while supporting our economic recovery from covid-19, with investment in existing, emerging and new low-carbon technologies and the creation of new green jobs. We have made significant progress on decarbonising electricity, and we continue to take action to decarbonise our transportation need. However, as highlighted by the Climate Change Committee, decarbonising our heat requirements is a significant challenge ahead of us.

With that in mind, we are supporting the development of low-carbon heat networks and looking at the best ways to harness low-carbon heat through developing capacity and capabilities in new sources, one of which could be geothermal energy—although, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said, geothermal energy is not new and is already proving its worth in Southampton. That said, the UK has limited access at the moment to the large naturally occurring geothermal resources that other countries, like Iceland, have tapped into much more intensively in order to decarbonise. There are challenges to overcome to exploit our geothermal energy to the degree that some other countries have.

Opportunities in the UK are perhaps more local and regional in nature. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, as ever, for the science lesson. I enjoyed the geology lesson. That is new in our repartee over the last few months, so I thank him for that. It is a really important point: there are very clear regional and geological areas in which geothermal could be considered as one of a range of technologies that we might deploy to meet our climate change targets. A number of hon. Members have, of course, set out how that might be achieved in their own areas.

The Government support the development of geothermal projects, provided that it can be done at an acceptable cost and, of course, in an environmentally appropriate manner. It is always very helpful for me to understand where the best opportunities are to realise that potential and what creative things the industry might be doing to tackle the barriers and be innovative in the right environment.

One of the main barriers to deploying deep geothermal, of course, is the high capital cost needed to drill safely. There are also uncertainties around costs and revenues because of the inherent geological risk. As a result, many of the UK’s geothermal projects have so far had difficulty securing competitive financing, because investors lack experience of UK geothermal energy. The projects are therefore often seen as high risk compared to other technologies that are more established in the UK. This is a similar challenge to that seen with other technologies, such as solar energy or offshore wind, in their earlier years, so perhaps that should give succour and comfort to those championing this area of potential development.

My officials in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are engaging very closely with industry leaders to assess what options there are for reducing deep drilling and development costs and the methods of reducing and allocating risks so as to make best use of this energy source. Based on our experience of supporting local authorities to develop heat networks, through our heat network delivery unit, and on advice from the British Geological Survey and the Coal Authority, there is clear evidence that geothermal has really good potential as a renewable heat source for heat networks in many parts of the country.

Geothermal heating schemes are, however, all different. As we have heard this afternoon, they extract heat from rocks or water at different depths and hence different temperatures. This is not an entirely straightforward industry. It is not a uniform system; it is not a wind turbine or a solar panel. There are two broad approaches: deep geothermal schemes, where water is sent down to be heated by hot layers of rock before being extracted at high enough temperatures for use in district heating systems directly; and shallow geothermal, where the temperature of the water extracted needs to be boosted by a heat pump before it can be used for heating. Given the different nature of the technologies, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to bringing this technology forward, which is why my officials are working closely with industry partners.

The Government must balance their support for renewable heat sources with the reality that not all of these schemes will be economically viable with the technology available at the moment, given that the quantity and temperature of the extracted water can vary considerably from scheme to scheme, and there may be alternative renewable heat sources that are better suited to a specific community’s needs. Having said that, I recognise the potential role in supporting our heat decarbonisation objectives, and that is why geothermal heat projects are eligible for the Government’s heat network support.

The heat networks investment project has already supported two shallow geothermal projects in Gateshead and County Durham, with a total of £9.7 million of funding. These schemes will use geothermal heat from mine water to heat homes and non-domestic buildings. Geothermal power projects are also eligible to apply under the newly launched auction round four of our contracts for difference scheme for generation, which will open in December this year.

The Government have also invested £31 million in UK Geoenergy Observatories, which will provide a world-class infrastructure for a wide range of geoenergy-related research. Publicly run, owned and funded, each observatory will contribute to world-class science that puts the UK at the forefront of delivering clean energy at the scale required to help us achieve the net zero target that we have set ourselves by 2050.

I thank all Members who have spoken today and who continue to bring their enthusiasm and passion to the debate. Stoke-on-Trent is extremely well represented by amazing advocates in my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon)—the latter is a fantastic saleswoman who sees Stoke as the potential centre for the new geothermal revolution that is coming. We were hard-pressed not to know her passion, and I thank her for that.

I also want to thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is always a pleasure to hear him in a debate. It was lovely to discover him in an arena where he is not as knowledgeable as many others in the room, but his longevity in the House usually gives him an advantage. I hope that he goes away with the challenge set by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to see how he too can take up and champion geothermal across Northern Ireland and bring the opportunities there as we look to invest in them.

In answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, geothermal heat projects are expected to be in scope for the £270 million green heat network fund that will open in April next year. I hope that that helps those who are looking to bid in that space to get going now.

The debate has been really helpful. I find potential solutions exciting, and my officials are working hard to see how we can progress. It is always incredibly helpful to hear from colleagues. The enthusiasm of colleagues this afternoon in making a strong and passionate case for the future progress of the technology is inspiring. I look forward to working with them all in the weeks and months to come.

15:32

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

We have seen from this afternoon’s contributions from a range of constituencies across the different nations of the UK that there is a genuine appetite to see the technology developed and to take advantage of the fact that this natural resource is sitting there in different ways in different constituencies. I thank the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), for their contributions. There is a genuine appetite for this and a real opportunity to benefit all our communities. Perhaps it is the “Journey to the Centre of the Earth” that the hon. Member for Strangford outlined.

It is encouraging to hear the actions that the Government are taking, although I did not hear about a specific strategy for geothermal, which is what I hoped for. Perhaps that will come and we can have yet another debate as more projects develop. The point was made several times about the impact on communities at the time of the pit closures and how they were hit hardest. They are the ones at the centre of the mine water projects who could have such a boost and a benefit from getting some of these projects up and running. We do not need to allow environmental damage from mine water pouring out into communities when we could actually be using it to heat new homes, schools and heat hospitals. Not just business benefits come from that, but a real community and public sector benefit.

Certainly, I would like to see a lot of ambition from Midlothian Council in trying to take advantage of the significant resource it sits on top of and to move forward with projects. It could be a real pioneer in taking the technology forward. Beyond that, I am sure we will all come back to this in the days, weeks, months and years ahead. It will be very interesting to see how the technology could be developed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered opportunities for geothermal energy extraction.

15:35

Sitting suspended.

Merthyr Tydfil: City Status

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

May I remind hon. Members to wear masks when not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission, and to give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering the room?

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Merthyr Tydfil city status.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I have agreed to take interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones).

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Could you confirm that the Minister has agreed to that?

[Gerald Jones]

Yes, and they will be brief.

As part of the Queen’s platinum jubilee celebrations, towns across the UK will have the opportunity to apply for city status. It is my contention that none has contributed as much to the modern world as Merthyr Tydfil. When people ask me, “Why should Merthyr Tydfil be made a city?”, my answer to them is, “Why on earth not?” Why should Merthyr Tydfil be less deserving than Preston, Newport, Stirling, Lisburn or Newry? What secret formula do they and other cities have that Merthyr Tydfil lacks? The answer, of course, is that Merthyr Tydfil is as industrious, as ambitious and—I might be biased—even more beautiful. It is thoroughly deserving of city status.

This bid, this collective endeavour, for city status is as much about reminding us, as representatives and residents, why Merthyr Tydfil is as worthy of becoming a city as any other town in the UK. I am pleased that the campaign has already won the support of our Member of the Senedd, Dawn Bowden, the lord lieutenant for Mid Glamorgan, Peter Vaughan, the high sheriff of Mid Glamorgan, Jeff Edwards, and Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, along with residents, businesses and well-wishers from beyond Merthyr Tydfil’s borders. I am pleased, too, that the mayor of Merthyr Tydfil, Councillor Malcolm Colbran, has made the journey to be with us here today.

Merthyr Tydfil was the cradle of the industrial revolution. It went from a small farming village in the mid-1700s to the largest town in Wales by 1851 as a result of the rapid expansion of the ironworks. By the 1820s, Merthyr Tydfil was the source of 40% of Britain’s iron exports, and it became the largest iron-producing town in the world. Iron forged in Merthyr Tydfil supplied the Royal Navy and helped to shape the modern world. Iron from Merthyr Tydfil helped not only to power the industrial revolution, but to build the railroads of the American frontiers. Coal from Merthyr Tydfil was shipped all over the globe and helped to create cities such as Cardiff. On 21 February 1804, the world’s first ever steam railway journey ran for 9 miles from the ironworks at Penydarren to the Merthyr-Cardiff canal in south Wales.

I am personally proud that the first ever Labour MP and first leader of the Labour party, James Keir Hardie, represented Merthyr Tydfil in this House. The year 1831 saw the Merthyr rising. During that week-long revolt, people marched under the red flag, using it for the first time as a symbol of working people. The red flag was later adopted internationally as the symbol of the working class. More recently, Merthyr Tydfil and particularly the village of Aberfan have developed a very deep and personal connection with Her Majesty the Queen, along with other members of the royal family.

But history alone does not a city make, no matter how world-changing that history is. Merthyr Tydfil has seen considerable change, certainly over the past 20 years. Investment in the area has brought a brand-new college offering university courses to the town; a new hub of civil service jobs at the Welsh Government offices; and improved transport links, including the 21st-century bus interchange that recently opened, thanks to £10 million of Welsh Government investment.

Merthyr Tydfil has always been the “capital of the valleys”, with people travelling from far and wide to visit for retail and leisure. Our proximity to the world-famous Brecon Beacons national park and attractions such as BikePark Wales and Rock UK’s climbing centre have seen tourist numbers increase dramatically.

The town also has a thriving cultural offering. Local pubs are well known for their live music, with the New Crown recently awarded as the “best live music entertainment restaurant” at the Welsh Enterprise Awards. Merthyr Tydfil has two theatres providing a mix of English and Welsh-language productions and events, in partnership with students and staff at the College Merthyr Tydfil. The annual Merthyr Rising festival provides a mix of culture, music, arts and political discussion, and it has grown year on year.

The town’s links to Roman Britain are remembered with events such as the Tydfilians Roman Run, which started in 1980 to commemorate the martyrdom of Tydfil, the saint from which the town derives its name, 1,600 years ago. The race follows the route between the forts of the Roman legions stationed in Wales from Brecon to Merthyr Tydfil, across the Brecon Beacons. The council’s ambitious Cyfarthfa plan is a 20-year vision made up of 70 short-term and long-term projects. The plan will also turn the former home of the Crawshay ironmasters—the famous Cyfarthfa castle—into an international museum, with hopes of doubling the size of the surrounding ground as well as conducting urgent repairs to both the furnaces and the castle.

Sadly, not everyone is as passionate and optimistic about Merthyr Tydfil’s future as I am. The proposal to make Merthyr Tydfil a city has drawn the predictable snark and cynicism from social media that we have come to expect. Online commentary has focused on Merthyr Tydfil’s lack of a cathedral. Sadly, this is true, but having a cathedral has not been a requirement for city status since 1889. The social media brigade, largely from outside Merthyr Tydfil, has also deemed the town too small to become a city, despite the fact that 12 cities in the UK have a lower population than Merthyr Tydfil.

Thankfully, I have received a great many positive comments from residents and businesses who are optimistic about the opportunity that city status presents for Merthyr Tydfil. I believe that city status would build on the progress that we have already made and allow us to realise myriad advantages for the town. There are the obvious economic advantages of city status, which would help the local authority to attract inward investments, promote wider interest in the town from across Wales and other parts of the UK, and encourage greater tourism to our remarkable scenery.

Merthyr Tydfil is not just the metaphorical heart of the valleys; it is the geographical centre, too. Merthyr Tydfil is literally at the crossroads of the A470 and the A465, with links to Cardiff to the south, to mid and north Wales, and to the midlands, Swansea and west Wales.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I know my hon. Friend will agree that Merthyr Tydfil has been at the very heart of Wales’s political, industrial and social history. It has quite simply shaped the world that we live in. I am privileged to have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency many times, and I consider him to be a very dear friend. I know that his campaign to add Merthyr Tydfil to the growing list of Welsh cities should be successful. As he has already said, Merthyr Tydfil is a city of the valleys. My home town of Swansea was bestowed city status, and I sincerely hope that Merthyr Tydfil gets the opportunity to achieve the same.

[Gerald Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and for her support. Indeed, Merthyr Tydfil is well placed to be a city of the valleys, attracting businesses and jobs.

By supporting the bid, the local authority and residents are showing their pride in Merthyr Tydfil and our collective ambitions for the future. I believe that Merthyr Tydfil’s bid for city status speaks for itself. We are a town that has shaped the world for generations. If the bid is successful, Merthyr Tydfil will take its place among the great cities of our country and face its future with pride and determination.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about a very important subject. As a member of a town that became a city in 2002 during the Queen’s golden jubilee, I am really pleased to be able to stand here and support him today. My predecessor—the late, great Paul Flynn—made a powerful speech that I am sure contributed to Newport becoming a city, so I am sure my hon. Friend’s speech today will help engage everybody in the importance of Merthyr becoming a city.

[Gerald Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for her support. Hopefully, Merthyr Tydfil will have the same success in its bid for city status that Newport had in 2002. Pride and determination have been shown in Merthyr Tydfil over the centuries; I am sure this bid will harness that, and bring people together to support the town in its efforts.

In conclusion, Merthyr Tydfil has a rich and proud history, as I hope I have outlined. We also have a bright and exciting future. I hope today’s debate will go a little way to help in raising awareness of the future that I know Merthyr Tydfil can—and will—achieve.

16:10

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on securing this debate, and on making a beautiful and compelling speech about a place he clearly feels a very deep connection with and passion for. I also thank him for his work to promote the idea of a city for the valleys. He is a great champion for his constituency, and I know that communities in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney have long been supporters of royal events and occasions.

I am very pleased to hear that Merthyr Tydfil is considering putting in an application for the honour of city status. I know that the hon. Member launched the campaign earlier this month and that it has widespread support in his community—a key criterion in the competition. The Government look forward to receiving applications, not just from Merthyr but from all parts of the UK. I am delighted to say that, for the first time, the city status competition will also be open to applications from the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

I found Merthyr Tydfil’s motto, often translated from Welsh as “Not Force but Fellowship”, a fitting description of the spirit of this competition. Yes, towns and cities will be competing for prestigious honours in this competition, but there is also an important opportunity for towns such as Merthyr to showcase their history, and for communities to rally their sense of civic pride—so ably described by the hon. Member in his compelling speech. It is a town that just keeps giving. Merthyr Tydfil’s achievements are not confined to forging the iron and digging the coal that powered the industrial revolution, or its role in the age of steam. They continue to this day, whether that is in the college that he talked about, or the town’s role in the Welsh tourism and cultural scene. Indeed, in this age of celebrity, Merthyr Tydfil’s achievements include the production of reality stars such as Liam Reardon, who, I understand, won this year’s “Love Island.” I wonder whether the hon. Member would consider as part of his application a twinning bid with my constituency borough of Havering, because Millie Court, the other winner of “Love Island”, is from there.

I will speak a little more broadly about the civic honours competition, and some of the Government’s other plans for next year’s very special platinum jubilee. However, let me begin by saying something about the history of city status. As the hon. Member is aware, it is a rare distinction. It is one of the civic honours granted by Her Majesty the Queen, under the royal prerogative, on the advice of her Ministers. Although the honour does not come with any additional funding, functions or powers, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) described, its rarity and prestige makes it something that continues to be much sought offer when the opportunity arises.

There are 69 cities in the UK: 51 in England, seven in Scotland, six in Wales and five in Northern Ireland. The process of how a town can become a city has evolved considerably over time, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney recognised when he talked about cathedrals. Historically, city status was directly linked to the presence of a cathedral, stemming from the reign of King Henry VIII who, following the Reformation, re-founded former monastic cathedrals as bishoprics, giving many of them city status. This led to the precedent of the right of the monarch to grant such a status. As the hon. Member has noted, the presence of a cathedral is no longer a requirement, nor is there a population threshold below which an application cannot succeed. I hope he can provide those facts to the detractors on social media.

By the middle of the 19th century it was established that awards of city status should be made by letters patent; these were issued with the consent of the monarch, on the advice of the Home Secretary. A further convention developed in the 20th century, whereby the award of city status and other civic honours was open to competition. Indeed, since the 1970s there have been five such competitions, with the platinum jubilee competition marking the sixth. With the exception of the competition held to mark the millennium, all competitions were held to mark the anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen’s accession to the throne. I am delighted that next year we have another opportunity to celebrate.

Let me turn to the civic honours competition that was launched by the Government earlier this year, in celebration of Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee. We have already heard about the opportunity to be awarded city status, but the competition is also open for local authorities to apply for a grant of the civic honours of a lord mayoralty or a lord provostship. The competition, which closes on 8 December 2021, provides local authorities with a once-in-a-decade opportunity to enter and make the case for why their area deserves to be granted one of these rare honours. I hope that this debate is just the start of the speeches that will come from hon. Members who grasp the opportunity presented for their town. As part of the applications process, the Government are asking to hear about a number of factors, including what gives a place a distinct identity—I think that the hon. Member can tick that box—details about its record of innovation, its civic pride and cultural infrastructure, and any associations with royalty. The full details are set out in the entry guidelines, along with the application form, on gov.uk.

This is a fantastic opportunity for local authorities to showcase and celebrate their area’s culture, heritage and identity, and I entirely understand the hon. Member’s endeavour to secure city status for Merthyr Tydfil. As well as the town and the broader area’s association with royalty over the years, which he set out so clearly in his speech, I know that Merthyr has a lot to celebrate in terms of its record of innovation, as the cradle of the industrial revolution. I pay tribute to its mayor for coming today, because that signals the commitment of the area to that history and to Merthyr’s future as an exciting place in the UK.

As the hon. Member noted so proudly in his maiden speech in Parliament, Merthyr Tydfil was home to the largest ironworks in the world in the mid-19th century and at one point was the source of 40% of Britain’s iron exports. I know that there is a lot more to say about the town, which he has fittingly described today, and I wish him and his town the very best of luck with their application.

I will conclude by saying a little about some of the wider plans that we have for the platinum jubilee, because I know that communities across the UK are already thinking about it and are very excited about the chance to honour our monarch. As everybody will be aware, Her Majesty the Queen will become the first British monarch to celebrate a platinum jubilee; it is something that I think we should all mark. I understand that work is also under way to mark the occasion in Parliament itself.

Earlier in the summer, the royal household announced its exciting programme for next year’s extended bank holiday to mark Her Majesty’s jubilee. The plans mix ceremonial splendour and pageantry with cutting-edge artistic displays, and include the traditional nationwide fanfare and celebrations. The plans for the weekend include a chance on the Sunday for communities across the UK to come together with street parties or the Big Jubilee Lunch.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is co-ordinating the production of a platinum jubilee medal, which will be given to frontline public servants in the armed forces, the emergency services and the Prison Service. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is leading the Queen’s green canopy project, which is a unique tree-planting initiative, so that people from across the UK can plant a tree for the jubilee and play their part in creating a lasting legacy, in addition to the very exciting civic honours competition. That is just a flavour of the plans for the platinum jubilee, but more announcements will be made in the coming months as momentum grows.

I will finish by thanking the hon. Member again for securing the debate and other hon. Members for their contributions to it. As I say, I hope that this is the first of many speeches from hon. Members who grasp the opportunity that the competition provides for their local area. The Government look forward to receiving applications not just from Merthyr but from other eligible places and to announcing the winners, hopefully early next year.

Question put and agreed to.

16:18

Sitting suspended.

Levelling-up Agenda

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

16:45

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission, and to give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s Levelling-up agenda.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to see Members and the Minister here today. I would completely understand it if the Minister wants to keep her phone on. I am sure we all wish her well with the reshuffle. We will see what the next hour or so brings.

I declare an interest: I am a metro Mayor. I have always supported the Prime Minister’s intention to level up the country, but it is outrageous that the UK has the worst regional inequality of any comparable developed nation. The gap is stark, from life expectancy to income, from unemployment to education, from productivity to health, and covid is making it worse. That is not a small thing. It is an injustice—a stain on our country—and tackling it should be a matter of raging and persistent urgency, not some optional extra in the national political agenda. I continue to want to work with the Government to do that, but as the Minister knows well, it is not words that count but action.

To be fair, it is not that the Government have done nothing. I acknowledge the help that we have had through the transforming cities fund and the getting building fund, among others. There have been some welcome policy shifts too, such as devolving adult education, reforming the Green Book and creating the UK Infrastructure Bank, but tackling deep-rooted inequality requires a special sort of intervention. It demands scope, endurance, resources, a national strategy and local leadership.

So far, the Government have fallen well short. First, transformative ambition needs transformative resources. Instead, we have old money relabelled as new and distributed with more concern for politics than progress. The flagship levelling-up fund, worth £1.3 billion a year on average, replaces a local growth fund that was worth 14% more, and half its budget this year is taken from the towns fund. Even worse, the levelling-up fund puts the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency, ranked 251 out of 317 in England’s deprivation index, in a higher category of need than my constituency of Barnsley, which is ranked 38. That is no one-off. A third of English areas due to get funds are not in the top third of the most deprived regions.

Likewise, the shared prosperity fund is supposed to match the historical EU support that it is designed to replace, but EU funds were due to increase sharply this year, so many areas, including my own, will miss out. I ask the Minister: will the Government compensate us for that? Almost a third of the English areas selected to receive money under the SPF’s precursor programme, the community renewal fund, are not among the most deprived local areas. Almost all of them are entirely represented by Conservative MPs. Meanwhile, of the 45 places receiving a share of the towns fund spending, 39 are represented by Conservative MPs. The Public Accounts Committee found that the fund’s earlier selection process was not impartial.

We are starting to see a pattern develop, and it gets worse when we consider that these politicised, fragmented and inadequate funds also come against a major backdrop of cuts elsewhere. As we saw in the Chamber this afternoon, the Government are intent on ending the £20 uplift in universal credit, cutting income for 5.5 million families by more than £1,000 a year and taking billions out of the economies of more deprived areas. That of course follows the £15 billion of cuts to local government in the past decade, which has fallen hardest on the poorest areas.

The Government trumpet their spending through the national infrastructure strategy, but it is unclear how much will go to deprived areas and when it will arrive. What we do know is that the Government are wobbling in their commitment to two of the biggest projects in the north: HS2’s eastern leg and Northern Powerhouse Rail. For them to be postponed or scaled back would make any claim of concern for levelling up utterly risible. I ask the Minister to assure us today of the Government’s commitment to those two huge projects.

When the debate concludes, I will hit “send” on South Yorkshire’s bid for £660 million of city region sustainable transport settlement funding. If the Government want to end the long-standing bias in transport investment towards more affluent areas, I hope that they will back that bid in full, and those of other relatively deprived areas such as mine.

It is not just how much money and where it goes that matters; it is how it is spent. It is alarming that the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy described levelling-up policy and funding as

“lacking in any overall coherent strategic purpose”

with little clarity about who is responsible, how progress will be measured or, indeed, what the objectives are.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this forward. The Government’s policy of levelling up is to benefit all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, we do not see that coming our way in Northern Ireland. We believe that, if it is a levelling-up agenda, we should benefit as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be projects across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to benefit us all, whether they are specific projects, or businesses that can qualify for projects that are happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions need to be shorter. Mr Jarvis.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows I have a long-standing interest in Northern Ireland. He is right to make the point that every corner of the United Kingdom should seek to benefit from investment coming out of national Government. The Prime Minister has spoken on occasion about levelling up the whole of the country. The reality is that there are particular areas that are more deprived and require additional support to unlock their potential. I absolutely concede that, along with my own region, Northern Ireland is definitely one of those.

There is a very good opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to do this through the forthcoming White Paper, not just in terms of setting out a plan but linking it, mindful of the COP conference taking place this year, to the green transformation that we need, as well as to other priorities. Critically, that national strategy from national Government must be based around local leadership. Levelling up cannot succeed without local knowledge, engagement and accountability. Levelling up cannot be done from desks in Westminster and Whitehall.

Yet the reality is that, almost everywhere, the Government’s model is to force local authorities to scrap for inadequate, restricted, one-off pots of cash, designed according to the Government’s priorities and not to ours. It seems a long time since the general election, but I remember the Conservative manifesto specifically promised to

“trust people and communities to make the decisions that are right for them”.

They need to have the confidence now to mean what they said then.

In South Yorkshire, we are not waiting for that. With our local authority leaders, we have developed what we call a plan for the north, which sets out a road map to transformation. I invite the Minister to look carefully at the detail of that plan. In South Yorkshire, we have fantastic assets to act as catapults for development, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre but, to translate that into wider change, we need funding and support for a comprehensive local industrial strategy, from skills to finance.

At the same time, levelling up cannot be just about business and infrastructure. It needs to be about investing in early years and education, in housing and health. It is about tax reform and funding local government. It is about the environment and public services. Arts and culture is another good example, which can bring major economic benefits—more than £5 of revenue for every pound of public investment. That also helps to improve quality of life and perception of a region. In the very near future in South Yorkshire, we will lay out how we will support our creative sector with much more than just words. That is the test for any part of levelling up. For all the grand talk, the Government’s actions so far suggest a limited agenda, yet they still have the chance to change that. The forthcoming comprehensive spending review is where we will know once and for all whether the Government’s commitment to reducing regional inequality is serious or merely cynical. There are six weeks to decide which it is. I very much hope that they do the right thing. One way or another, it is by their actions that they will be judged.

16:55

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I draw attention to the fact that I am on the Lowestoft place board, and Lowestoft has secured a towns deal.

Levelling up is vital. It is about giving hope to local communities that have been ignored for too long. It is about tackling deep pockets of deprivation and giving people the opportunity to realise their full potential. I shall briefly outline three issues of concern. The first is the importance of investing in people. Infrastructure is incredibly important, but there needs to be a focus on investing in skills and employment support to help people proceed from low-skilled, low-wage jobs and to climb the ladder to rewarding and better-paid jobs. It is necessary to invest in accessible childcare to allow people to better access and then stay in the labour market.

Secondly, although I support the freeports initiative, I urge the Government to stick with and improve enterprise zones. Like other enterprise zones all around the country, the Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth enterprise zone, set up in 2012, has been incredibly successful. By reallocating the existing footprint of the enterprise zone around Lowestoft port, over 300 new jobs can be created, 40 new businesses can be supported, and between £1 million and £3 million of retained rates can be generated.

Finally, I remain incredibly concerned about the methodology for prioritising investment for the levelling-up and community renewal funds, which I fear is flawed. Lowestoft has deep pockets of deprivation very similar to neighbouring Great Yarmouth, but, unlike the latter, it is not a priority place. I do not begrudge Great Yarmouth, but the methodology for assessing need on a district-wide basis fails to properly identify where additional support is needed.

I discussed the issue earlier this week with the Arts Council, East Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council. The flaw could be addressed if the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport approve the provision of Active Lives data on a far more local and pinpointed basis. I also urge the Minister to look closely at the methodology proposed by the Salvation Army, which is detailed in its report on the levelling-up agenda and highlights how the current approach fails to properly take into account the considerable challenges that coastal communities, such as Waveney and Lowestoft, face.

In conclusion, the Government have been very successful in identifying the importance of levelling up, which has struck a chord with the public. However, to ensure that we deliver on that commitment and that the public are not left disillusioned, a more refined, joined-up and people-focused approach is required. That is needed if the strategy is to work, with all communities around the UK being given the opportunity to truly catch up and claim their fair share of the proceeds of growth.

16:59

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate, which is certainly important. Levelling up is indeed an important Government policy, but for something that is so central to the Government’s vision, it is sometimes difficult to see exactly what it means in practice and, critically, whether the lofty ambitions set out in the big speeches actually lead to delivery on the ground and bring about the kinds of changes that my community wants to see.

Whatever yardstick the Government use, what people see changing for the better in their areas will be the real determinant of whether there has been any success in levelling up. Many of my constituents would say that a tangible improvement to Ellesmere Port town centre would constitute a very good start in that respect. So many people want to have pride in their town and see it thriving, so I am pleased to say that, alongside my local council, we have put in a bid for the levelling-up fund to enable us to make a start on rejuvenating our town centre.

Of course, that is just a start, and much more will be needed. The question hangs in the air: if the bid is unsuccessful, what is plan B? Should not everyone get a slice of the pie? Should not levelling up be a policy that benefits everyone, not just the lucky winners of a municipal beauty contest? Should we not empower local communities to deliver on their own priorities and provide them with the tools and resources to do so, rather than asking them to jump through multiple hoops in what is a very competitive bidding process?

The town centre in Ellesmere Port has been struggling for a long time. Like in many other towns, the rise of the internet and changes in shopping habits, which have been accelerated by the pandemic, have led to shops closing down on an almost weekly basis. We would absolutely welcome a cash injection from the levelling-up fund, but it needs to address not just the symptoms but the causes of decline. Where are the plans to tackle the massive disparities between north and south in employment opportunities, earnings and life expectancy? Why do so many young people feel that they have to leave where they live and move to a city, just to get opportunities?

It is a scandal that where someone is born and to whom they are born are still some of the biggest determinants of their life chances. If levelling up is to be the truly transformative project that its biggest supporters claim it to be, it has to be so much more than an annual Westminster competition on Westminster’s terms. Give power and resources back to local communities—they know what they want, and they will be around for the long term in order to deliver it. People already feel that they do not have the power to take decisions about the most important things in their lives, such as whether a local hospital should stay open, where a new school might go, and even how often the buses run. To empower local communities, we need a different approach—no more crumbs from the table.

We do not want politically motivated, short-term fixes that have only the electoral cycle in mind. We need a new, long-term approach that actually attempts to tackle the underlying issues, and that really empowers and enables our local communities by giving them the responsibility, power and resources to shape their own futures, allowing them to finally take back control. We need reinvigorated places where people spend time as well as money, and there needs to be much more joined-up thinking about how the world will change in the future.

The move to all-electric vehicles in the next decade is a perfect example of that. Do we have the charging infrastructure to meet the demand? I do not think we have, and I know from the answers I have received to written questions that a huge number of properties will never have access to a charge point. Why do we not have somewhere in town centres where people can access charge points? People would have another reason to come into their town centre, and they could very well spend some time and money while they wait for their vehicle to charge. I think that is a great idea, but in order to achieve it, local authorities need the capacity, the resources and, indeed, the authority to plan and deliver what is needed. They need the necessary powers and the proper funding.

Civic pride, community, identity, jobs and opportunities all suffer when town centres are in decline. We owe it to the people in our communities to think big and have the ambition to deliver town centres that are equipped for tomorrow’s world—ones that will not only survive, but thrive in future generations. When we see the appetite for new things in our world, we know that people are willing to seize the change and try to make the world work in a different way. The sight of empty shop units in a town centre tells them that, for too long, their concerns have not been addressed. It is time that was changed.

I absolutely want levelling up to work, but I also want it to mean something. Tackling some of the deeply engrained issues that I have referred to today is central to that process, not just having a quick headline before the Government move on, because when the spotlight fades, my community will still face those challenges. However, it now expects the Government to deliver on the promises they made and I hope that we see that happen.

17:04

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Mr Robertson, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I will read out some statistics, because for too long, sadly, Stoke-on-Trent was talked about in a negative light by my predecessors, so I will talk about how great Stoke-on-Trent actually is and what it has been doing under not only a Conservative Government but a Conservative-led city council, led by the fantastic Councillor Abi Brown.

Stoke-on-Trent was ranked first for jobs growth in 2020. Between 2015 and 2018 it saw wages increase by 11.7%, with a 3.9% annual increase. In 2019-20 we built over 1,000 new homes, of which 97% were built on brownfield land. We are the eighth fastest growing economy in England, which includes London. We have created over 8,000 jobs in the last five years. We have the Ceramic Valley enterprise zone, which is one of the most successful enterprise zones in the UK. I am delighted that Tunstall Arrow phase 2 is effectively already under way and bookings are being made. The city council has done a fantastic thing by carrying on the business rates relief, using its own finances to encourage more businesses to come to the area. There is a fantastic story here for Stoke-on-Trent.

I am very sorry to get into the petty party politics, as some people might accuse us of, but I do so because when the Labour party lost Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, it was because it spent too long talking the area down and never talked it up. It spent too long telling people how poor they were and how deprived they were, but never offering a solution to the problem. In fact, Labour’s legacy in Stoke-on-Trent was to build a hospital—the Royal Stoke University Hospital—with a disastrous private finance initiative debt, which means £20 million a year is being stolen from the frontline to pay that debt. Labour built a hospital with 200 fewer beds than the old hospital, which is even more insane.

We saw jobs and ceramics enterprises being shipped off to China, which means I am very grateful still to have Churchill China, Steelite International and Burleigh Pottery in my constituency. They are still doing well, but sadly that industry dying meant that towns such as Burslem and Tunstall, two of the five original towns of Stoke-on-Trent, are now in a much worse state. Those places were forgotten, because for 70 years they had Labour Members of Parliament.

I am the first ever Conservative Member of Parliament for my constituency. What has happened over time, as we have seen that transition from Labour to the Conservatives, is that things are now happening. By the way, that does not mean that I do not acknowledge that there are challenges in Stoke-on-Trent. As I say, the mother town of Burslem has one of the highest number of closed shops anywhere in the United Kingdom. The town used to thrive off Royal Doulton and many other Pot Bank factories, but now that is simply not the case. I am trying to find a future for that town. I was delighted to have spent my summer handing out a survey asking residents for their views—over 300 responses have come in—and I am working with the city council to create a vision, perhaps for an arts and creative culture that will link in with Middleport Pottery.

In Tunstall, the high street is predominantly privately owned. I know that because I rent my constituency office on that high street—it is in an old shop. The top end of the high street is falling into disrepair, but I am delighted that the city council is working with me to hold private landlords to account for allowing their shops to fall into disrepair.

However, to offer the Minister more evidence of levelling up, it is the Conservative-led Stoke-on-Trent City Council that has invested £4 million into Longton town hall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), and it is spending over £4 million on Tunstall town hall in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. That will see council offices, a police post, a children’s centre and much more bringing this heritage building back to life, which will bring more footfall to the town centre and hopefully see it rejuvenate.

There is so much more opportunity. I fell in love with the city back in 2018, when I first started campaigning there, because I saw what others did not, which is a people who were desperate for change but just needed someone to go and fight for them. I am absolutely delighted to be their champion, as I have said many times.

I know that we have just heard some hon. Members talk about the town deal fund. I am a member of Kidsgrove’s town deal board. It is important to remember that these towns got this money before I was even elected as a Member of Parliament, but it was a Conservative Government who decided that the town of Kidsgrove, which is linked with Talke and Newchapel, would benefit from a town deal fund that, in total and including the advance town deal payment, came to £17.6 million. I can tell Members that when I go out door-knocking in Kidsgrove, the people there cannot believe what that money has done.

We have invested £2.75 million in Kidsgrove sports centre, which means that this facility will reopen in spring 2022. Rather than building a new one at higher expense to the taxpayer, the existing one will be refurbished and reopened. Why is that so important, Mr Robertson? In 2017, the then Labour-run Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council was offered the sports centre for £1, and it said no. There was a fantastic, community-run campaign led by Mark Clews, Dave Rigby, Ray Williams and Councillor Gill Burnett, who was a Labour councillor but has since become a Conservative over the decision on the sports centre. They got the borough council behind it, and they certainly got me behind it. Ultimately, we will see that facility reopened, which means swimming and a gym will return to Kidsgrove, which has one of the highest childhood obesity rates in the country.

We are also seeing the upgrading of the town centre with the new indoor town centre hub, which will hopefully have a new GP surgery in the middle, as well as a post office, and will link in with the job centre based in Kidsgrove. This will hopefully bring a bit of a coffee culture to the town centre. That will also be linked with Kidsgrove railway station. I give credit here to my predecessor’s predecessor, Joan Walley, who secured £5.5 million from the Access for All fund for the station, which now has a new footbridge. I decided that we should use the town deal board money to upgrade the ticket office, which will have a community café and more space for the volunteers, who do a fantastic job of looking after the station. There will also be 200 car parking spaces and a bus terminal, after the bridge was strengthened, meaning we will have a better integrated transport system. There will also be one hour’s free parking for people to do the three-minute walk to the town centre.

We are going to unlock the Chatterley Valley West employment site with over £2 million of investment, which could bring up to 2,000 jobs to the local area. It baffles me that the Labour councillors in Talke & Butt Lane—the ward where I live—moan that this money has been spent about 200 feet outside the Kidsgrove parish area. They are moaning that we have invested more than £2 million in a strategic employment site that will bring 2,000 jobs to the area. Again, in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, Labour is showing that it is far more interested in seeing money not spent in our local area, and not championing the local cause.

We have built one of the UK’s leading pump tracks at Newchapel recreation ground, which has had visitors from Worcester and Scotland, while BMX riders such as Kyle Evans, a former Team GB European champion, have used the facility. For £100,000, it has created a buzz in Kidsgrove, giving young people access to more facilities. When I was elected, I was told that there was nothing for young people to do. Now the sports centre is coming back and there is a new pump track.

Finally, we have worked with the King’s Church of England Academy, which now has FIFA-standard 3G AstroTurf pitches. The schoolchildren can use that facility during the day and the school can open it up to the community during the evenings and weekends, bringing revenue to the school to invest in the community.

This is what a town deal has done for my area, and I am proud to be part of it. I will benefit from the fact that the swimming pool exists—as a Kidsgrove parish resident, my daughter, who is just over a year old, will be able to learn to swim in her local swimming facility. Every pound invested by the community into that sports centre is going straight back into it, because the community group that ran the campaign are taking over the day-to-day running of that fabulous facility.

Not only have the Government done all of that, but they have delivered on the second largest announcement of civil service job moves of any Department, after Darlington. I know that the Home Secretary looks forward to spending her time up there on occasion. However, she might not be aware that, under the Places for Growth programme, 550 jobs are coming to Stoke-on-Trent via the Home Office. A new innovation centre will provide jobs at all career stages, including apprenticeships to help Stokies get into great civil service careers. Initially, there will be 50 caseworker roles, with a further 200 jobs at an asylum co-ordination hub, and that will expand to about 560 jobs by 2025. In addition to the caseworker roles, the centre will include operational, IT, policy and corporate functions, and will offer exciting career paths to local people. There will also be a number of senior civil service roles in Stoke-on-Trent, meaning that the people there will have a voice in Government. If anyone wants to understand why the people of Stoke-on-Trent voted overwhelmingly to leave—by 73%, in my constituency—it is because they thought that if London did not care about them, then Brussels would not have a bloody clue about their local area. That is why we are finally seeing a big change there.

What can the Government continue to do? The shopping list has not ended unfortunately, Minister. Stoke has had an appetiser and a bit of a main course, but we are still hungry for more, and dessert will come in the form of the levelling-up fund bid that we have submitted. We are lucky to be rated as a grade 1 priority area. We thank the Government for listening to our calls and understanding the deprivation.

[Jim Shannon]

It is hard not to be enthused by the hon. Gentleman’s energy. I congratulate him and his colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who is no longer present but was here for the previous debate. Does he agree that it is very important to have a partnership and relationship between the MP and the local council, and that it is part of the success story that he refers to?

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I love taking an intervention from—it is a parliamentary privilege. He is right: the relationship between the local council and the local MP is so important, because if we end up butting heads nothing will happen. That is not benefiting the people who have elected us to serve them.

I take the fact that those votes will end. I do not sit here arrogantly; they were lent votes, and if I do not deliver, I will be sacked. Every single one of my constituents is a Lord Sugar, so they will hire me or fire me. I take that responsibility absolutely seriously. I say on every doorstep that I do. That is why I do not stop banging on about my local area. That is why the Minister must be bored to death of hearing about Stoke-on-Trent from me and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South—the Stoke mafia, as we have come to be known in the Tea Room. We will keep fighting for our local area. Councillor Abi Brown is a tour de force—a young, dynamic, forward-thinking council leader paving the way, and now having a major role in the Local Government Association as well.

Let us go over the levelling-up fund bid, which for me is a litmus test of the Government’s commitment. It is a £73.5 million bid. Some £3.5 million will go into Tunstall, which will turn an old library and swimming baths back into a mixed-use facility, including flats, a multi-purpose exhibition space and a café. It will turn one of the largest city centre regeneration areas in the west midlands into a thriving hotel, flat accommodation and hopefully indoor arena that will specialise in e-sports. There is so much potential in those fantastic bids, which are in with the Treasury. I know that the Minister wants to make my Christmas. One way that she can achieve that is by ensuring that we deliver on those bids. We have bid for the transport elements as well.

We have also bid on the Stoke-to-Leek line through the Restoring your Railway fund. It is a fantastic bid, with four constituency MPs bidding for it jointly. It will unlock people being able to commute around north Staffordshire, meaning that we finally have better transport. I hope that, alongside rail, we will get some Bus Back Better opportunities, because 30% of the people of Stoke-on-Trent do not have access to a car, and the current bus service is not good enough.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

We need to start the Front-Bench speeches at 5.25 pm. I call Catherine McKinnell.

17:15

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this important and timely debate. He set out very comprehensively why levelling up matters so much and cannot be left as a slogan. It must become a reality, because the communities that we represent all rely on it.

The Government tell us that one of their key priorities as we emerge, hopefully, from the pandemic, is that we do so as a healthier country. For the levelling-up agenda—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) touched on this—that must mean tackling health inequalities. It is one of the glaring indicators of inequality between cities and regions, but I worry that over the last 18 months we have seen a pattern where health and leisure facilities in areas with the biggest pre-existing health inequalities have been the ones at greatest risk of closure.

According to ukactive, more than 400 sports and leisure facilities have closed permanently since March 2020, including the much valued and loved West Denton pool in Newcastle North, which has sadly not reopened due to the devastating financial impact of the pandemic. According to the 2019 indices of deprivation, the neighbourhood where that pool is located is already in the top 10% in the country for health deprivation challenges. Much of the surrounding area has similar issues. Combined with the overall decline in physical activity during lockdowns over the last 15 months, I am really concerned that its closure will lead only to the worsening of long-term health outcomes for the communities that I represent.

When I met with the Minister for School Standards yesterday alongside water safety and swimming campaigners, they emphasised to him that children’s swimming ability varies hugely by socioeconomic status. According to Sport England, 84% of children and young people from the most affluent areas can swim the statutory 25 metres required by the national curriculum when they leave primary school, whereas only 41% from the least affluent families do the same. Water safety is about a lot more than just being able to swim, but I worry that the pool closures in disadvantaged areas—not just Newcastle—will create a problem of children from less affluent backgrounds disproportionately failing to meet those minimum standards. Therefore, potentially they will find themselves in much greater danger when near the water. Access to affordable local swimming pools is central to helping children in less affluent areas not only keep fit but be safe.

We need to level up health inequalities. The Minister could make a great start by backing Newcastle City Council’s bid to the fund to develop a new state-of-the-art net-zero-carbon swimming pool and leisure development in outer west Newcastle. The Chancellor is a keen swimmer, having recently decided to add a 12-metre pool to his own grade II listed north Yorkshire manor. I hope that when the Government come to consider bids to the levelling-up fund, the Minister will agree that Newcastle North’s constituents in the outer west of Newcastle should have access to a pool, too.

I will speak briefly about High Speed 2. Like many colleagues in the north of England, I have been concerned by reports that Ministers are again considering the cancellation of phase 2b, which runs from Leeds and connects to other major cities via the east coast main line. Committing to the eastern leg of HS2, alongside Northern Powerhouse Rail and east coast main line upgrades, are all essential to make HS2 work for the north. It is not just about speed; it is about providing that connectivity and capacity that we so badly need. The Government have created a lot of uncertainty over its future, seemingly reopening the question of phase 2b time and again, even though the Oakervee review concluded that it should go ahead. If the Government are serious about HS2 being a project for the north, which is how it has been sold, it cannot be just for London and Birmingham. In the upcoming integrated rail plan, they must commit to integrate and build all phases of HS2, along with Northern Powerhouse Rail and badly needed upgrades to the east coast main line.

Enough talk about levelling up—the Government need to walk the walk on this issue. That means investing in our communities, our health inequalities and our transport infrastructure, so that we can genuinely level out not just between north and south but between and within our northern communities.

17:22

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this important and timely debate.

The last time I spoke in Westminster Hall was on the similar topic of transport funding in the north of England. I thought, “I can’t resist getting involved in this and sticking my oar in.” I made a couple of points that I hoped were helpful to Members, based on our experience in Scotland over many decades when it comes to getting money out of the UK Government. I said that they could play with the formulas in the Treasury Green Book all they liked but if the Prime Minister, when he was Mayor of London, claimed that £1 spent in Croydon was worth more than £1 spent in Strathclyde, it could be taken that he also meant that £1 spent in Croydon was worth more than one spent in Merseyside, Teesside, Tyneside or Humberside. Clearly, levelling up is not in this Prime Minister’s DNA.

We should scrutinise closely how his Administration carry that agenda forward. We should not be the least bit surprised that when we looked specifically at the £1 billion allocated from the towns deal, we saw that 39 of 45 places that benefit happened to be represented by Conservative MPs. Imagine that.

In Scotland, we do not have metro Mayors, but for a time I was co-leader of Aberdeenshire council, and on behalf of that local authority, I put pen to paper on what amounted to, in total, a £750 million city region deal between Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen city. That brought the Scottish Government and the UK Government together; it brought the public and private sectors together, and it got local government involved. It treated everyone fairly, as equals, and it is bringing significant benefits. We got that to diversify the economy and to bring prosperity to some parts of the north-east of Scotland that needed it, as well as to home in on some of the areas where we felt we had a comparative advantage, but we did it, in stark contrast to the UK Government’s levelling-up agenda, by respecting the spheres and the tiers of Governments at all levels.

Since then, we have seen the power grab of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the way that the UK Government have tried to bypass devolved Government. It is a disgrace, but it is very clear to see why that happened. The UK Government want to direct money not where it will do the most levelling up in a lot of cases, but where they think it can do the most political good for the Conservative party.

We can see exactly why that is in Scotland. The Conservatives know that they cannot win an election. In fact, they came within about 0.2% of seeing the Scottish National party being re-elected as a Government and being sacked as the official Opposition. Knowing that they cannot win an election in Scotland, they instead seek to bypass the established spheres and tiers of Government, undermining the only national Government that is directly elected and accountable to voters in Scotland. I think that is a terrible shame because there was an opportunity to work together, to respect the spheres and tiers of Government, to look in the round at the powers that the Scottish Government have and to give them the borrowing powers they need to invest in the long-term infrastructure and societal change that we need to level up.

In north-east Scotland, the Conservatives have complained long and loud about local funding. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). He lives in a tier 1 area. Aberdeen city has been put in tier 2 and Aberdeenshire has been put into the lowest tier possible. These are the areas that have been punished and penalised most through Brexit and have received the very least through the levelling-up agenda so far. Added to the loss of the EU funding that they could have expected, this simply rubs salt in the wound.

It is now clear beyond doubt, viewed from where I represent, that this Government have absolutely no intention of building a fair recovery. Giving the Scottish Government the powers they need to build back better and to build back recovery through an independence referendum is clearly the only way to enable us to build back better and build back fairer.

17:27

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for tabling this debate. As he said, he comes to this issue not just from the perspective of a local MP but also as the Mayor of South Yorkshire. He spoke eloquently about the challenges facing his area, which are shared by many areas across the country.

I do not propose to use the time available to go over the familiar ground of what area has been allocated what fund. Those issues have been well aired and the disparities are there for everyone to see. Instead, I want to look at the wider picture and to begin by asking the Minister to define levelling up. What do the Government mean by it? Can she define it in clear and simple terms?

There is a long history to efforts and attempts to tackle regional inequality. In the Government that I served, we launched the new deal for communities. My own constituency received £53 million from this for the All Saints and Blakenhall area, more than twice what the whole city has received under its recent towns fund bid, more than a decade on. We had Sure Start, the Building Schools for the Future programme, rising investment in the NHS, falling waiting times and major cuts in child poverty.

We introduced tax credits to help lower paid working people. We did not cut their incomes by £20 a week, as the Government will do next month, a cut that will affect 12,000 families in my constituency and millions of families across the country. We had regional development agencies covering the whole of England. These were abolished by the coalition Government and replaced by local enterprise partnerships, which we were told would lead to regeneration through private sector-led boards. Who ever hears about LEPs now? How did they become the poor, unloved children of the Conservative Government, created and then ignored by Ministers? What is the Government’s problem with the LEPs they created? Is their crime being too local?

Levelling up has to be considered alongside what local areas have lost over the past decade: billions of pounds cut from local authority budgets; 773 libraries closed in England; 750 youth centres closed; 1,300 children’s centres closed; and school funding per pupil cut by 9% over the past decade, the biggest fall in 40 years, a direct attack on the opportunities and life chances of the very young people who need education the most. There is no greater leveller up than education. It is more powerful than any new road, building or bus lane. It is the platform upon which barriers are torn away. It is the weapon through which glass ceilings are broken. And on this most fundamental of issues, opportunity has been taken away and not enhanced, so before we talk about levelling up, we need to ask: who did the levelling down? The Government would like the public to believe that they have been in power for only two years, but that is not the case; they have been in power for 11 years.

What of levelling up itself? We welcome every new pound of investment and every new job created. We want every part of the country to succeed. We want the best possible opportunities for people, no matter where they live or the circumstances into which they were born. But that will not be achieved by pots of capital expenditure alone. Even when it comes to the money, the new levelling-up fund replaces a local growth fund that was actually worth more, and half of its budget this year is taken from the towns fund. It is the reannouncement of the same money over and over again.

Then there is the basic concept itself, and this is the heart of it. A true levelling-up agenda would focus on people, not just capital expenditure. Unless we help people to succeed—help them to deal with the costs that they face, for example in relation to childcare and the early years, and enable them to make the most of their talent through properly funded, excellent schools and great second-chance education later in life—true levelling up will not happen. We will have some extra infrastructure spending, but that is what it will be.

Let us take the verdict of the Government’s own Industrial Strategy Council, issued shortly before it was abolished by Ministers. It said that

“the proposed approach appears over-reliant on infrastructure spending and the continued use of centrally controlled funding pots thinly spread across a range of initiatives. Evidence, historical and international, suggests this is unlikely to be a recipe for success. Sustained local growth needs to be rooted in local strategies, covering not only infrastructure but skills, sectors, education and culture. These strategies need to be locally designed and focussed”.

The truth is that the Government do not want this to be locally led. They want it to be centralised, controlled by Ministers and given out solely at their discretion—the subject of Friday visits in high-vis jackets. They are not talking about skills and education, because those things are not tangible enough for press releases and election leaflets. They want physical projects that they can point to.

We read today that the agenda may even be used as an instrument of political control inside the Conservative party. Reports suggest that the Government Whips have threatened to withhold funding from Conservative MPs’ constituencies as a mechanism for stamping out potential dissent on the Government Back Benches. The Chief Whip is alleged to have said, “My pen hovered over your name,” to one potential rebel. Why should MPs’ constituents lose out because their MPs had the temerity to exercise their own judgment or the gall to stand up for what they believed in? Public money should not be used in that way. Whips have always tried to get MPs to vote the party line. That is their job. But the allocation of public funds should not come into it. That shows the inherent flaws in trying to do this in such a centralised way.

The challenge for the Government is clear: define what levelling up is; ensure that the definition includes people as well as bricks and mortar; and have a genuine local voice in how this is done, rather than the centralised approach that has been adopted so far. If Ministers do that, we might make some progress, but if they continue on the current path, the danger is that the verdict of their Industrial Strategy Council is what comes to pass.

17:34

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this debate on a topic about which he has been very vocal. We both care very deeply about it, and I hope he understands that the Government feel the same way.

In a speech on this issue delivered exactly two months ago today, the Prime Minister said:

“it is the mission of this government to unite and level up across the whole of the UK, not just because that is morally right, but because if we fail we are simply squandering vast reserves of human capital and we are failing to allow people to fulfil their potential and we are holding our country back.”

Changing a situation in which for too many people geography turns out to be destiny is this Government’s defining goal. That is what levelling up means: opportunity for all, wherever and whoever.

Hon. Members raised a number of important points, and I will try to address as many of them as I can in the time allowed. Bids are being assessed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and other relevant Departments. I cannot discuss them here, but successful bids will be announced this autumn. I wish all constituencies and local authorities that have put forward bids to the Government the very best of luck. We want to do as much as we can for everybody. Resources are not infinite, but we will do the very best we can.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central said that it is about not words, but action, so I hope he will be happy for me to summarise briefly what the Government have done and what we intend to do. Opposition Members complain that we are not investing enough, but the fact is that last year’s spending review announced record investment in infrastructure with all the benefits that will bring. This year’s review, which will conclude on 27 October, will build on that progress. It will focus on strong, innovative public services, a transition to net zero and delivering our plan for growth. To emphasise the quantum of money, core departmental spending is set to grow in real terms at nearly 4% per year on average over this Parliament. That means, in 2024-25, £140 billion more per year in cash terms than at the start of the Parliament, so it simply is not true that we are not investing.

One of our more exciting policies that the Treasury has really been promoting is freeports, which create good-quality jobs. We think they will do so much. They will become magnets for dynamic, fast-growing businesses, generating prosperity in areas where people may sometimes feel that they have been forgotten. At the Budget, we announced eight new freeports, one of which is in Felixstowe. I know it is not Lowestoft, but it will have positive benefits for Norfolk and Suffolk, and will benefit areas such as Lowestoft.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) asked about coastal communities. He said a lot that I will address further in my remarks, but at Budget the Government invested quite a lot in policies that will benefit coastal communities—not just the levelling-up fund but the £5.2 billion flood and coastal defence programme, which starts this month. We are also allocating £1.2 billion over the years to support the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband in hard-to-reach areas. I know he will appreciate that.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I want to quickly mention the fact that in Stoke-on-Trent, we have £9.2 million to install gigabit broadband, making us the first gigabit city in the country. That has been done with Government funding and VX Fiber. We brought that project in under budget and saved the Treasury £600,000. I thought this was a great opportunity for the Minister to congratulate the city of Stoke-on-Trent on delivering once again.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I have been really bowled over by how the Stoke mafia have been such champions for their area, never talking it down. I thank him for reminding me about the amount we have given to Stoke. I believe we have also given Lowestoft about £24.9 million within the towns fund, so money is going to all the right places—the places that need this cash.

Building infrastructure is also essential, and we have launched a number of schemes, such as the towns fund. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central mentioned the UK Infrastructure Bank and said that it is all very well that we have it, but it is a critical thing. It is up and running and planning its first investment. Crucially, it will partner with the private sector and local government to kick-start major infrastructure projects, contributing not just to levelling up but to achieving net zero. A third of its initial £12 billion in funding is specifically earmarked for local and mayoral authorities, just like his. The expectation is that these investments will also spark a crowd-in effect, with private backers keen, themselves, to invest in the kind of infrastructure we need. The Government cannot do everything. We need the private sector to take part in this. I did not hear the hon. Member for Barnsley Central mention the private sector in his speech, and I hope that he might do so in his closing remarks. The private sector is crucial in delivering levelling up, and I am very happy to meet him and speak to him about what it can do. It cannot be just Government.

Hon. Members also talked about skills and education. Absolutely—I completely agree with them. Skills and education will be the cornerstone of our future economic success. Here, too, we are working hard to change lives, whether through the £95 million lifetime skills guarantee, the £43 million we have provided to expand employer-led skills retraining boot camps across England this year, or the £3,000 we have been giving employers for every apprentice they take on before the end of this month.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) talked about health inequalities and her bid, which I wish her every success with. We very much recognise this; I am also the Minister for Equalities, and the Government have been doing quite a lot within this space. However, I remind all Members that funding is very tight. Last week, when we did vote for additional health funding, Opposition Members did not walk through the Lobby with us to vote for extra money for the NHS.

Returning to the point about what the Government are doing, local authorities have a part to play, as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and others said. We are not into top-down politics, or Government imposing solutions by decree, whatever it is they say. We think national, but we do act local. That is why we have given local authorities the power to drive forward funding applications. We have given lots of powers to local authorities, and I would be very keen to hear what our mayors and local authorities are doing with those powers.

We are also trying to avoid what has historically been a siloed approach. The levelling-up fund, which is run by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport, was designed together with the Treasury. That is an example of how we are doing better working together, and it is why I am very happy to respond in this debate, even though many of the issues that hon. Members have raised are managed and administered by other Departments.

We have also talked about taking a more flexible approach to devolution in England. I know that the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is requesting far, far more, but I am afraid that is not something we will grant at this time. We do want to do devolution better, rewriting the rulebook and giving new deals for counties, so that the people who know their communities best can do the best for them. Through the devolution deals, we have already committed £7.5 billion of unringfenced gainshare investment for nine mayoral combined authorities over 30 years, to be spent on local priorities.

I will also mention, specifically for the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, that through the city region sustainable transport settlements, eight MCAs are set to receive £4.2 billion over the next five years. Through the transforming cities fund, Sheffield city region—soon to be the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority—has itself received a total of £171 million to fund local transport projects, including a new bus rapid transit link in Barnsley. That is just part of the investment that the Government are making across the country.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) asked what exactly it means to level up. I hear that again and again. I feel that we repeat ourselves, but people still do not take it in. Levelling up is the chance for the Government to improve life chances and everyday life for people in underperforming places. Those places have not been underperforming since 2010—they have been underperforming for decades, under successive Governments.

We acknowledge the gains we have made and that there is still work to do, but structural issues are geographic for some places, and we believe that we have the right policies to tackle those. Many of the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) gave show how we can deliver that.

There were lots of accusations about the levelling-up fund being pork barrel politics for Conservative constituencies. I utterly reject that. It is absolutely untrue. It is also untrue nonsense that the Chief Whip is deciding which MPs will get funding. Those are just nonsensical media speculations. We, on this side of the House, know that we are doing right for the people of this country. That is why we have more Conservative seats than ever, and many, like Stoke, used to be Labour.

For those who are unsure, the levelling-up fund is intended to invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the UK. We recognise that it does not always go to the most deprived places. It is a formula that takes many things into account, and it will prioritise those bids, as has been said, from places in highest need.

17:45

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).

Written Statements

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Written Statements

Wednesday 15 September 2021

Election Finance and Policy

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

This Government are committed to ensuring our democracy is secure, fair, modern and transparent and through the changes being brought in by the Elections Bill, we are updating our electoral systems to ensure they are kept up to date for our age.

The Elections Bill will progress this week to Committee stage in the House of Commons, and to aid hon. Members in their consideration of the Bill, I am today publishing two documents relating to measures in the Elections Bill: specifically an illustrative Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement; and the Government’s response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) report into regulating election finance.

Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement

As I set out in my statement to the House on 17 June, the Elections Bill provides for the introduction of a strategy and policy statement, which will set out guidance and principles to which the Electoral Commission must have regard in exercising its functions. I committed to publish an illustrative example of this statement to aid parliamentarians’ understanding of this measure, and I have today placed a copy of this in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government will continue to engage with interested parties, including the Parliamentary Parties Panel, on this illustrative statement.

It is important to note that this is an illustrative example of the strategy and policy statement—the Bill does not include the text of the statement, and instead makes provision for the statement to be introduced in secondary legislation. Following Royal Assent, a draft statement will be subject to a statutory consultation with the stakeholders listed in the Bill before the approval of Parliament is sought.

To further support Parliament’s scrutiny of the Bill, on 7 September I also made a statement to the House on the role of the Speaker’s Committee in holding the Electoral Commission to account, and placed an infographic outlining the Commission’s existing accountability framework in the Libraries of Both Houses.

The Government response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) report on regulating election finance

We have today published the Government’s response to the CSPL report on regulating election finance. The Government welcome the report published in July by the CSPL, and agree with the key principles of fairness, transparency and integrity which have guided its work. Indeed, our existing regulatory framework is already based upon these principles.

It is, of course, important that the rules around electoral finance are kept under review and updated as necessary. As I set out in my statement to the House on 15 June, the Elections Bill is making important reforms to the regulatory framework to support public confidence in the integrity of our electoral system, by strengthening and updating political finance and campaigning regulation; these include reforms that relate directly to recommendations made in the CSPL report.

Electoral law is complex and it is important that any changes are made with careful consideration. Therefore, the Government intend to look at all the recommendations in the CSPL report alongside other recommendations set out in similar reports, including the forthcoming reports from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee into the work of the Electoral Commission and the Elections Bill, as part of further work examining the regulatory framework for elections, beyond the Elections Bill.

We are the stewards of a fantastic democratic heritage which must be kept up to date to protect our democracy and maintain public confidence in our electoral system.

The associated documents have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS290]

Election Systems

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

On 16 March 2021, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House that the Government would be introducing legislation to change the voting system for all police and crime commissioners (PCCs), combined authority mayors, and the Mayor of London.

This legislation, due to be brought forward when parliamentary time allowed, would see the voting systems change from the confusing and over-complicated supplementary vote system to the tried and tested first-past-the-post system.

I am pleased to announce that the Government intend to bring forward these changes in an amendment to the Elections Bill at Committee stage. Including these changes in the Elections Bill will ensure that they are implemented ahead of the next scheduled PCC elections in May 2024. This timetable will give good notice to all future candidates and electoral administrators of the change in voting system to first-past-the- post well in advance of these elections, in accordance with Electoral Commission guidance.

Additionally, I can announce that the voting system for local authority mayors in England, which are also currently on the supplementary vote system, will be changed to first past the post. This will ensure that all mayoral elections across England will have a consistent voting system.

These changes will allow us to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to continue supporting the first-past-the-post system. Given that two thirds of voters voted in favour of retaining first-past-the-post for parliamentary elections in the 2011 nationwide referendum, these changes also reflect the view of the British people.

In this May’s London mayoral elections, the supplementary vote system saw hundreds of thousands void, wasted or blank votes cast, reflecting voter confusion and the complex system. In a speech to this House in 1931, Winston Churchill when describing transferable voting said “the decision is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.”

The supplementary vote system as used in England and Wales is found nowhere else in the world. The nearest similar system where voters rank up to three candidates—the contingent vote system—is used only in Sri Lanka; by contrast, first past the post is the world’s most widely used electoral system. The Government believe that first past the post is a more straightforward way of electing representatives, which is transparent to both voters and administrators and results in a more accessible system.



The change to first past the post will provide clear local accountability in a readily understandable way, making it easier for voters to express a clear choice: the person chosen to represent a local area will be the one who directly receives the most votes.

[HCWS289]

Covid-19: Shielding

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)]

Shielding was introduced at the start of the pandemic as one of the few interventions available to support those who, at the time, were considered clinically extremely vulnerable.

We know shielding advice is extremely restrictive and has a significant impact on people’s lives and their mental and physical wellbeing. It was right to take this step to protect the most vulnerable during the initial waves of the virus, and we put in place support for those who were advised to shield to help them to do so.

We now know much more about the virus and what makes someone more or less vulnerable to covid-19. We are also in a different situation than we were at the beginning of the pandemic. The vaccine continues to be successfully rolled out, with millions of people having received both doses and a booster programme about to commence. We also have proven, effective treatments, such as dexamethasone and tocilizumab, to support improved outcomes in clinical care pathways.

We have not advised people to shield since 1 April. Since 19 July, the guidance for clinically extremely vulnerable people has been to follow the same advice as everyone else, with the suggestion of additional precautions people may wish to take. Those patients who are at risk from infectious diseases more generally and who can also remain less protected after other vaccinations may wish to discuss this with their specialist as part of their routine care.

Due to the success of the vaccine rollout, improvements in treatment and clinical care, and growing understanding of the virus, the Government have accepted expert clinical advice and decided to end the shielding programme and the requirement for centralised guidance for people who were considered clinically extremely vulnerable.

This moves us towards the situation pre-covid where individuals managed their own conditions with their health professionals. We believe this is a proportionate decision based on the success of the vaccine programme and the protection it offers, the availability of effective treatments and the highly restrictive impact of shielding on people’s mental health and wellbeing.

[HCWS291]

House of Lords

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 15 September 2021

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Retirement of a Member: Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:07

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.

NHS: Hospital Visiting

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

15:08

Asked by

[Lord Farmer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure visiting arrangements in all NHS hospitals resume as soon as possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)]

My Lords, we absolutely recognise the importance of people’s ability to visit their loved ones. Over the pandemic, NHS guidance advised all NHS hospitals to welcome visiting in a Covid-secure way. Now that we are not in a national lockdown, visiting arrangements are set out locally by NHS trusts and other NHS bodies. The health, safety and well-being of patients, staff and communities remains the priority, but careful visiting policies remain appropriate to ensure safe hospital visits.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Do the Government collect statistics on the number of in-patients whose mental well-being deteriorates during their stay in hospital? Also, what assessment, if any, has been made of the impact of visits on patients’ mental well-being and recovery?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My noble friend raises an important question. Mental well-being is affected by visiting. We know that particularly from social care, where this has been a particularly onerous problem for those in care and their loved ones. I am not aware of any statistics being assessed but I will look into it and write to him. He makes an extremely important point. We do, however, take statistics on nosocomial infection. I am afraid that is a massive issue, which we must balance at the same time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, of course I understand the reason for very great care in relation to infection control in our hospitals, but it is notable that a press release by NHS England in July, at the time of the announcement of a reduction in restrictions by the Government, said that hospital visiting guidance is set to remain in place for all staff and visitors. The concern is that the health service will never change this guidance. Surely there should be some review of the general guidance, given what is happening in society as a whole and the autumn and winter plan that the Government announced yesterday.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, we brought in harsh guidance at the early stage of the pandemic. That was lifted quickly, for exactly the reasons the noble Lord gave, and we keep the current restrictions under review all the time. But it is up to local trusts to put the right infection control measures in place. Although we have some guidance in place, it encourages visiting, for the reasons the noble Lord points out, and we leave it to trusts to make the ultimate decisions.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I will always remember how my spirits rose the moment my mother appeared at the entrance to the children’s ward when, as a child, I was confined to bed with yet another fracture. Given that the isolation of lockdown has highlighted the importance of human contact to good mental health, I ask my noble friend how the Government are advising hospital trusts on taking the mental health of visitors and those they are visiting into account.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

What a touching piece of testimony from my noble friend. The feelings he had as a child are felt by a great number of people, not only those in hospital and social care but their loved ones. We are mindful of the impact of visiting on the mental health and the good feeling of those in hospital. Visiting was suspended on 4 April last year, but that suspension was lifted on 5 June. Since then, we have sought wherever possible to put careful visiting policies in place. In October last year, the number of visitors was limited to one family contact or somebody important to the patient; since then, we have made huge strides in trying to lift those restrictions wherever we can. It is left to trusts to implement exactly those restrictions that are suitable to maintain infection control in their area.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, the Minister said it was vital to keep hospitals safe from Covid infections. There are now over 8,400 Covid patients in hospital with around 1,000 daily admissions and rising. SAGE is concerned that, in a month, there could be 8,000 patients a day. Paragraph 36 of yesterday’s autumn and winter plan says that the UK HSA is reviewing easing specific infection prevention and control and social distancing to better manage activity. Can the Minister give assurances that this will not happen while cases in hospital continue to increase at this rate?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

We are trying to have visiting policies that are proportionate to the situation. To reassure the noble Baroness, as she probably knows, the number of visitors at the bedside is currently limited to one close family contact and somebody important to the patient. Those are the guidelines we have in place. As I said, we leave it to trusts to run their own infection control measures. She is entirely right that the potential for nosocomial infections within hospitals, which was such a serious feature of the pandemic last year, is one that we are extremely wary of and careful about.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

As a Christian minister who has visited the sick for over 50 years, I believe that a vital part of the healing process of any patient is not only the care given by medical professionals, but the individual’s peace of mind. That healing is greatly enhanced by the visit of a family friend or loved one. One of the tragedies of the Covid pandemic was that many had to die without the touch of a loved one’s hand or tender words of comfort and love, as they were about to pass away. Will the Minister do everything he can to change that situation?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an incredibly powerful point. I agree with him. The point about visitors to the dying was one of the most poignant and hurtful aspects of the pandemic. The stories I have heard personally and in the Chamber on that point have been some of the most moving I have heard in the entire year. He is right that being ill is horrible; being ill and away from the people you love is doubly horrible. We are trying our hardest. Infections in hospitals cost a lot of lives last year. We are mindful of that damage. Another area where we are very mindful is maternity units, where to prevent post-birth depression it is really important that partners are there. We have put in allowances for all partners to be at scans and at the birth, but we are working to try to balance these two competing difficulties.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, have the Government considered using vacant hospital land owned by the NHS or unused buildings near NHS hospitals for patient accommodation while rehabilitating, rather than having long stays in medical wards? Have the Government considered the benefits for patients and families? Visiting may be safer and more suitable in this type of accommodation compared with visiting medical wards.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The noble Baroness’s point is entirely right. The focus on hospitals puts huge pressure on hospital administrators to have safe, contagion-free environments. That makes visiting extremely difficult. That is why we are trying to move as much care and diagnostics as we can back into the community, where we have smaller hubs and visiting is much more accessible. Some of that can be done on vacant NHS land. There are also opportunities on the high street, which is not as occupied as it used to be, for those kinds of services. We have £3.3 billion available for discharge. If we have safe, quick discharge, that also achieves the same objective.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I question the wisdom of seeking to restore all visiting arrangements as soon as possible. For the time, surely visitor resource priority should go to those who are seriously ill, whether with Covid or other serious illness. Visiting should be limited, for the time being, both for the seriously ill and for limited slots of groups of limited size.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, it is a question of balance. We certainly have to be extremely careful about people visiting those with Covid because of the obvious contagiousness of that disease. As I said, the guidance is currently to limit the size of groups to one close family member, but we are mindful of the mental health impact of that, so trusts are trying to get the right balance between contagion control and the mental health implications of people being ill and alone in hospital.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

It is very nice to see the Minister in his place; I wish him good luck right now. May I say how much we welcome the measures relating to visits in care home premises from 16 August? Welcoming anyone into care homes poses risks and it is important that those risks are managed and mitigated. In the face of the winter plans that have been announced, is there any expectation that there will be a review of these guidelines for care homes under plan A or plan B?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that 91% of care homes in England have been able to accommodate residents receiving visitors, compared to 40% in March. That is huge progress and answers a very large amount of concern that I have heard here in the Chamber. It is our objective not to change or review these measures. We want to try to keep care homes open to visiting in a safe way, as we do presently. If it becomes necessary, though, we will take the steps to protect life.

Sovereign Defence Capability: Meggitt Takeover

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

15:19

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of a takeover of Meggitt by Parker-Hannifin on the United Kingdom’s sovereign defence capability.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome trade and investment where it supports UK growth and jobs, and which meets our legal and regulatory requirements while not compromising national security. Where we believe there are concerns, we raise them, and where we need to intervene, we will. The Government continue to monitor the situation closely. However, commercial transactions are primarily a matter for the parties involved. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment on the potential consideration of this or any other case.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I thought that the Government had made very clear that they feel sovereign capability in these high-tech areas is hugely important for the nation, certainly in defence terms. We have now seen a succession of takeovers of highly capable British firms with a lot of high-tech workers and a huge amount of intellectual property by primarily American groups that are not primarily defence firms. Although promises have been made, I am afraid that, in terms of keeping the firms in being and running them as they were, those promises do not seem to have been kept. This is extremely worrying. Is there some way more than he has already described of ensuring that we do not lose high-tech jobs, that these firms are not broken up and that we keep a controlling interest? Is there, for example, any sense in having a golden share?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is tempting me down a path down which I cannot go. The United States is a valued trade partner and a large source of inward investment in the UK. UK and US officials work closely together to protect against any hostile foreign investment that threatens our shared security. We have a shared interest in keeping important defence suppliers in safe hands.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the nuclear warheads fitted to our Trident missiles, which form such an essential part of our continuous at-sea deterrence posture, have been, and always will be, manufactured in the United Kingdom, and that if Scotland chooses to leave the United Kingdom, Faslane and Coulport will have to be shut?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can indeed reassure my noble friend that the UK’s replacement warhead will be designed and manufactured in the United Kingdom. While work continues with US counterparts to ensure that the UK replacement warhead remains compatible with the Trident missile system, the requirements, design and manufacture of the warheads are sovereign to each nation.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the undertakings given by Parker-Hannifin last for only one year. Does the Minister believe that they should be extended if jobs in this country, and other things, are to be safeguarded by those undertakings? Could he update the House on how the investigation into the Chinese takeover of Britain’s largest computer chip manufacturer is progressing?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Those are competition concerns. I am in a difficult position, as noble Lords will understand. It is a quasi-judicial process, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of the specific commercial transactions of any security or competition assessments that are currently taking place.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

When manufacturing and defence of the realm are concerned, I want a hard-line, patriotic Minister, not a weak, sell-out capitalist. Which is the Secretary of State?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord knows me well, and I would love to engage in debate with him on this issue—because of course he is wrong—but I cannot comment on the specifics of this case. Whether the Secretary of State takes the decision to intervene is a quasi-judicial matter.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, going somewhat wider, is not the failure by UK investors properly to value many quality companies in the defence sector, such as Meggitt, Ultra and possibly Cobham in the past, the real reason for the spate of takeovers? In this regard, does not the abject failure of television to cover stock market investment and our hugely important savings and investment industry bear some responsibility? With financial education so lamentable, does this not explain why thousands sadly leave money in the bank, earning zero interest, when they could put some into a company of the stature and strength of, say, Legal & General, which offers a dividend yield of 6.5%?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I know of the noble Lord’s campaign to raise awareness of the important work and value of private UK companies, but as I mentioned in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord West, we value trade and investment into the United Kingdom. We believe in an open trading environment, and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is wrong. We cannot just exist on an individual basis, not taking account of trade in the rest of world. We are proud to be one of the largest sources of inward investment in Europe, and long may that continue.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as others have said, we need a defence industry that is secure for jobs and the economy but also whose technology is secure from hostile hands. Given that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, the assurances of jobs from Parker are for only a year, can the Minister indicate whether he considers that a more thorough assessment is needed? Also, had the new national security and investment regime been in place now, would the Meggitt takeover have been caught by the definition for mandatory notification?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The answer to the second part of the noble Baroness’s question is yes. On the first part, it is a quasi-judicial process, and the Secretary of State has not taken a decision on it, so I cannot go any further than what I have said so far.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, what steps have the Government taken to strengthen their investment screening processes?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I just indicated in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, this House debated at length and passed the National Security and Investment Act, which strengthens the Government’s powers. That Act is in the process of being implemented now. We have already passed a number of statutory instruments, and it will commence fully in early January.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, 85% of defence R&D is government funded. In the integrated review, the Government promised a defence and security industrial strategy that will “prioritise UK industrial capability”. Announcing it, Defence Minister Jeremy Quin said the DSIS

“will help retain onshore critical industries for our national security and our future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/21; col. 797.]

First Cobham, then Ultra Electronics and now Meggitt—these are all critical industries for our national security and our future. At what point will the Government follow their own strategy and try to slow the current US equity fund-led spree of buying these businesses?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The current takeover is not by an equity fund but a defence contractor. As I said, we welcome investment into the UK but will not hesitate to take action if it threatens or compromises our national security.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, Tom Williams of Parker told the Financial Times that he was open to talking to Ministers and, in particular, said:

“We recognise the importance that everybody has around national security and defence capabilities. We want to reassure people that we have no intention of impacting that.”


That is fine in this case, perhaps, but what assessment have the Government made of bids where those wishing to take over sovereign defence capabilities do not have such apparently benign aims?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

As I said, we have not taken any decision on the current takeover yet, but the UK will always enthusiastically champion free trade, recognising that the vast majority of inward investment into this country is highly beneficial and creates jobs and prosperity for the country. An open approach to international investment, as many other countries have, has to include the appropriate safeguards. We have powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 to intervene in mergers or takeovers that raise particular public interest concerns. As I have intimated in other answers, we have recently strengthened our powers through the National Security and Investment Act, which will commence on 4 January.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.

Council Tax

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

15:28

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform council tax.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, council tax is collected and retained by local authorities, which set it within the national framework. Local authorities best understand the needs of their local area, though any increases above the referendum principles require the support of voters. Council tax is well understood by ratepayers. The Government have no plans for council tax reform, which would be complex and time-consuming to undertake and would create confusion for ratepayers.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the national framework is flawed. How can a band C house in Cumbria, with council taxes of over £1,600 per year, pay more than a £54 million band H luxury house in London’s Mayfair? Surely such discrepancies in the treatment of houses in the north serve only to further reveal how utterly absurd the whole council tax system has become. Is not the concept of a red wall defending the north no more than a myth, confirmed by the refusal by the Government to reform council tax and its huge inconsistencies?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The Government recognise that authorities have differing abilities to generate income from council tax, and the settlement methodology takes these into account when allocating funding. The Government have used grant funding to equalise against the adult social care precept since its introduction. Funding baselines for every authority, whether up north or down south, are determined by an assessment of the relative needs of areas, including measures of deprivation. Indeed, councils in the most deprived areas of the country receive 16% more in core spending power than in the least deprived areas.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, throughout Cumbria, whether in Barrow, Carlisle, Kendal or the many households in the villages in between, householders feel aggrieved that because of the national framework they are forced to pay more council tax than luxury houses in London. Even the Government must accept that it is grossly unfair. When do they intend to take one small step towards alleviating the problem and help levelling up in Britain?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware of the support that is given. Following the spending review in 2020, local authorities’ core spending power is estimated to have increased by 4.6% in cash terms in 2021-22. This follows the largest real-terms increase in core spending power for a decade at the spending review in 2019. Local authorities, including the ones he mentioned, will have access to £2.2 billion of additional funding in 2021-22 to invest in public services.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, there are 26 million houses subject to council tax in the UK but only 160,000 are in band H, so a sensible small step might be that just council houses in band H are revalued. As 65,000 of those are in London, it would enhance our reputation for levelling up. Will the Minister agree to a meeting with the Treasury to progress this idea?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I can certainly pass on that request to the Treasury—that is no problem at all—but I reiterate that there are no plans to review or revalue council tax. It is important to say that the council tax system is understood by people. A recent poll demonstrated that there is no move from the public to change it.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

With 60%, or 60p in the pound, of local authority council tax spent on social support, that is an enormous amount of pressure on local authorities. When we talk about reforming local authorities, can we take into account that enormous pressure, which is growing all the time, and the wonderful work that our local authorities have done over the Covid-19 period?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I certainly recognise the wonderful work done. Each council provides council tax reduction schemes for working-age taxpayers. Councils have choices, as they should, about how to design their scheme, reflecting local circumstances. There is a variation in how councils deliver these schemes. For example, some councils offer 100% reductions on their criteria, while others request a contribution from everyone irrespective of income and savings.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, earlier this year the Government hiked the amount by which local authorities can increase council tax bills without holding a referendum. This hit family incomes at a time when the Treasury should have been doing everything possible to encourage local spending and stimulate economic growth. With the autumn Budget and the 2021 spending review due shortly, does the Treasury accept the need to properly fund local government rather than placing an increasing burden on working people?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I certainly cannot second-guess what the spending review would have in it, but I reiterate that local authorities have the flexibility to increase council tax bills in 2021-22 by up to 2%, as the noble Lord will know, without a referendum, and up to 3% for the adult social care precept for social care authorities. In addition, the police and crime commissioners can raise their bills by £15 per person per year.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

Bearing in mind the Government’s exhortations to local authorities to

“exhaust other options before going to court”

to recover council tax arrears, has my noble friend any comments on the fact that more and more councils are still pursuing unpaid sums through court action, even after only one missed payment? Surely we need new and realistic approaches instead to recover those arrears.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very important point about unpaid council tax bills. It is important that everyone takes steps to pay their bill given its importance to delivering local services, on which we all rely. On the other hand, councils should be sympathetic to those in difficulties and proportionate in taking any reinforcement action. If we look at 2020-21, for example, councils had collected £31.7 billion with an in-year collection rate of 95.7%, which is a reduction of 1.2 percentage points on the previous year.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s sticking plaster for the social care crisis is asking a great deal of cash-strapped councils. As a result of the proposals, they face a larger national insurance bill for their staff despite receiving less grant from central government. Does the Treasury intend to compensate councils for this rise or does it expect that councils will need to raise council tax further still to cover these increased costs? If it is the latter, when combined with personal national insurance contributions, what is the true additional cost to be faced by working people?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I recognise the experience of the noble Baroness in this area, but I reassure her and the House that the Government will ensure that local authorities have access to sustainable funding for core budgets at the spending review. We expect that demographic and unit cost pressures will be met through council tax, social care precepts and long-term efficiencies. The overall level of local government funding, including council tax and the social care precept, will be determined in the round at the spending review in the normal way.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, when I raised this issue in July and asked if the Government would introduce additional bands to mitigate what has become an arbitrary, regressive and unfair tax, the Minister said that the suggestion had merit. But he then rejected it, even though three Conservative noble Lords broadly supported the principle. Can I add my weight to what my noble friend Lord Leigh said? As the Government look for fairer ways of funding local government and social care, might the Treasury not have another look at this?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I recognise my noble friend’s interest on this issue and I reassure him that his strong comments will be fed back to the department. However, he will know what I am about to say: creating new bands would also require a revaluation, both to determine which properties might be captured by those bands and to ensure a common valuation approach to all properties. Given that council tax income is not redistributed, new bands for the highest value properties would yield little extra money in areas where house prices are lower and demand for services may be higher.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, referred to the already high levels of council tax arrears. Have the Government made an assessment of what impact the £20 cut to universal credit is going to make on increasing those levels of arrears?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

No, we have not made any assessment of that.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

15:39

Asked by

[Baroness D’Souza]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking through the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy to support (1) individuals, and (2) groups, working on Official Development Assistance funded projects on gender and women’s rights in Afghanistan.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy was set up to facilitate the resettlement of Afghan nationals who worked with the UK Government in Afghanistan. A number of gender and women’s rights activists were evacuated as special cases under Operation Pitting, and those still in Afghanistan may be eligible for resettlement under the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

I thank the Minister. What precise assessment has the FCDO made of the number of affiliated academics and/or researchers currently in hiding? What on-the-ground assistance can be relied on to ensure their safe evacuation within the next few days?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will know, safe evacuation within the next few days is incredibly challenging, first, because of the lack of consular assistance and, secondly, because of the dangers in getting people out. But the schemes that we are running will enable people like those the noble Baroness talks about to ultimately find safety in this country.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask the Minister to reiterate the Government’s current advice to those desperate Afghans who are fleeing to the border, because there seems to be a contradiction between departments on that advice. What help and advice under the UK resettlement scheme can the Government offer to the many Afghan women judges who are in hiding from the Taliban because of the years in which they headed up specialist courts in the 34 provinces to protect women and girls?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I wholeheartedly concur with the noble Baroness on consistency of approach across government. It is no time for there to be differences in what departments are saying. In terms of the people that the noble Baroness refers to, I am going to read from the policy statement because it clarifies it:

“The scheme will prioritise … those who have assisted the UK efforts in Afghanistan and stood up for values such as democracy, women’s rights and freedom of speech, or rule of law (for example, judges, women’s rights activists, academics, and journalists)”.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has just stated what the policy will do. Can she tell us when we are going to get details of the resettlement policy? At the moment, there are thousands of people in hiding with no idea of how they are going to get out of Afghanistan and what they need to do to give this Government the right information to enable them to get out.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My honourable friend Victoria Atkins has started to outline some of the detail of what we are doing so far, and I think more will come. The policy statement makes very clear the types of people we will be prioritising—that is, the people who are most vulnerable to the Taliban.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, development contractors delivering projects for women and girls on behalf of the UK Government routinely employed local staff. Currently, the ARAP scheme does not recognise them as it recognises people employed directly by the Government. But these people are at risk; they are receiving regular and legitimate threats to life. Can my noble friend the Minister look at expanding the ARAP scheme to ensure that these people, as and when we are able to get them out of Afghanistan, can receive the help that they need?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. As she acknowledges, the ARAP scheme has already been broadened both before and during Operation Pitting. It was extended to include those who resigned from service, who were dismissed for all but serious misconduct or criminal offences and additional family members of certain contractors who worked alongside the UK and represented its interests. It is not our intention to broaden the scheme, but those who worked as contractors in support of women’s rights were eligible for evacuation as special cases and will be eligible for resettlement under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.

[Lord Loomba (CB)]

My Lords, in a society where women are discouraged or prevented from achieving economic independence, the fate of widows, whose number has grown exponentially in the conflict, is even more calamitous than in many other countries where they are merely ostracised. The plight of widowed mothers and their dependants in Afghanistan is that they are easy prey to exploitation of the worse kind and must not remain in the dark. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will commit to working with specialist NGOs to develop programmes to support such women with, or if necessary, without, the acquiescence of the new Government of Afghanistan?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The Government, particularly the Prime Minister, have made it very clear that we will work with the new regime. Prioritising the sorts of things that the noble Lord talks about is incredibly important—because they are the most vulnerable cohort of people that we are trying to both help in the region and resettle out of the region.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, last week I raised the vulnerability of the LGBT community in Afghanistan with the FCDO Minister, and I called on him to work with the Home Office to ensure that the resettlement scheme can help. Can the Minister tell us what cross-departmental work has taken place since to help to facilitate safe passage for the LGBT community, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, those who have worked on ODA-funded projects in Afghanistan, making them particularly vulnerable?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I recognise all that the noble Lord has said. Of course we work with things like the UNHCR. If I may go back to the policy statement, the point that comes after the first one that I read out refers to:

“vulnerable people, including women and girls at risk, and members of minority groups at risk, including ethnic and religious minorities and LGBT.”

LGBT people must be some of the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan at this point in time.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I welcome the noble Baroness’s statement. When it was clear and obvious that the Taliban were about to take over, the Government of Greece agreed to get women MPs out of Afghanistan because they were in very evident danger. That enabled those women to use their existing networks. Will our Government, in consultation with other international Governments, identify groups of women and girls who will be prioritised so that we can use what remains of their networks while we do not have a consular presence to get them out quickly?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness mentions a very sensible point: this is a global crisis, in many ways, because helping these people requires a global response, and co-ordinating effort is eminently sensible. I cannot give her details on what is going on, but there is a co-ordinated approach across government, and certainly lots of bilaterals are going on at this moment with my noble friend Lord Ahmad and other Ministers across the world.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to join other Members of the House to press the Minister to facilitate, as a matter of urgency, safe passage for those Afghan citizens who worked specifically on UK-funded academic research to advance the UK’s international development agenda? They have risked their lives undertaking fieldwork in areas of policy and practice that the Taliban see as a threat to their objectives.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said to other noble Lords, the ACRS will prioritise those people who have assisted UK efforts in Afghanistan and who face particular risk from the Taliban because of their stance on democracy and human rights or because of their gender, sexuality or religion.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, quite rightly pointed out that, with Afghan women MPs being helped to come out of Afghanistan, some of their networks have been broken up, as have some of the family structures. Could the Government undertake also to work with the diaspora in this country to ensure that some of these networks and families are being reunited and brought to work again?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

That is a very good point, and I will certainly take that back.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I declare an interest, as I chair the UK board of a peacebuilding charity that still operates within Afghanistan. The Minister indicated that UK officials have been in direct talks with the Taliban about the relocation, which is very welcome. However, of course we would all want to see continuing programmes within Afghanistan, so can the Minister confirm that UK officials will continue to talk with Taliban authorities? In the debate during the recall, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told me that no UK aid will go to the Taliban Government directly. What is the Government’s policy on continuing to provide overseas development assistance for these vital programmes that we would all wish, in an ideal world, to continue?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

If the noble Lord is amenable, I will ask the FCDO to outline precisely the details of that because it is slightly beyond my purview today.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

1st reading
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:50

The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed as a money Bill, and read a first time.

Monken Hadley Common Bill

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:50

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Lighting Products) Regulations 2021

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Motions to Approve

15:51

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

That the Regulations laid before the House on 1 July and 5 July be approved.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 September.

Motions agreed.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps etc.) (England) (Revocation and Amendment) Regulations 2021

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Motions to Approve

15:51

Tabled by

[Lord Bethell]

That the Regulations laid before the House on 15 July and 19 July be approved.

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 September.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bethell and with the leave of the House, I beg to move the three statutory instruments in his name en bloc.

Motions agreed.

Environment Bill

Report stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Report (4th Day)

15:52

Relevant documents: 3rd and 5th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 4th Report from the Constitution Committee

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, before we begin proceedings, I remind noble Lords that the Bill needs to conclude today, and we have 12 groups to get through. I do not propose to outline all the rules of engagement again; suffice to say that only the mover of an amendment may speak after the Minister. Other Members speaking after the Minister may do so only to ask short questions of elucidation. I remind noble Lords that brevity is king in all things and please could they try not to repeat arguments already made in the same debate.

Amendment 99

Moved by

[Lord Krebs]

99: After Clause 109, insert the following new Clause—
“Habitats Regulations: limits on powers to amend
(1) The Secretary of State may only make regulations under section 108 or 109—(a) for the purposes of—(i) securing compliance with an international environmental obligation, or(ii) contributing to the favourable conservation status of species or habitats or the favourable condition of protected sites; (b) if the regulations do not reduce the level of protection provided by the Habitats Regulations, including protection for protected species, habitats or sites; and(c) following public consultation and consultation with—(i) the Office for Environmental Protection,(ii) Natural England,(iii) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and(iv) other relevant expert bodies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that powers to amend the Habitats Regulations may only be used for the purposes of environmental improvement following consultation. It ensures that the level of environmental protection that must be maintained includes protection for important habitats, sites and species as well as overall environmental protection.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name together with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

The amendment replaces four amendments that we debated in Committee. It has the same intent as those four amendments: to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot amend the habitats regulations without due process and constraints.

Bearing in mind the admonition we recently heard, let me recap very briefly. The habitats regulations protect our most valuable conservation sites, habitats and species. While these sites account for only a modest proportion of our land and marine area, they certainly punch well above their weight when it comes to protection of species. Unlike the targets in Clause 3, which apply to the country as a whole, the habitats regulations refer to specific places. This is an important distinction.

Clauses 108 and 109 allow the Secretary of State to amend these regulations, and they do not give enough safeguards to ensure that our most valuable habitats will be protected in future. Amendment 99 would provide those safeguards, stating explicitly that any changes to the habitat regulations would not breach any of our international obligations, would contribute to enhancing the conservation of habitat sites and species and would not reduce current levels of protection. It would also require the Government to consult the appropriate statutory expert bodies and other relevant experts. In short, it places in the Bill the commitments that the Government have already made in debate in Committee, when the Minister reassured us on every point.

So what is not to like? The Minister told us that key reasons for Clauses 108 and 109 were contributing to “international obligations” and ensuring

“our protected sites can be restored to good condition”.

This is made clear in Amendment 99. He also told us that the powers in these clauses would be used only to strengthen environmental protection. However, as it stands this would be a test of the Secretary of State being satisfied that protections are not reduced. Although the Minister described this as a “high bar”, it is a subjective judgment. Amendment 99 would replace this subjective test, whereby Ministers mark their own homework, with an objective requirement. The Minister pointed out that the Secretary of State’s judgment could be challenged in the courts, but that seems to me to be setting up a system that would generate money for lawyers and take up large amounts of time with uncertain outcomes. Why not simplify with Amendment 99?

The Minister said that the Government would consult the office for environmental protection before making any changes to the habitats regulations. Amendment 99 extends the consultation requirement to include other relevant bodies. He also referred to a review led by the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, but did not tell us who was consulted in this review and what its impact will be. Perhaps he can expand on this in his reply.

As I have already mentioned, a crucial difference between the habitats regulations and the Clause 3 commitments is that the habitats regulations protect particular sites, habitats and species, while the Clause 3 targets do not. The Minister told us that Clause 108 is

“designed to allow requirements to specify … protections for habitats and species”.—[Official Report, 12/7/2021; cols. 1620-1.]

However, this does not guarantee those protections. The Minister also told us in Committee that the habitats regulations had not worked. I am not sure to which studies he is referring, but the evidence, as I understand it, from peer-reviewed literature, is that protected species fare better in countries where protection of the kind provided by the habitats regulations is most extensive and long-standing. This is not to say that things could not be improved. However, the Minister did not give us specific examples of how the powers of Clauses 108 and 109 would lead to an improvement. In fact, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that this was a post-Brexit opportunity to cut red tape and bureaucracy—hardly a reassuring message.

In summary, I have not heard any convincing arguments against the habitats regulations being maintained, and Amendment 99 will ensure that any changes in future will strengthen rather than weaken them. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say in his reply but, as things stand, I would wish to test the opinion of the House on this crucial amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House will hear from me a great deal later on, so I will be very brief in this contribution. I have attached my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which of course has full cross-party and non-party backing. The noble Lord has set out an overwhelmingly powerful case for why we should have this amendment.

I make two comments. We were promised non-regression with Brexit, and this would restore some of the protections that we lost with Brexit and, more than non-regression, we were promised improvements. This is simply standing still, so the Government really must commit to this amendment.

16:00

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, it was very long ago and far away that the birth of the habitats regulations took place, but it was something on which the EU was led by the UK. Since then, the impact in terms of improved protection for habitat sites and species has been huge. The SACs and SPAs that they created are the very jewels in the crown of UK nature and the countryside.

Clauses 108 and 109 as they stand state that any changes to the habitats regulations should not reduce the level of environmental protection provided, but the judge on whether a change represents a reduction in protection is left to the Secretary of State—he is going to mark his own homework. This would be after consultation of course, but the clauses do not say who he will consult.

Let us face it: we know that, in some quarters, the habitats regulations have long been a post-Brexit target for pulling their teeth. There is a unique hatred of the habitats regulations in some quarters. They are seen as getting in the way of development, but that is usually inappropriate development. There is an antagonism that is in the same camp as the sweeping zonal proposals in the planning system changes, which we hear the Government have been forced to abandon. The Secretary of State has asked the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, who was briefly in his place, to chair a habitats regulations assessment working group, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said. It is described as a small and informal group, but I think it is a bit of a giveaway that one member of this four-person group is also working with the Government on their planning reforms. It is so small and informal that it has not yet published any outcomes of its review. Can the Minister tell us when it will report and who it is consulting?

The Government say that they need to amend the habitats regulations to meet the Environment Bill targets and the environmental improvement plans, but measures to meet those could easily have been in addition to, not instead of, the habitats regulations. We should be rejoicing in what the UK-inspired habitats regulations have achieved in reducing annual damage to and loss of our key wildlife sites—from 17% each year before the regulations were introduced to 0.17% after their introduction.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, assured us that the proposed new powers were to improve the condition of our sites. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would set these good intentions in law.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that the Climate Change Committee will be one of the appropriate organisations to which this amendment applies; I declare an interest in that sense. There is nothing in this amendment that the Minister has not committed himself to already. All it would do is make sure of the advantages that we have in the habitats directive, which was taken into our own law. The Climate Change Committee has taken to it very strongly because of the additional advantages of sequestration and the treatment of land, which this helps in a significant way. I find it very difficult to see why the Government cannot accept it, unless there is somebody hidden away in No. 10 who has a plot.

I therefore hope that my noble friend realises what will happen if the Government do not accept this: he will have to whip the Conservative Party to vote against the very things that he says he will do. All this amendment would do is to make sure that any successive Minister would also have to do those things. That is, after all, a legacy that he would no doubt like to leave.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 109(3) says:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.”


I suggest that all the Minister needs to do from this point of view is delete the words “satisfied that”.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I add the support of our Benches for this important regulation on day four of Report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, the habitats regulations are the jewel in the crown in terms of protecting our sites of most special protection for our wildlife and our birds, our bitterns and our nightingales.

It has not been mentioned in this debate so far today that the proposals from the Government to amend these regulations were smuggled in on Report down the other end. These are incredibly important regulations. No one is saying that things must be set in stone for ever, but if they are to be changed, it should be done with full and clear consultation and for the right purpose.

The Minister said in Committee, “They’re not working.” I live in Surrey, which is one of the most densely populated areas, and they are working there. With the Thames Basin initiative of 11 planning authorities, we are managing to build the houses and protect the sites at the same time. If there are going to be changes, the Government should ensure that there is no regression, which this amendment would guarantee, and that there is consultation with experts. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, that might be a slightly broader list than that suggested in the amendment so far but certainly there needs to be that expert consultation.

If this amendment is not accepted, it will leave the impression that there are other reasons why the Government are prepared, at a time when we are facing a nature crisis, to sweep aside these most important protections. That will make people feel that perhaps it is because they want to ensure that planning regulations are given a light touch, which, frankly, is not appropriate given the environmental challenge and crisis that we face.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to which I have added my name.

The noble Lord has set out in detail why we have concerns about Clauses 108 and 109 and why the safeguards in our amendment are so important. There is real concern that the government clauses will weaken the protection of our most valued species and habitats which the habitats directive conferred. There is also concern that the clauses give the Secretary of State undue discretionary powers to change the rules in the future.

The Minister will no doubt argue that there is no need to worry and that the wording in the clauses give sufficient protection that the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity will be assured. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have explained, there is a difference between a general commitment to biodiversity and the specific protection of individual habitats and species. The new objectives are simply not a substitute for those of the nature directives, which have provided the first line of defence for our most precious habitats over many years.

If we are not careful, these new powers could be used to deconstruct the strict protections for the UK’s finest wildlife sites by referencing other enabling clauses in the Bill. This is why we believe that the general commitment to enhanced biodiversity and to halting species decline, which is elsewhere in the Bill, need to go hand in hand with the more specific guarantees set out in our amendment. This would ensure that any regulations made under these clauses delivered compliance with international obligations, and, crucially, improved the conservation status of species or habitats. It would also deliver the non-regression promises that the Government made when we left the EU.

In response to the debate in Committee, the Minister spelled out that the Government are planning a Green Paper in the autumn with the aim of providing a “fit-for-purpose regulatory framework” to deliver the Government’s ambitions for nature. However, we know that historically, the Government’s idea of “fit-for-purpose regulation” is less regulation and less protection, and we also know that a Green Paper could take a very long time to reach conclusions that can be enacted. We are being asked to put our faith in a process which is stepping into the unknown, and it is quite likely that by the time that process is completed, a different set of Ministers will be in play, with a different set of priorities. Therefore, the proposal for a Green Paper simply adds to our concerns.

Over the summer, we were grateful to have a meeting with the Defra officials dealing with this issue, who sought to reassure us that this was about improving nature recovery rather than watering it down. But of course they do not yet know the content of the Green Paper or its likely outcome. In the meantime, all we have before us is the wording in Clauses 108 and 109 and the rather amorphous phrase that the Secretary of State must “have regard to” the importance of furthering conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made clear, it should not be for the Secretary of State to make that call, or to be satisfied that the regulations do not reduce environmental protection for what my noble friend Lady Young rightly described as the jewels in the crown of the countryside. This decision needs to be authenticated by objective scientific bodies such as those set out in our amendment. I hope that noble Lords, having listened to the debate, will understand the strength of our concerns and will agree to support the amendment.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions during this debate. The Bill takes the world-leading step of requiring a new, historic and legally binding target to halt species decline by 2030. The powers in Clauses 108 and 109 form an integral part of our strategy to achieve this.

The first of those powers enables the amendment to Regulation 9 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Currently, that regulation requires Ministers and public authorities to comply with or have regard to the requirements of the habitats and wild birds directives. However, these requirements are not explicitly set out anywhere. This has provided scope for differing interpretations and disagreement, as well as potential for legal challenge.

Instead of spending time and taxpayers’ money on battles in the courtroom, we want to try to focus on ensuring that the protection of our designated sites and species is based on robust science and technical expertise. The Government will publish a Green Paper later this year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, acknowledged, which will set out clearly, plainly and transparently our view of the current requirements of Regulation 9 and remove that uncertainty. We will consult on and agree the conservation requirements necessary to meet our biodiversity targets and improve the natural environment. This will support our aim to focus on the scientific evidence as well as our national priorities for nature restoration.

The second power concerns the amendment to Part 6 of the regulations, which enables us to review the current habitats regulations assessment process. My noble friend Lord Benyon is chairing a small working group that is gathering information from experts regarding our current HRA process, to inform any future decisions on the use of these powers. The group is consulting a wide range of experts with direct experience of HRA, including the competent authorities, statutory advisers, environmental NGOs, developers, town and country planners and land managers. The group includes Minister Pow, Tony Juniper—he is chair of Natural England—and Christopher Katkowski QC. It will input options for proposals and questions to the Green Paper, which will then be subject to extensive consultation.

A clearer, quicker and more easily understood process will support environmental protection by focusing on the issues that really matter for protected sites. I am reminded that Lord Justice Sullivan, when the regulations were formulated, recommended that we needed a system that was simple and not too full of hurdles that could end up causing excessive battles in the courtrooms. It feels to me that, in part, that is where things have ended up.

However, I can commit to this House that no changes will be made without extensive consultation and strong parliamentary scrutiny. Consultation will include the office for environmental protection and statutory nature conservation bodies. It will also include key environmental NGOs, farmers and land managers to name a few. Those commitments are reinforced in Clauses 108(5) and 109(3), so that, in making regulations using these powers, Ministers must be satisfied that they do not reduce existing protections. In addition, we have added a specific requirement that Ministers justify to Parliament that any new regulations using these powers meet the test. This is a meaningful scrutiny mechanism with strong safeguards ensuring that we will not reduce the level of environmental protection.

I know some noble Lords are concerned that the changes will undermine the specific protections currently conferred by the habitats and wild birds directives, and I want to be clear that Clause 108(3) allows for requirements or objectives to be specified in relation to the 2030 species target or other long-term biodiversity targets and to improve our natural environment. These requirements and objectives can specify, among other things, how we must protect habitats and species, and at what scale, to ensure we can reverse biodiversity loss.

Additionally, many of the requirements in the directives derive in turn from multilateral environmental agreements, of which the UK is a contracting party and was instrumental in promoting—in particular, the Berne convention. We remain bound by international law and committed to those obligations to contribute to the conservation status of these habitats and species within their natural range and to continue to co-operate internationally to do so. We remain equally bound by and committed to conserving the marine environment under the Ospar convention; migratory species under the Bonn convention; wetlands under the Ramsar Convention; and, more broadly, the Convention on Biological Diversity.

I hope I have gone some way to reassure noble Lords that this power has been tightly drafted, with strong safeguards in place on its use, and that Amendment 99 is therefore not necessary. Climate change and biodiversity loss present huge long-term challenges that literally threaten our future if left unchecked. We need to act now, through this Bill, to halt the decline of species by 2030 and, as noble Lords will know, we will be legally obliged to do so when the Bill becomes an Act, as we hope it will. The habitats regulation assessment is a key mechanism for preventing deterioration of our most valuable habitats. We want to strengthen that protection and investigate ways in which the habitats regulation assessment could support better environmental outcomes. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and the Minister for his response. I want to make just three points. The first is that, listening carefully to what he said, I reiterate the question that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, put to him: there is nothing that the Government are not already committed to in this amendment, so why not accept it? I have not heard the argument against it. I have heard the argument for it from the Minister.

The second point concerns the Green Paper, which loomed large in the Minister’s response. There seems to be one species that might be protected by the Green Paper: the pig—the pig in the poke. We do not know what is going to be in the Green Paper. We have had a list of names of people who might be consulted, but we do not know what form the consultation has taken.

The third point is that the Minister referred to the need to have a regulatory regime that is quicker, easier and simpler. That rings alarm bells for me. Ease, simplicity and speed are not necessarily merits that one wishes to pursue if one’s aim is to protect the natural environment. I am afraid that although I have heard responses in detail to Amendment 99, I am not convinced that they provide a satisfactory end point, and therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:18

Division 1

Ayes: 201

Noes: 186

16:36

Amendment 100

Moved by

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

100: After Clause 110, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to implement an enhanced protection standard for ancient woodland in England
(1) The Government must implement an enhanced protection standard for ancient woodland, hereafter referred to as the “ancient woodland standard” in England as set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) and this must have immediate effect.(2) The ancient woodland standard must set out the steps necessary to prevent further loss of ancient woodland in England.(3) The ancient woodland standard commits the Government to adopting a standard of protection which must be a requirement for all companies, persons or organisations involved in developments affecting ancient woodlands in England.(4) This standard must be that— (a) any development that causes direct loss to ancient woodland or ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees must be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and, in addition, a suitable compensation strategy must be in place prior to development commencing,(b) any development adjacent to ancient woodland must incorporate a minimum 50-metre buffer to provide protection, reduce indirect damage and provide space for natural regeneration,(c) any ancient or veteran trees must be retained within a development site, including a root protection area and appropriate buffer zone.(5) This buffer zone must be whichever is greater of—(a) an area which is a radius of 15 times the diameter of the tree with no cap, or(b) 5 metres beyond the crown.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to address the more than 800 ancient woodlands in England that are currently threatened by development. As a large number of these threats result from indirect effects of development next to ancient woodland, these changes will improve the weight afforded to protecting these irreplaceable habitats in planning policy.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 100 seeks proper protection standards for ancient woodland. I am sure noble Lords have heard me bang on about ancient woodland enough, but I will bang on one more time. I thank my noble friend Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for putting their names to this amendment and declare my interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust—sorry, chair; I am not allowed to call myself chairman.

Ancient woodland is important. It is one of our most precious habitats. By definition, ancient woodlands are more than 400 years old, and they have developed over that long time a huge richness in biodiversity, communities and indeed history. They sequester much carbon and will continue to do so into the future. Over the next 100 years, they will double the amount of carbon stocks that they sequester.

The public love these woods. They make them feel good. They are the cathedrals of the natural world, so they are important. They are also irreplaceable. A new wood will not have the richness of an ancient woodland for 400 years at least. I had a bit of a laugh with the Public Bill Office, which challenged the word “irreplaceable” in the Member’s explanatory statement as that might be too subjective and campaigning, but before I could object and explain that “irreplaceable” was factual, they came back and said that, yes of course, I was right: ancient woodland is irreplaceable. Well done, Public Bill Office.

Ancient woodlands are important and irreplaceable, yet 800 ancient woodlands in England are under threat right now, mostly from housing and infrastructure development. Over the past 20 years, nearly 1,000 ancient woodlands have been permanently lost or damaged. We are down to the last fragments of what would have been extensive tree cover in England. It is ironic that the Government have a strong and much-welcomed policy to increase tree cover, but the invaluable remains of what we previously had as tree cover do not have any effective level of protection.

The National Planning Policy Framework advises planners and developers not to develop on ancient woodland except in “wholly exceptional” circumstances, but the NPPF is not always observed and does not apply to major infrastructure projects—hence the 800 ancient woodlands currently under threat. I was grateful for the Minister’s assurances that the planning reforms that the Government are contemplating will not dilute the modest protection given in the NPPF, but we have not yet seen the planning reforms.

I tabled an amendment in Committee based on giving protection by using the well-trodden SSSI process. I was very grateful to the many noble Lords who agreed that ancient woodland needs enhanced protection, but I recognise that some were uneasy about the SSSI route. My Amendment 100 is much simpler and lays a straightforward requirement on Government to implement an enhanced protection standard for ancient woodland, which would have as its objective the prevention of further loss and damage, and would apply to all developments affecting ancient woodlands in England.

The amendment specifies some simple components of a standard. First, developments should be permitted only in wholly exceptional circumstances and, in those cases, a suitable compensation strategy should be in place. Secondly, there should be a requirement for buffer strips in any development adjacent to an ancient woodland, since much of the damage is caused by adjacent development. Thirdly, any ancient or veteran trees within a development site should be protected, with proper buffering again and with root protection. I hope noble Lords find this simple amendment much more supportable.

In Committee, the Minister helpfully outlined the Government’s commitment, through the England Trees Action Plan 2021-2024, to additional support for long-established woods, which are defined as woods established before 1840, and to support measures to remove inappropriate conifer overplanting on ancient woodland sites. But these measures will not stop the threat from developments to our existing important, wonderful and irreplaceable ancient woodland sites. These sites need statutory protection, which they currently lack. I hope the Minister accepts my amendment.

Without statutory protection, we will see the remaining fragments diminish, afflicted by continued development and climate change, and being too small to survive. Our children and their children will weep at our neglect. I beg to move.

May I also say a few words about Amendment 101?

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has moved her amendment.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

I was delighted to add my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment, because I fully support her in this. I enjoy her banging on about ancient woodlands but, for those noble Lords who do not, there is a simple remedy: vote for the amendment.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Baroness in this amendment. It is astonishing that we even have to have this debate and consider this amendment. Trees are astonishing. There is a tree a few miles from where I live in Somerset that was living before Stonehenge was a twinkle in a Stone Age eye. Not far from me is the tallest tree in England, inside a wood that is known as Atlantic rainforest. As the noble Baroness just said, we have 800 ancient woods that are currently under threat. I imagine Historic England would have something to say if that number of its buildings were being threatened with demolition right now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has brought forward a simple proposition that requires the Government to develop and implement an ancient woodland standard of protection on a statutory basis. This would mean that our last remaining fragments of ancient woodland —as she said, the cathedrals of our natural life—are protected. These are not made by man, yet it always seems to me that we favour the buildings that we make ourselves, as though they are somehow better.

It is no excuse to say that to plant trees is a reason to cut down ancient woodland; They will not absorb enough carbon, as it will take them 400 years to become as rich. To my mind, it is like saying that we can replace a building like Blenheim Palace with a Wimpey housing development in its grounds and somehow say that it makes society better. I urge noble Lords to vote for this.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I also added my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This Bill is all about biodiversity—plants, insects, mammals, worms, butterflies and micro-organisms. It is all about sustainable ecosystems and healthy soil, the look and feel of our countryside, our heritage and people’s enjoyment of that countryside.

Ancient woodlands tick just about every box in that list and more, and they constitute only 2.5% of our landmass. Surely we should be able to protect them, yet many are under threat, directly and indirectly. I am fortunate; if I go out of my back gate and look over to the left, I see one of the most magnificent sights—Duncliffe Hill in north Dorset. It is less than three miles away and it is my destination for walking. When you get there, it is a truly magical place, particularly at bluebell time but also at most times of the year. It is home to almost every organism that we have in our natural environment, from lichens to roe deer.

16:45

The fact is that some such woods are under threat. I do not think Duncliffe Hill is under threat—no one is building a road there—but not far away there is a much smaller ancient woodland that, 20 years ago, stood on its own, protected and surrounded only by open fields. But 20 years later it is surrounded by housing developments on three sides. That must have some effect on the viability of the water supply and the ambiance where that ancient woodland has survived. There are both direct and indirect effects.

I find it difficult. I personally support the HS2 project in principle, but why we have not managed to avoid a route that hits ancient woodlands I do not understand. Similarly, I support housing development in general, but there is plenty of land for it that does not need to impinge on these fantastic survivors. We need to preserve them all. I support the amendment and I hope the House will do the same.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the amendment, and if the noble Baroness decides to divide the House then we shall support her in that vote. Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as I understand it from the Woodland Trust publication, 97.5% of the rest of the land could be developed in order to avoid ancient woodland. For me, this amendment is so important because of the biodiversity of these woodlands and the species under threat in this 2.5% of our precious land.

There are two amendments in this group. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will be speaking to hers later on, but I want to say that a tree strategy is important in how we move forward in the area of woodland forests and trees. I noted in the Conservative manifesto of 2019—the current government programme—a target to plant 75,000 acres of woodland per year by the end of this Parliament. You cannot do that without a sensible strategy that makes sure there is a balance between climate change and biodiversity, and that these plantings last and tie in with nature recovery strategies; you cannot do it with just a huge, broad target. I welcome the scale of the ambition, but we have to have a strategy to go along with it. We on these Benches very much support Amendment 101 and believe it is an excellent way to move forward.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and confirm that I am the owner of, and actively manage and love, ancient woodland.

I do not support Amendment 100 as I do not believe in the sacrosanct protection that appears to be its purpose. First, not all woodland designated as ancient is of such high environmental value that it requires such protection—particularly PAWS, which are ancient woodland sites where semi-natural woodland has been replaced with a plantation. Secondly, there is also currently an opportunity to negotiate strong mitigation that will offer bigger and better woodland habitat if development is in or adjacent to ancient woodland. This amendment might preclude this.

The standards proposed are very similar to what already exists in the joint standing advice that the Forestry Commission and Natural England have issued, which is a material consideration for planning authorities, as is the National Planning Policy Framework, as has been mentioned. It states in paragraph 180(c) that, when determining planning applications, planning authorities should apply the following principle:

“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.

The framework also covers infrastructure projects, including

“nationally significant infrastructure projects … where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat”,

the only difference being the greatly expanded buffer zones.

Definitions are key to preventing well-intentioned legislation constraining legitimate forestry work. For instance, what do the proposers of this amendment mean by, first, “development”? Does it include woodland creation, rides, forest roading, culverting and widening access points on highways? Secondly, does the policy to

“prevent further loss of ancient woodland”

prevent restocking PAWS with conifers and non-native broad-leaves, planting up the edges of ancient woodland sites with non-native species and widening access points? Thirdly, is “ancient woodland” the Forestry Commission category or based on a looser definition of woodland indicators? Fourthly, the amendment mentions “a suitable compensation strategy”—decided by whom and how calibrated?

This amendment should be rejected. I suggest that the best thing the Government can do to help ancient woodland is to fund and unashamedly support the eradication of the grey squirrel and massively reduce deer pressure.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I am as keen on the environment as anyone else, but I suggest that it is incumbent on the proposers of these two amendments to explain what is supposed to happen when a piece of major national infrastructure, such as High Speed 2, comes into conflict with a small area of ancient woodland.

Secondly, as regards new planting and new planting targets, we all have to bear in mind that, at present, there is an acute shortage of plants available to go into the ground. Therefore, the Government should be extremely cautious about just increasing their targets for new planting.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I was very much in sympathy with similar amendments in Committee, but I have a feeling that this amendment presses the argument just a step too far.

Perhaps I can provide an answer to my noble friend Lord Hylton’s question. I sat on the committee that looked at the HS2 line to Crewe, and I can say to him that it would be impossible, because of veteran trees along the line, to carry out that development as was proposed.

One remembers that this amendment directs attention not only to ancient trees but to veterans. It also asks us to accept that every single tree

“must be retained within a development site, including a root protection area and appropriate buffer zone.”

One can think of development sites of great areas where that might just be possible, but there are many others where it would effectively extinguish the possibility of development. So I feel that this amendment, although very well intentioned—I am so much in sympathy with what the noble Baroness seeks to do—just presses it a little too far, with language that does not allow any latitude at all for exceptional cases.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have to question the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of HS2 as affecting a

“small area of ancient woodland”,

given that the Woodland Trust says that 108 areas of ancient woodland are at risk of “loss or damage”. However, it will probably please your Lordships’ House to know that I will not restart the HS2 debate at this moment.

I will focus on Amendment 100, to which we in the Green Party would have attached one of our names, had there been space. We are talking about something very ancient and precious, and we can make comparisons with cathedrals and indeed with your Lordships’ House. I was on the site of what is supposed to be the Norwich western link, standing at the base of an oak tree that was a sapling when Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne. An ancient woodland containing trees like that is comparable to your Lordships’ House or a cathedral. Think about the protections we offer to those and all the money we are thinking about putting in to preserving this building; we are in a different place on that.

We often think of ancient woodland as being out in the countryside somewhere. I want to be a little parochial and point out that Sheffield has 80 ancient woodlands within its boundary. I want to think and talk about the benefits to human health and well-being of having these ancient woodlands—indeed, London has some of them, and, when I lived here, I used to walk in them as well. They have enormous human health benefits that we have to take account of.

Returning to the subject of walking through ancient woodland in Sheffield or the threatened woodland in Norwich, we are talking about not just trees here but crucial, utterly irreplaceable habitats for bats and insects. These woodlands would have a chance truly to flourish without air pollution and other factors. Lichens and mosses—crucial, complex organisms that are absolutely foundational to rich, healthy ecosystems—depend on those ancient trees to thrive and indeed survive. So I commend both these amendments to your Lordships’ House, and I encourage the noble Baroness to press Amendment 100 in particular to a vote.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour Amendment 100, in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, and Amendment 101 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We regard both these amendments as important.

As I said in Committee, the Bill is woefully lacking in any reference to a tree strategy and the need to protect our existing woodland stock as well as to increase the percentage of England under tree cover. The only such reference in the Bill is to felling street trees, and although this is an important issue, the crucial importance of preserving our ancient woodland and the need to deliver the protection and expansion of trees in woodlands in the future is not recognised.

As noble Lords have said, a comprehensive strategy is important not just to enhance biodiversity but in order to play a crucial role in carbon capture and sequestration. This has been emphasised by the Committee on Climate Change, which has pointed out that the UK tree-planting effort has “consistently fallen below” the target needed to achieve net zero by 2050.

Of course, we recognise that the Government have produced a tree action plan, but it is non-statutory and lacks the clarity and targets to deliver the necessary transformation of our landscapes and to tackle climate change. This is why we believe that a tree strategy with statutory and interim targets should be in the Bill. It should include measures to guarantee the preservation of ancient woodland, an emphasis on broad-leaf native woodland and greater powers to protect trees from disease and pests by encouraging domestic nurseries to produce more resilient saplings. It should also recognise the importance of smaller woodlands in creating biodiverse nature corridors and enhancing public enjoyment at a local level—a point made by my noble friend Lord Whitty.

Although we welcome the Government’s commitment to planting 30,000 hectares a year by the end of this Parliament, the Minister will know all too well that non-statutory tree-planting targets have come and gone in the past, as the earlier promise to plant 11 million trees demonstrates. So, I hope that, when he responds, the Minister can explain why a statutory tree strategy is missing from the Bill when there are already a number of strategies for other parts of nature development in it.

17:00

Meanwhile, my noble friend Lady Young has made an expert case for a new duty to protect ancient woodlands. As she said, they are some of our richest and most complex communities of biodiversity, both above and below ground. They are particularly adept at sequestrating carbon and have huge historical significance. As my noble friend said, they are irreplaceable. So I was shocked to hear from my noble friend in Committee, and again today, that at least 800 of these ancient woodlands are currently under threat from development, mostly housing, roads and railways.

While it is true that developers are discouraged from damaging ancient woodland under the National Planning Policy Framework, this has not provided the protection that these sites deserve, particularly in terms of the unique role they play in protecting and enhancing our biodiversity and habitats. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I feel he has his priorities wrong in this regard. This is not just about another housing development or road build; it is about the historical and unique nature of these woodlands, which we need to protect. As my noble friend Lady Young said, once you take up these ancient woodlands, they will take another 400 years to replace, so it is not a simple task of creating another development elsewhere.

We also agree with my noble friend that ancient woodlands are too precious and valuable to be disregarded. We believe that both these amendments deserve to be in the Bill, which is sadly lacking both a forward strategy for trees and a crucial protection for the unique and much-loved ancient woodlands that we have inherited and must protect for the future. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he will be able to address these concerns.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for butting in; I realise that it is not proper procedure to do so after the Front Bench has spoken but I have somehow got lost in what proper procedure is. I wish to make two quick points before the Minister replies, with the indulgence of the House.

First, with respect to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, we need to bear in mind that, in the 20th century, a semi-natural woodland had a far better chance of staying that way if it was in private hands rather than belonging to the Forestry Commission. The Government, as an owner of woodland, need to look to their own house.

Secondly, on the other amendment and the target of 30,000 hectares a year, I would just point out that this policy is being eyed up with relish by the commercial forestry industry. There is a huge amount of momentum behind the planting of alien Sitka spruce trees, particularly in the uplands, which will have a damaging and detrimental effect on the environment. I therefore have some sympathy for the second of these amendments.

Again, I apologise for butting in.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, apologise but I wanted to say that I regard this amendment as not just important but essential. These woodlands and trees, whether they be ancient or veteran, are crucial. They are part of the heart of our country. If you remove them, they will be gone for ever. It is similar to removing ancient and important buildings. I well remember when Mr Heath was being pressured to allow the whole of the Treasury and Foreign Office to be swept away so that we could have more efficient offices; we would have had another Marsham Street there. My God, what a thought.

If we do not accept this amendment—perhaps the Minister will accept it, or say that he will do something —we will send completely the wrong signal to the outside world: that we do not mind about something about which we care deeply.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

Turning to Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I thank her for her amendment and for her ambition to see more trees planted and protected. It is an ambition that she knows I share. As I mentioned in Committee, we are taking steps to plant more trees and protect woodlands. This was set out in the England Trees Action Plan which was published in May. The Government have already committed to at least treble planting rates in England over this Parliament and to increase tree planting across the UK to 30,000 hectares per year by the end of the Parliament, which is broadly in line with the 75,000 hectares that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned. In the England Trees Action Plan, the Government also took the significant step of committing to consulting on a new, long-term tree target through a public consultation on Environment Bill targets, expected in early next year. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, such a target would be legally binding, not just aspirational. This amendment is therefore not needed.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her amendment on ancient woodlands. Ancient woodlands are protected under the National Planning Policy Framework. The Government also have standing advice for local authority planners which is to be used as a material consideration when making planning decision proposals affecting ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees. We think that the majority of the proposals suggested in this amendment are already covered under the National Planning Policy Framework and the Forestry Commission and Natural England’s ancient woodland standing advice. The Government will keep under review cases where loss or deterioration of ancient woodland has been or is justified on the basis of “wholly exceptional” circumstances and will encourage them to be brought to our attention at Defra at an early stage. That message has gone out. We will also revise guidance to planners making decisions on what is considered wholly exceptional to avoid some of the circumstances that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, mentioned.

As recently committed to in the England Trees Action Plan, we will build on these protections, including by introducing a new category of long-established woodland—they are woodlands that have been around since 1840—and we will consult on the protections they are afforded in the planning system. We also committed within the action plan that the Government will update the ancient woodland inventory to cover the whole of England, including smaller ancient woodland sites of one-quarter of a hectare. As I mentioned in Committee, our England Trees Action Plan also includes new steps to protect and restore ancient woodlands through management and restoration. Our new England woodland creation offer will fund landowners to buffer and expand ancient woodland sites by planting native broad-leaf woodland, and the Government will update the Keepers of Time policy on the management of ancient woodland, veteran trees and other semi-natural woodland.

In addition, the Secretary of State and I have been in regular discussions with colleagues in MHCLG to explore further measures that can be included in the upcoming planning Bill to build on the protections that are there to avoid the kind of outcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, fears. This will also be high on my list of issues to discuss with the new Secretary of State for MHCLG, Michael Gove, who shares this House’s interest in ancient trees and their protection.

I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the action the Government are taking and will take to protect ancient woodland and of the importance of the such precious environments. I beg her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their comments and support, and thank the Minister for his response. I was particularly taken by the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who basically said that we would not play as fast and loose with heritage buildings as we do with ancient woodland. I think the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about how the additional protection would work can be met by saying that the amendment gives considerable leeway to government to design the protection measure, and many of his points could be addressed during that design effort.

As the Minister said, the current protection is enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework and standing advice, but I am not reassured by that, because, with 800 cases of imminent damage on the books at the moment, it is clear that the NPPF and the standing advice are not working. No amount of revising guidance to planners will bring the level of statutory protection that is required.

I very much welcome all the changes that the Minister said, as he did in Committee, that they are hoping to make to the woodland inventory, management schemes and the Keepers of Time policy, but they do not really address the development issues. I would not want to hang my hat on measures in the planning Bill until we see the Bill and the colour of the new Minister’s coat, now that he will be running MHCLG.

Having heard considerable support around the House for my amendment, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

17:11

Division 2

Ayes: 193

Noes: 189

17:27

Amendments 101 to 105 not moved.

Schedule 17: Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity

Amendment 106

Moved by

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

106: Schedule 17, page 240, line 42, at end insert—
“2A_(1) A regulated person in relation to a forest risk commodity must not use that commodity, or a product derived from that commodity, in their UK commercial activities unless the source organism was not grown, raised, or cultivated on land that was forest at the date this paragraph comes into force, or an earlier date specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and has since been degraded or converted to agricultural use.(2) Without limiting sub-paragraph (1), forest is regarded as degraded if its tree canopy cover (excluding trees planted for the purpose of producing timber or other commodities) has decreased due to human activity.(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to source organisms grown, raised or cultivated by indigenous peoples, or other communities with customary land use rights, in accordance with their customary rights and practices.(4) A regulated person in relation to a forest risk commodity must not use that commodity, or a product derived from that commodity, unless free, prior and informed consent has been obtained in relation to that commodity from indigenous peoples in accordance with their rights under international law, and from other local communities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require, with exceptions, that a regulated person does not use forest risk commodities or products derived from those commodities in their UK commercial activities if they are derived from land that is deforested after the commencement of Schedule 17 or an earlier date set by regulation.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I once again reiterate my conservation and wildlife interests as in the register, particularly, in relation to these amendments, as a vice-president of Fauna and Flora International. I shall speak to a number of amendments in this group in my name. I will try to be brief, but they cover three distinct and important issues. In Committee, at the behest of my Whips—as always, I listen to the Whips—I rather gabbled through the arguments and although it read all right in Hansard, I am not sure anybody really listened to it. I will try to be a bit slower this time and ask for noble Lords’ indulgence.

Amendment 106 relates to the due diligence framework, which was a relatively late addition to the Bill, and is in broad terms very welcome. I congratulate the Government heartily on bringing it forward; indeed, I believe the Government fully understand this and rightly put a global halt to deforestation at the centre of their agenda for the COP summit in Glasgow. These measures are the first of their kind and we should be justly proud of our Government. They are the Government’s response to the Global Resource Initiative task force’s recommendation from March 2020 for a mandatory due diligence obligation on companies that place commodities and derived products that contribute to deforestation, whether legal or illegal under local laws, on the UK market. The GRI made other recommendations which are yet to be embraced in legislation. I hope that these might be returned to at the earliest opportunity, such as the need to ensure that similar principles are applied to the finance industry.

The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the Government’s approach is the right one. We know that action to tackle deforestation is not only a political and moral imperative; it is also an economic one, given the vital role that the world’s forests play in storing carbon, providing a home for some of our most spectacular and endangered wildlife on this precious planet, sourcing medicines and other valuable products, and in sustaining local livelihoods and cultures. The Government’s approach is focused on illegal deforestation. I fully understand the reasons for that, but will it be enough?

17:30

We should also ask ourselves how well the Bill responds to the challenges that will arise from the inevitable weakening or blurring of local laws that will follow it. That is one of the reasons why I propose my Amendments 107 and 108, which I will turn to shortly. It is also why I have tabled Amendment 106, which seeks to introduce a requirement

“that a regulated person does not use forest risk commodities or products derived from those commodities in their UK commercial activities if they are derived from land that is deforested after the commencement of Schedule 17 or an earlier date set by regulation.”

It also provides for an exception for forest risk commodities produced

“by indigenous peoples, or other communities with customary land use rights”

according to traditional farming practices.

Under the proposals, large companies will have a legal obligation to carry out due diligence checks to ensure there is no illegal deforestation in their supply chains of so-called forest risk commodities, with the list of products affected likely to include, among others, beef, soya and palm oil. However, there is a loophole: what counts as illegal deforestation will be determined by the laws in the producer country. Products derived from legal deforestation, or rather deforestation deemed legal by a national or regional Government anywhere in the world that UK businesses source their goods, will still be available on the shelves of British supermarkets.

A recent analysis by the World Wide Fund for Nature found that in areas of Brazil that supply soy directly to the UK, more than 2.1 million hectares of natural vegetation, including forest—an area larger than Wales—could be legally converted under current laws. The proposals as they stand also risk creating a perverse incentive for Governments in producer countries actively to lower their standards, to shift the goalposts of what counts as legal deforestation, in order to maintain access to the UK market. Laws can be changed quicky, as we are seeing with several controversial Bills going through the Brazilian Congress which could give an amnesty to land grabbers that have illegally deforested public land and reduced protections for indigenous peoples’ land rights. It is precisely the kind of recklessness that the UK’s due diligence regime should be working against and not inadvertently incentivising.

A far better approach is available to us. The NGO Forest Coalition, an alliance of leading environmental and human rights groups, has called for the new law to address all deforestation in UK supply chains and not just that deemed illegal. The benefits of such an approach are self-evident in terms of forest protection; they also make more sense for the British businesses that would have to implement the law. Global satellite tools exist that can clearly show whether deforestation has taken place, but no such technology exists that can easily identify whether that deforestation was legal or illegal. Last year, 20 UK businesses, including Sainsbury’s and Aldi, wrote to the Government asking them not to limit the due diligence requirements to illegal deforestation, a reflection of the fact that the British consumer is increasingly impatient to see businesses they trust take tougher action to protect the natural world.

How the UK decides to legislate in this area could have a considerable ripple effect. The EU and the US are also weighing up how to combat deforestation in their supply chains. If the UK Government decide to take a clear “no deforestation” approach, I am sure others will take note. There could be no clearer demonstration that this really is a “code red” situation and that half-measures will no longer suffice. I understand the practical difficulties, but I urge Her Majesty’s Government to be bold at this crucial time for our planet.

I have a number of questions for my noble friend the Minister, who I know shares my passion for the conservation of forest as well as biodiversity and the environment in general. I hope I may get some answers. If he cannot provide them today, I am very happy for him to write to me.

Given the central role that the Global Resource Initiative taskforce has played in informing and testing government policy, it would be immensely reassuring were my noble friend able to confirm to the House that the GRI will not only be maintained but its remit broadened beyond deforestation, as it itself recommended in its final report.

Amendments 107 and 108 would strengthen the review provision in Schedule 17. It is very welcome that this part of the Bill includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the forest risk commodities framework every two years and to lay before Parliament and publish a report of the conclusions. However, there are no requirements regarding the quality, transparency or independence of the review, nor is there a requirement to address any deficiencies or weaknesses identified by any such review, or to make any needed improvements to the content, implementation or enforcement of the forest risk commodities framework. My amendments would address these omissions and ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples be considered, a consultation be held, and the Secretary of State take steps to eliminate forest risk commodities from UK commercial activities.

The recent report from Global Witness is clear evidence of why the rights of indigenous peoples must be a formal part of this review. We should all be shocked that 227 land and environment defenders were killed in 2020—the highest number of lethal attacks ever recorded. We can be under no illusion that our aims for this measure may not be shared by others in those very places this new law seeks to protect. It is essential therefore that the review consider the rights of indigenous peoples fully and explicitly. I urge my noble friend to confirm that this will be the case.

These amendments would help ensure that the measure is progressively improved over time. They would also enable the due diligence framework to be adjusted to address any deregulation or undermining of protections for forest in producer countries. Finally, let us not forget the public, as it is public pressure to free our supply chains from deforestation that has inspired so much of our progress to date. The Government must consult relevant stakeholders as part of the review, as my Amendment 107 proposes.

My Amendment 121 is on global footprint, and I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for supporting it. We discussed this matter in depth in Committee, where there was clear agreement about the importance and urgency of reducing our global footprint. In this year of global action, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to set out more clearly the Government’s plans on this. I welcomed his assurance in Committee that the power to set long-term, legally-binding targets in Clause 1 can be used to set targets on any matter relating to the natural environment, including reducing our global footprint. I am also grateful for the very helpful factsheet that I received from the department last night. However, while this is a welcome clarification, there are two matters of significant unfinished business for this Bill. The first is the timescale for setting a global footprint target, which my Amendment 121 would clarify. The second is the process that will be followed to develop any such target, which I hope my noble friend will be able to elucidate.

On timescales, noble Lords will recall that the power in Clause 1 allows the Government to set long-term targets which must last for at least 15 years. While this long-term approach is undoubtedly welcome, as it will extend beyond and between successive Administrations, it means that, with the best will in the world, the earliest the global footprint target might be set is 2023. As such, a target is not to be included in the first tranche of targets that we expect to be published for consultation next year. That means, in effect, that the earliest a target would need to be met is 2038. I fear this is simply too late, given the evidence that the World Wide Fund for Nature and many others have gathered. Its report, published in June, found that we need to reduce our global footprint as a nation by three-quarters by 2030 if we are to live within our planetary means. That 2030 timescale for a global footprint target is not possible within the framework of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister might look at this carefully to ensure that the Government’s commitment to tackle our global footprint will not be kicked into the long grass.

On process, will my noble friend respond to four simple questions? First, will he commit to consult on a target to reduce the UK’s global environmental footprint ahead of the conclusion of COP 15, as recommended by the Environmental Audit Committee in its June 2021 report on biodiversity in the UK? Secondly, will he agree to establish an independent expert panel to advise on the global footprint target? Thirdly, will he be able to appraise us of the legislative vehicle by which the Government would set a 2030 global footprint target, if they accept the evidence that this timescale is necessary? Finally, will he, when preparing the Government’s response to the independent report on the national food strategy, consider the potential for any legislative response?

I thank noble Lords for their indulgence for this speech, which is considerably longer than my customary contributions, but this is something I feel very strongly about. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 108A, 108B and 108C. Before I say anything else, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had planned to be here to speak in favour of these amendments. Unfortunately he has been pulled away to a meeting and may not be able to get back to the Chamber in time.

The aims of the amendments are to ensure the earliest possible review of the deforestation provisions in Schedule 17 and, in the case of Amendment 108C, to enable Ministers by regulations, without delay—that being the important point—to extend their controls over UK use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity to legally deforested land. As noble Lords know, Schedule 17 currently applies restrictions on UK companies in relation only to commodities produced on illegally deforested land. This very much leaves all the power in the hands of the Government. This is very important when one is trying to gain their support on an issue.

I fully support all the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Indeed, I moved a similar amendment to Amendment 106 in Committee. That amendment would immediately extend the Schedule 17 provision to all deforested land, whether it has been done legally or illegally. Of course, this is ideally what should and needs to happen to save the planet. I support the noble Lord’s arguments but will not repeat them in view of the time.

According to one estimate, 15 billion trees are cut down each year over a land area equivalent to three and a half times the size of Wales. This is, of course, devastating for climate change and therefore the planet. Any delay in discouraging such deforestation is therefore obviously extremely serious.

In a very useful meeting with the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for which I thank the Minister very much, the Minister made it clear that he is negotiating with lots of other countries on this issue and explained that he needs to be seen to try limiting our controls to illegally deforested land initially to bring other countries along with us. Obviously, lots of countries working together to discourage deforestation is far preferable to just one country operating alone. However, I pointed out that having lots of countries doing something that actually makes no difference is not that useful, because countries such as Brazil will simply sidestep the policy set out in this Bill, and where are we? Nowhere at all, actually. Nevertheless, I respect the Minister’s wish to give this a try, but that underlines the importance of being able to rectify it as soon as we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, explained the importance of a comprehensive law on deforestation from the point of view of our employers. Again, I will not repeat his arguments.

As I said, Schedule 17 as it stands limits the scope of our controls over commercial activity in forest risk commodities to those produced in illegally deforested land. There is no real prospect of this position being changed for years to come, as the Bill stands. That is my great concern, because every year really matters in this field. We would have two or three years before a review and then goodness knows how many years before we could have a piece of primary legislation. As noble Lords know, we really could wait many years for that. How many billions of trees will be lost before the UK takes meaningful action? It does not bear thinking about.

17:45

Hence the importance of the modest Amendments 108A to 108C. They would ensure that there was a review within one to two years after implementation. In many ways more important than even Amendments 108A and 108B is Amendment 108C, which would enable the Government to prepare regulations and implement them immediately following the review. As the Minister said, we will know very quickly whether this limit to illegal deforestation is working. In fact, we will probably know pretty quickly that it is not. Therefore, to give Ministers the power—and in this case to introduce regulations—seems absolutely justified. I say this as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee, which fights week after week against Henry VIII powers. This is a Henry VIII power, but we need it so that Ministers do not have to delay. This is far too important an issue to hang about.

The Minister agreed that we will all know very quickly, as I said, so we really do need to get on with this. We could then finally have a Bill that leads to effective action and, I hope, will bring in other countries behind what we are planning to do. These amendments are desperately needed to ensure that good action is taken. I hope the Minister will be able to accept Amendments 108A to 108C, but if not I will want to test the opinion of the House.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendments, particularly Amendment 121. This would enable global footprint targets to be part of regulations. That in turn can give us much more confidence that we really will manage to stick to these necessary dates and deadlines.

In Committee, my noble friend the Minister pointed out that the Clause 1 power might be used to set a global footprint target. That is certainly helpful. However, the Bill is unclear about timescales. Within its current scope, long-term targets have to be for at least 15 years. As my noble friend Lord Randall just observed, the latter focus already becomes anomalous if, for example, targets cannot apply for a period less than 15 years, such as that until 2030, which is exactly by when we are told as a nation that we should reduce the United Kingdom’s global footprint by three-quarters.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that while the implementation of Amendment 121 guards against slippage, putting these targets into regulations would also give a strong message internationally that, in this matter, the United Kingdom is committed to leading good practice?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the three noble Lords who have already spoken on this group. They have given us a comprehensive explanation of why we need all these amendments. I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the global footprint timetable. It has already been clearly set out why this amendment needs to pass: we need drastic action now.

A large number of amendments in Committee addressed the broader issues here. There was the call to look at not just resource efficiency but cutting total resource use in Part 1. There was the call to move towards the Treasury managing our economy for the purposes of people and planet, not chasing after growth that we cannot have more of on a finite planet. Your Lordships have heard the Government’s cries about their desire to progress the Bill quickly, so many of these amendments have not been put. They have been boiled down to some very clear, simple essentials that need to happen. I offer support for all these amendments.

The questions that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, asked were very clear and important, but I will address a direct question to the Minister on Schedule 17. It is crucial that Schedule 17 covers the main commodities driving global deforestation, so can he confirm that it will cover beef and leather, cocoa, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber and soy? They are not currently defined in the schedule, and there is concern that any limits to the approach would utterly undermine the intentions expressed in this provision and by the Government.

I also want briefly to address Amendment 107 on the rights of indigenous people. We know that many of the parts of the world that still remain relatively pristine rely heavily on indigenous people to protect them, and how often their rights to do so and to live their lives are threatened by mining companies associated with us—often large multinationals with close ties to the UK. When one considers that and our historic legacy, as well as the impact of colonialism on those communities, we have a particular responsibility to ensure, practically and morally, that they are being listened to.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on his speech and his due diligence on this issue, which is crucial in terms of deforestation. We have the frustration whereby we want extraterritoriality, which we do not normally have in the UK, but we can influence some of these matters only through supply chains and our own British corporates. The United States seems to get away with extraterritoriality in relation to more or less everything. We do not have that privilege.

As regards this approach, I also like the reference to recognising indigenous people. It is clear and obvious that it is so much more effective to keep forests rather than start to regrow them. That is the other side of the coin, as it were, to the previous debate and perhaps is even more important. That is why these Benches are very much in favour of the system proposed—although one of the big challenges that we have faced regarding environmental regulation and the Bill is enforcement and making sure that the regulations that we make can operate and are policed. We have the FSC, the Forest Stewardship Council, which works okay but all of us know of instances of duplicity in the system—not in the work of the FSC itself but among those copying and wrongly branding products. That challenge remains, but that does not mean that we should not move ahead in these areas.

I want also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on his pioneering work on the global footprint. We have mentioned a number of areas but the Dasgupta review, sponsored by the Treasury, again stressed that in terms of natural capital we are extracting far more than we are putting back into the planet. I suspect that the noble Lord is not expecting the Minister to accept the amendment but I hope that the Government will do further work in this area. I agree strongly with a point that the noble Lord made: if we can become the leader of standards in this area, it would be incredibly important.

Lastly, I come to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on urgency. That is the word I hear from her and she is absolutely right. We have so little time in so many of these areas and here, through these amendments—which I hope the Government and the Minister will accept—we have an opportunity to wind up that urgency and start to make right what we need to do soon and so urgently.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I have put my name, although only online, to my noble friend Lady Meacher’s amendments as well as to Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall.

We outsource so many things in this country that globalisation has destroyed any sense we have of how products get to us or what they are made of. Just look at the list of ingredients that go into a cheap ready meal. They will certainly contain stuff that one’s grand- mother would not recognise and probably include ingredients such as soy. Manufacturers are keen to keep us ignorant of those chains.

Much of what happens on Amazonian land, in the forests of Brazil and other parts of South America, is the growing of soy and feed crops for cattle, which then go to feed us. From an environmental and energy point of view, that is a travesty. I am not even counting the transport involved. We are colluding—for many people, I am sure, completely unwittingly—in pulling and cutting down ancient rainforests for the simple reason that the loggers and farmers can get away with it. We actually do not know about it. It is time to stop it and for us to stop buying those kinds of products, but we have to know and have transparency.

Amendment 108C also makes it clear that we must be aware not just of illegal deforestation, which varies between countries and often between jurisdictions, but of what might today be considered legal. Brazil’s forest laws have changed in the past decade but that does not mean that we should lay off the pressure. The good news is that 81% of the biggest UK companies in the forest risk supply chains have stated that they aim to remove all deforestation from their supply chains, and 22 major UK businesses recently called on the UK Government to develop a legal framework to halt it. Citizens also support such a move. In the Government’s own consultation, 99% of all residents supported the introduction of just this kind of legislation. However, in the meantime we continue to see ghastly pictures of the Amazon on fire. Scientists know that decades of human activity and a changing climate have pushed the jungle near to a tipping point; 17% of it is nearly destroyed and the tipping point will soon be reached.

That brings me neatly to Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and I congratulate him on his speech and for all his work. The day that the UK overshot our planetary boundaries was 29 July this year—the day that demand for ecological resources and services in any given year exceeded what the earth can generate. It hardly needs to be explained why that matters. I understand that all the measures in the Bill are effectively working to ensure that we live in harmony with the earth and that we do not use more than we can regenerate. However, it is also easy to see that it is not entirely working. We are a long way from that but we are not the first country to take measures. We therefore need to measure the progress, even though it is difficult to do so.

I have just finished reading a chapter from a new edition of Jared Diamond’s extraordinary book, Collapse, about Easter Island, which was the home of a once-thriving community who drove themselves almost into extinction over a period of about 250 years. They had amazing trees called Chilean pines, from which big canoes could be produced that were capable of going out far into the Pacific Ocean. One can tell from dietary remains that at that point the people ate big fish such as tuna, and porpoises, dolphins and so on, and were very healthy. Indeed, the society was so wealthy and healthy that they could spend their time making the extraordinary heads found on Easter Island. At one point, the people cut down the last Chilean pine. No one thought that it mattered because they then made smaller canoes. Unfortunately, their diet worsened, as did the soil because there were no trees. When travellers visited that society in the middle of the 1850s—not really that long ago—they found a bunch of people in rags who were impoverished and soil that was incapable of producing many crops.

That is a metaphor for our time, because the point is that it happened not with a bang but a whimper. Right now, one could say that the earth was beginning to scream. When we saw Covid coming, that was a bang and we were able to respond, but what we are doing now is slowly grinding down the planet to a point at which one day, we might end up like the people of Easter Island.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we have been debating a number of amendments in this group that seek to strengthen Schedule 17. The first is Amendment 106 on forestry commodities, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. He has clearly explained what his amendment sets out to achieve and, importantly, why it is needed. His speech may have been longer than normal, but it was important to hear his words.

In the 25-year environment plan, the UK Government articulated an ambitious set of goals and actions, including that

“our consumption and impact on natural capital are sustainable, at home and overseas”.

Unfortunately, as in a number of other policy areas, the Environment Bill does not adequately deliver on this commitment.

18:00

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, mentioned the concern that, if the Government do not address the full range of commodities driving global deforestation, this may undermine the purpose of Schedule 17, thereby falling well short of their global leadership aspirations. In Committee, it was discussed that the focus on forests and land conversion was a first step only and that wider environmental and human rights impacts must also be addressed. We must consider industries such as mining—and I thank the London Mining Network for its helpful briefing on this issue. The expansion of the mining frontier into forests is a significant driver of forest loss in some countries, so it is extremely concerning that mining with regard to deforestation has been omitted. Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House why this is the case?

It is also frustrating that the Bill addresses only illegal deforestation, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords who have spoken today. We know that all deforestation, whether legal or illegal, has the same potential negative ecological, climate, human rights and sustainability impacts. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned the work of WWF, which proposes the inclusion of a statutory deforestation target. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this proposal.

Amendments 107 and 108, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, would, as we have heard, strengthen the review provision to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples are considered, that a consultation is held and that the Secretary of State takes steps to eliminate forest-risk commodities from UK commercial activities. We strongly support the noble Lord in these aims. He mentioned the report that came out this week from Global Witness about attacks, many of them fatal, on indigenous peoples. Those reports are truly shocking. This aspect of deforestation needs to be taken seriously into account and acted on. Will the Minister make a commitment to ensure that indigenous peoples are consulted as part of any review of the legislation? May I also make a suggestion to the Minister? COP 26 could provide an opportunity to meet with Brazilian indigenous communities to discuss the impact of logging, whether legal or illegal, on their livelihoods, communities and the climate. Is this something that the Minister would consider?

I turn to Amendments 108A, 108B and 108C, which were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and to which I have added my name. These amendments look to bring forward the timescale for the review so that it takes place after one year, not two. I will not add anything else on this because the noble Baroness has explained passionately and in detail why this is so important.

In Committee, the Minister explained why he could not accept a similar amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to that set down today by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. On the understanding that this is still the Minister’s position, which would be disappointing, and that the Government are not prepared to accept Amendment 106, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, so that the opportunity to extend the scheme to cover both legal and illegal activity can be enacted as soon as possible. As the noble Baroness said, it is far too important for us to hang about.

Finally, I look briefly at Amendment 121, on the duty to produce a global footprint target timetable. This is something that we strongly support. Again, however, the Bill has failed to deliver on a commitment in the 25-year environment plan, in this case to ensure that

“our consumption and impact on natural capital are sustainable, at home and overseas.”

This has been a good debate. These are serious issues and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this hugely important debate. The UK has a strong history of supporting supply and demand-side measures to tackle deforestation, including the commissioning of the GRI, which my noble friend Lord Randall mentioned, to provide us with advice on how we could strengthen our efforts to tread more lightly on the environment. We welcome the widespread support that we have received for the Government’s work in this area, including our public consultation on due diligence legislation last year. That legislation is a world first and the Government are committed to ensuring that it is effective in addressing illegal deforestation and cleaning up our supply chains.

As I mentioned in Committee, a significant proportion of global deforestation is illegal. At least 69% of tropical deforestation for commercial agriculture between 2013 and 2019 was conducted in violation of national laws—it is closer to 90% in some key areas, including parts of the Amazon. Our due diligence provisions will directly tackle this deforestation. I just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that dealing with illegal deforestation—as I said, it amounts to 90% in key parts of the Amazon—does not equal, to quote her, “nothing”. Tackling such a vast proportion of the problem that we are addressing cannot simply be described as “nothing”. If we can stop illegal deforestation, we can all be pretty happy. Equally, no one is pretending that that is the whole solution.

I want to talk specifically to Amendments 106 and 108C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, respectively. I reiterate my strong view that this legislation is the best and most strategic way that we can make a truly global impact and I will try to again explain why. Our legality-based approach allows us to lead the charge on tackling illegal deforestation, while working in partnership with producer country Governments and communities and respecting their laws. This is critical. The UK is a big market, but we are nowhere near big enough alone to change a global dynamic on deforestation. It will only be through building a coalition of countries—producer and consumer countries—committed to working with us that we will have the capacity to flip the market in favour of forests. That is a major piece of work that we are doing both as part of the run-up to COP 26 but also beyond. We are already seeing real progress in that coalition-building exercise.

While I completely agree with the sentiment of these amendments, all our diplomatic work so far tells us that they would undermine our ability to coalition-build and, therefore, the UK’s wider efforts to support sustainable supply chains. The principal reason is that they would alter a core intention of this policy, which aims to respect producer countries’ laws and responsibilities. That is not to say that there are no concerns on wider issues surrounding legal deforestation and other drivers of deforestation. There are of course many such concerns.

However, there is no single silver bullet that will tackle all these issues at once, and I do not pretend that our due diligence measures alone will do the job. They are hugely important and will help us to deal with a significant chunk of the problem, but they are not the silver bullet; they are just one part of a wider package of measures to improve the sustainability of our supply chains. For example, I co-chair the Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade Dialogue as part of COP 26. Through this, we are working with a growing network of producer and consumer countries to develop a shared road map of actions to protect forests and other ecosystems while promoting sustainable development and trade. My officials and I are also working extremely hard to secure a range of outcomes at COP 26 that, combined, will enable us to turn the corner on deforestation as a matter of urgency. Much work remains to be done in the run-up to COP, but I am optimistic that we will get there.

Our global Forest Governance, Markets and Climate programme promotes inclusive policy-making, working with Governments, local business and NGOs—including indigenous peoples and local communities—and strengthens the rule of law that helps indigenous peoples and local communities to clarify and secure their rights to forest resources that they ought already to have. Additionally, the UK welcomes and has been actively helping to shape the development of the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance—or LEAF—Coalition. LEAF aims to mobilise many hundreds of millions of pounds in financing, kicking off what is expected to—and I believe will—become one of the largest ever public-private efforts to protect tropical forests and support sustainable development. At the heart of the LEAF programme is a recognition of the vital role of indigenous people and the threats that they face.

Turning to Amendments 108A and 108B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, again I agree that of course it is important we have strong reviews in place to ensure that the legislation works. That is why Schedule 17 contains a provision requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the law’s effectiveness every two years once it has come into force and set out any steps needed to be taken as a result of that review. The amendment would limit the Government’s ability to conduct an effective and meaningful first review of the legislation. Businesses would have had hardly any experience of the regulations by that point, and there would be hardly any data available for the first review to really understand if they were working. Two years seems to me about the right time for us to be able to assess the efficacy and usefulness of this legislation. I reassure the noble Baroness that, if we do not see progress towards delivering the legislation’s very clear objectives that we are looking for, or if we see perverse outcomes of the sort that the noble Baroness and others have cited, we will take whatever action is necessary.

This leads me on to Amendments 107 and 108, tabled by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Schedule 17 sets out what these reviews should consider in particular, but they are not limited to just these factors and we can review other aspects too. As part of the review, we have the ability to monitor the protections of indigenous peoples and groups. Indeed, the Government absolutely recognise the critically important role that indigenous peoples and local communities play in protecting forests. It is not a coincidence that the majority of intact ecosystems today are lived in and looked after by indigenous people. Equally, those same people often face existential threats and appalling violence, as the Global Witness report pointed out.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in relation to COP 26, I cannot go into all the details now but it is certainly the case that indigenous people, including from Brazil but from other parts of the world as well, will play a very significant role in COP 26 and the run-up to COP 26. Indeed, I have meetings tomorrow with indigenous groups to help to try to put a bit of meat on that particular bone, because we want that participation not to be a box-ticking exercise but something really meaningful. We are also working through the former DfID component of the FCDO to see what more we can do to provide support to indigenous people, particularly around land rights, which as the noble Baroness knows well is the core issue for indigenous people.

As stewards of 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity, indigenous peoples are leaders in how to develop nature-based, resilient and effective solutions to climate change, through their knowledge and innovations, technologies and their cultural and spiritual values. The UK welcomed the new two-year work plan agreed on the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform at COP 25 and we look forward to further discussions on the next three-year work plan at COP 26. I assure my noble friend that the Secretary of State will seek input from a very wide range of stake- holders when conducting these reviews.

I turn to Amendment 121, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As I have stated previously, the Bill gives us the power to set long-term legally binding targets on any matter relating to the natural environment, including contributing towards objectives on reducing our global footprint. Before committing to obligations such as this, we have the need to form a better understanding of whether a target is the appropriate mechanism to drive this change. A rushed target or indicator could hinder rather than aid progress towards our environmental objectives. While we are developing a global footprint indicator to further our understanding of the impacts of our consumption overseas, we need to be sure that the data landscape is sufficiently developed to measure any target. We can only develop the data so far unilaterally, as this requires a joined-up approach across the globe. We want to make sure that any interventions to reduce our global footprint are able to be monitored and enforced, and do not create any kind of perverse outcomes. For these reasons, we want to consider the best way to take action, which may or may not involve setting a target.

We are committed to leaving a lighter footprint on the global environment and want to take decisive action to this end. As mentioned a moment ago, our COP 26 nature campaign will catalyse global action to protect and restore forests and other key ecosystems. For example, at COP 26 we will explore actions that can be taken with other nations to support and implement transparency and traceability throughout the supply chain, which will inform progress against climate goals.

In regard to the specific questions from my noble friend Lord Randall—and I hope that I got them all down—the Bill’s target framework will allow the Government to set a global footprint target if it is judged to be the best way to deliver long-term environmental outcomes, building on progress towards achieving the vision of the 25-year environment plan. Any target set would need to need to meet the criteria set out in the Bill’s framework, so while we could set a target with this proposed scope, we could not do so based on where we are today with a 2030 date attached.

In regard to my noble friend’s question about consulting on a target in this space, I can confirm that we will be conducting a public consultation on long-term target proposals. We are engaging key stakeholder groups already, and expect to publish a public consultation in early 2022 on proposed targets. I recognise the enormously important work and role of the GRI in providing us with advice and information on the issues that we are discussing and more. We are looking now at options to enable us to avoid losing that expertise, but I am afraid that I cannot say more about that at this point. I absolutely take my noble friend’s point, however.

18:15

I am sorry, but I have forgotten which noble Lord asked the question about which commodities will be in scope, but the answer is that it will be a phased approach, bringing commodities into scope. We recognise the need for this legislation for our approach to look at issues as broad as beef, cocoa, leather, palm oil, rubber, soya and no doubt others as well. We want a comprehensive approach.

This Government are committed to carefully considering the conclusions of the national food strategy and will respond with a White Paper, setting out our priorities for the food system. We will be discussing this in two groups’ time, and I look forward to that. In the meantime, I hope that I have reassured some noble Lords and ask that these amendments are not pressed to Divisions.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and given such strong support.

I was amazed to find myself in this place when I was appointed here, and I must admit to sometimes being concerned about what I am actually doing here. But for me, today is one of those occasions when I am the mouthpiece for hundreds of thousands of people, in this country and elsewhere, who care about these matters deeply. It has been a privilege to be able to put these amendments forward.

My noble friend has given me some very good answers, and I know he cares as deeply as I do. I recall that, in another life, he was appointed by David Cameron as the forestry champion but was relieved of his position because of a mistake, when he voted the wrong way. I am delighted to see that the Whips down this end of the building are much more forgiving.

I would love these amendments to go forward, and I have a certain amount of confidence that, if I pushed them, they might pass in this House. However, I heard what my noble friend said. I am a pragmatist and a realist, and this is not the moment to go further. The Government have to be congratulated on getting this far. We have to continually push on this, to get a coalition of nations around the world to make sure that this issue is addressed, and quickly. But in the light of my noble friend’s comments and what I have just said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 106 withdrawn.

Amendments 107 and 108 not moved.

Amendment 108A

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

108A: Schedule 17, page 246, line 27, leave out “second” and insert “first”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure a review of the efficacy of the deforestation provisions at the earliest opportunity.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:18

Division 3

Ayes: 183

Noes: 177

18:31

Amendment 108B

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

108B: Schedule 17, page 246, line 29, leave out “third” and insert “second”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure a review of the efficacy of the deforestation provisions at the earliest opportunity.

Amendment 108B agreed.

Amendment 108C not moved.

Clause 113: Conservation covenant agreements

Amendment 109

Moved by

[The Earl of Devon]

109: Clause 113, page 113, line 25, leave out “appears from” and insert “is stated within”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another, adds formality to the process of creating a conservation covenant to reflect the serious, long-term nature of the commitments being made, and to ensure conservation covenants include provisions regarding the duration of the obligation and the consideration due to the landowner in return for the commitments given.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, this is a groundbreaking Bill in many ways but, from the perspective of English property law, no provisions are more revolutionary than Part 7 and the introduction of conservation covenants. This is a seismic shift, meaning that, for the first time since the Normans introduced common law, owners of land will be able to bind successors in perpetuity to positive obligations to manage land in a particular way. More radical still, and in a departure from the recommendations of the Law Commission, the counterparties to these obligations will now include for-profit companies—private enterprise. As a farmer and a former property barrister now practising at an agricultural law firm with clients in this space, I support this scheme and want it to succeed, but there are glaring imperfections in Part 7, causing major concern to, among others, the NFU, the Bar Council and the RICS. Because of that I have tabled Amendments 109, 110, 112, 113, 114 and 115.

Amendments 109 and 110 focus on the formalities by which conservation covenants are created, ensuring that they say what they are and what they do on their face and are created by deed rather than, as currently drafted, by a simple exchange of emails. Amendment 112 ensures that for-profit responsible bodies are conservation- focused, not distracted by other, competing duties, such as making profits for their shareholders at the expense of the environment. Amendments 113 through 115 resolve the untenable position when a responsible body defaults, such that the Secretary of State steps in and, in perpetuity, binds a landowner to a positive obligation without any reciprocal duty to pay the fees covenanted. Since Committee, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, indicating a very broad consensus across your Lordships’ House for these modest but vital amendments.

I am also grateful to the Ministers in Defra and the Bill team for their engagement, although I remain concerned that there is a failure to grasp the significance of the issues raised. Given the time, I do not propose to restate the hypothetical parade of horribles that I set out in Committee, but I note that no one has argued that those hypotheticals are wrong. The Government erroneously asserted that conservation covenants needed to be executed by deed in order to be registered as local land charges, but they have since accepted that that was inaccurate. That is appreciated; however, this only reinforces the sense that this radical change to property law is being rushed through without due consideration or understanding. It is our duty to build in necessary safeguards to protect farmers, the environment and future generations from the threat of zombie covenants blighting our green and pleasant land in perpetuity.

Key to resolving these concerns is Amendment 110, requiring that conservation covenants be executed by a deed which contains its key terms as to duration and payments on its face. This is the traditional and best way to ensure that advice is taken such that the potentially punitive and perpetual implications of entering a conservation covenant are properly understood at the outset. The Government say that their draft guidance recommends legal advice, and this should be sufficient, but anyone willing to enter a perpetual covenant by a mere exchange of emails is hardly going to sit down and read the guidance first. Defra wants no brake on the uptake of these covenants and, rather unusually, it is farmers seeking greater formality and not the Government. Defra has directed me to other statutory covenants created without necessarily using a deed, but none of these contains positive covenants, perpetual in nature, with a for-profit private counterparty. These are largely restrictive covenants with trusted statutory authorities.

Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, sets out at considerable length the full formalities to be considered in executing a conservation covenant, formalities the RICS would no doubt recommend. Such extensive formalities may not be warranted within the legislation, but they are exactly what will be considered by properly advised parties executing such a covenant by deed.

The Government suggest that Amendment 112 is unnecessary because Defra will ensure that responsible bodies are truly responsible, but I have read the draft guidance and nowhere does it state the objective parameters against which responsibility will be judged. Indeed, it appears that foreign entities can be responsible bodies, so long as they have a PO box in the UK, and entities directly connected with the landowner could be responsible bodies too—there is no prohibition.

I was also surprised in Committee that the Minister cited the example of for-profit water companies as the type of body the Government consider to be responsible. Would that include Southern Water, recently fined £90 million for environmental degradation on an industrial scale in the pursuit of shareholder profits?

Amendments 113 to 115 solve the intolerable impact of the responsible body becoming bankrupt or deregistered and passing its role as counterparty to the Secretary of State, who then has no obligation to pay anything to the landowner, whatever the cost of the landowner’s conservation commitments. These amendments strictly limit the duration for which the Secretary of State is holder of last resort to 12 months, after which, if no responsible body is willing to take the covenant on, it is simply discharged. This has the effect of killing a zombie covenant and protecting the landowner and the land from the risk of a perpetual obligation with no payments in return. Without this change, the scheme is fatally flawed, as anyone advising on such covenants would have to identify this very real risk and advise against it. Of course, if landowners do not take advice, they will not know of this risk, as I note that no mention is made of it in Defra’s draft guidance.

I could go on, but time is short and the arguments are clear. For these reasons and the myriad others I set forth in Committee, I beg to move.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his amendments. They are hugely important. I am a great supporter of conservation covenants and I want them to work effectively. As he just said, I have a number of amendments in this group.

I am looking at conservation covenants in something akin to a divorce situation. One can enter into marriage with the very best of intentions and it is all going very well, but then it starts going sour. Divorce can be extremely costly and brutal. A conservation covenant could be entered into with the very best of intentions, but here the situation is complicated because the parties entering it could be different parties when it comes to a conclusion. There could be very different interpretations and a great deal of costs.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, did not actually mention costs so much today as he did in Committee, but in Clause 126 the final remedy is the Upper Tribunal and that can cost £50,000 to get started. Can farmers really afford that, particularly tenant farmers? The average size of a farm in England is 87 hectares and the cash flows are bare at the most. They might be a little better with the wheat price at the moment but, sure as anything, we have seen wheat prices go up and come down. You cannot expect farmers to have that amount of ready cash to fight in the courts.

I therefore seek to spell out in some detail the sort of things that need to be taken into account. I do not expect many conservation covenants to be undertaken by tenants but, if one is, all the freeholders of the land should be signatories to that agreement. I hope my noble friend will confirm that. It is a very un-Conservative thing to deprive the beneficiary of a reversionary interest of the full value of that interest, which could easily be done if a tenant enters into an agreement which prejudices the farm at the end of the tenancy. Not only does a conservation agreement affect one property, but it could very easily affect the neighbouring properties and surrounding farms if that conservation covenant involves the re-wetting of the land, which can take many years to undo.

I hope we can get a simpler way to modify and change the tenancies. When negotiation has failed, we need a simple system. I suggest in my amendments that there is an alternative dispute resolution which is simple, cheap, and which farmers, tenants and landowners are used to. I am hugely concerned by the impact that outside bodies might have. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has just reminded us, all you need is a PO box. You could get foreign investment companies coming in, taking over these conservation covenants and making life extremely difficult for the occupier.

I very much hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. His Amendments 109 and 110 cover all the points I have raised, but I have spelt them out in a different way because they are of extreme concern to farmers.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. When I first looked at these amendments, I decided to leave them well alone because I did not know what covenants were. Looking at them a little more closely, my working-class bigotry kicked in and I thought that if three hereditary Peers were dealing with this then I ought to be careful. But, in fact, I am convinced, soothed and reassured, and I will be voting for the amendment.

18:45

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

Follow that, my Lords. I declare my interest as a landowner. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has made some very good arguments, both today and in Committee in what is a very good example of the House of Lords at its best. He made a very powerful speech in Committee that made a lot of people think hard about a difficult topic. Like him, I support the scheme for conservation covenants very strongly indeed. I saw how conservation easements work in the United States years ago and have argued for years that we ought to have a similar system here. However, he raised some key questions in Committee, and I do not think they were adequately answered either from the Dispatch Box or in later correspondence. That is why I have added my name to these amendments. I am not looking to cause trouble; I am looking for reassurance from my noble friend the Minister that the Government have listened to his concerns and come up with some important reforms to this legislation.

Conservation covenants are, or should be, formal, solemn, momentous undertakings. That should be reflected in the way they are entered into. They should be done by deed and not by an email. They should be with a focused and specialised partner, not a potential scallywag, as we have heard. I am not a lawyer, but the law that worries me here is the one we cannot repeal: namely, the law of unintended consequences. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, put it, the prospect of zombie covenants blighting our green and pleasant land is not a pleasant one.

The other key concern is the possibility that the advice on how to conserve a habitat, species or piece of biodiversity may prove wrong over time, and a sort of flexibility needs to be built into this to correct a covenant. I spoke at Second Reading about a real example of this with peewits on the Isle of Sheppey. Essentially, it was discovered that, by providing super-habitats for the peewits to nest but no predator control, you were actually draining the population of birds. They were attracted to the place but could not rear any chicks and died of old age without any grandchildren. There has been another example recently in the media of the fact that the willow tit is declining largely because there are too many bird feeders, benefiting the blue tit, which takes over the willow tit’s holes and evicts it.

These are small examples and may seem trivial ones, but the point is that we learn that conservation advice changes over time. We need to be able to reflect that in these very solemn and long-term undertakings. Again and again I have seen practice in one decade that turns out to be wrong in the next. I will listen carefully to my noble friend the Minister and to any response that comes.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to give my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and he will have the support of these Benches. I must say he has caused me some slight difficulty as, like him, I also have an American spouse, who recently watched the programme about Powderham Castle with Mary Berry and turned to me and said: “How come we don’t have a castle? Aren’t you a lord too?” I have put that aside in the interest of these amendments and I will not detain the House too long, as the noble Earl has set out the case very compellingly.

Whatever anybody’s views about Part 7, we are all agreed that it is significant and the covenant agreements that will be entered into are significant. Therefore, those entering them should do so not simply by email but with advice. That amendment is a basic thing we should be able to agree on.

The other amendments set out by the noble Earl also have compelling resonance. We do not want private companies with no interest in conservation buying up land, and there should be no perpetual obligation on landowners, with no payments. So we support these amendments. They are very reasonable, even modest, and can only improve the Bill and the likelihood that conservation covenant agreements will have a good chance of success. I hope the Government will be willing to move on them but, if they are not, and the noble Earl wishes to divide the House, he will have the support of these Benches.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have an American spouse to declare and I am certainly not a landowner, so maybe I bring more of a working-class approach to this. But I do declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, where conservation covenants are already becoming a live and slightly perturbing issue. I speak in support of Amendments 109, 110, 112, 113, 114 and 115 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to which I have added my name. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his amendments, which echo our concerns about the current wording of Part 7 of the Bill.

As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said in Committee and again today, conservation covenants are a new and radical concept. They could bring great benefits to our landscape and to improving our biodiversity, but they are long-term agreements with huge implications for the landowners, so it is essential that we make the wording watertight from the start. The noble Earl’s Amendments 109 and 110 would require any conservation covenant to be underpinned by a deed. We believe this provision is essential. It would ensure that the landowner received appropriate legal advice before locking in the land to agreements that could last 100 years or more, committing their family for generations.

In the noble Lord the Minister’s letter following the debate in Committee, he made it clear that the covenants would not require a dominant and servient tenement. The implication was that this would be an equal agreement between the landowner and the responsible body, but we know this is not necessarily how it will work in practice. We are talking about public bodies or large institutions with huge resources compared to a single landowner, who may be a small farmer. So it is crucial that they get the best legal advice, which a deed would deliver. There would then be clarity for all on what the conservation requirements are.

As I mentioned in Committee, the concept of environmental stacking is also taking hold, where a landowner might have multiple conservation obligations to different bodies, with all the legal complexities that that would ensue. Could the noble Baroness clarify how it would work if a covenant existed for a piece of land? For example, would the landowner also be able to claim additional financial support through the sustainable farming incentive scheme?

We are also concerned about the implications of individual farmers being approached to sign covenants that are at odds with the wider plans for the landscape. How would we ensure that the covenant was in keeping with, for example, the strategic plans for the protected landscapes in the national parks? As I mentioned in Committee, farmers in the South Downs are already being approached to provide carbon offsets for developments elsewhere, and the new biodiversity offsets will complicate matters further. All of this underlines the need for a land-use framework for England, which my noble friend Lady Young will be debating in the next group.

I also agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that the advice on conservation may turn out to be wrong, over a period of time, so we need a simple mechanism to adapt and sign off new amended conservation agreements.

Finally, we agree with the noble Earl that the responsible bodies that determine the basis of the covenant, if they are not public bodies or charities, should be organisations focused solely on conservation —we all had a great deal of sympathy with his example of Southern Water, which did not quite tick the box of being a trustworthy conservator—otherwise, there is a danger of the covenants being traded by for-profit institutions with no interest in the biodiversity outcome and no direct engagement with the landowner. In the worst case, it is possible to imagine all these covenants bundled up into packages and traded internationally, with the UK losing control of its land use. I hope noble Lords see the sense of these amendments and agree to support them, if the Minister is not able to adequately address these concerns.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and especially the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for taking the time to discuss this important topic with the Secretary of State last night, and with Defra officials and the Law Commission. I start by emphasising that the Law Commission concluded that a regime for statutory conservation covenants is needed because there is currently no simple legal tool that landowners can use to secure conservation or heritage benefits when the land is sold or passed on.

Amendment 111, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, risks limiting crucial flexibility in the design of covenants. The Government strongly support the Law Commission’s approach of keeping the content and procedural requirements for conservation covenants simple and proportionate. We want to avoid unnecessary complexity and cost—and cost might dissuade landowners from entering into conservation covenants, leading to important conservation opportunities being lost. It is also vital that parties have the flexibility to design conservation covenants to suit their needs, given the wide range of conservation purposes they could be used to secure. We expect to see a range of different covenants created, from preserving small-scale heritage work done on a Tudor house through to securing long- term landscape-scale conservation management.

Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, seeks to prevent landowners inadvertently signing up to agreements, but I think this scenario is unlikely. The agreement must show that the parties intend to create a conservation covenant. A conservation covenant cannot be validly created unless the agreement clearly shows that the parties intended to create it. The Government have been working closely with stakeholders, including the NFU, CLA and the National Trust, to develop guidance, to be published, that will set out in more detail the process for creating conservation covenants and encourage both parties to take legal advice before entering into such an agreement.

On Amendment 110, I will first clarify something I said to noble Lords during the debate on the eighth day of Committee. To confirm, it is not necessary for a conservation covenant to be executed by deed for it to be registered as a local land charge. I also reassure the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that his concerns were carefully considered by the Law Commission: Clause 113 adheres to its final recommendations. His proposal that the agreement must be created in writing and signed was well received. In practice, those who prefer to execute their agreement as a deed may do so, and of course executing an agreement by deed does not guarantee that the parties will seek legal advice on the terms set out in the agreement—although, as I said, our guidance will encourage parties to take legal advice.

A perpetual agreement might be desirable to some; equally, a fixed-term conservation covenant could be appropriate to others. The proposal for flexibility on duration had the clear support of consultees and the Law Commission saw no sensible alternative. Where consideration forms part of an agreement, the clauses already allow for that to be captured. Requiring agreements to include provisions on duration and consideration risks rendering otherwise helpful agreements invalid if they fail to mention them, as consideration in particular may not be relevant to all agreements.

On Amendment 112, regarding responsible bodies, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that for-profit bodies have a role to play in ensuring the success of conservation covenants. The Government’s 2019 consultation found broad support for allowing for-profit organisations to apply to be responsible bodies: 58% of respondents agreed, with only 26% against. The Government will closely check approved responsible bodies. Regulations on annual returns may require responsible bodies to provide an update on their eligibility. As part of the application process, we will also require organisations to notify us if conservation is no longer their main purpose or activity.

19:00

Noble Lords mentioned water companies as potential responsible bodies and were somewhat horrified at the prospect. However, if a water company were to be designated, it might find it helpful to make a covenant so that the land is managed in such a way as to prevent sewage flooding and storm overflows. There are genuine environmental reasons why water companies may wish to enter into a covenant, given how much we have been discussing the environmental impact of water companies in debate on previous days. These proposals are largely in line with the Law Commission’s draft Bill.

The most significant change that we made is to allow a wider range of bodies, including for-profits, to apply to be responsible bodies. This approach received broad support from consultees. We will consider a range of organisations with expertise in land management that could deliver long-term conservation outcomes. Applicants will be designated by the Secretary of State if they fulfil the necessary conditions. The noble Earl’s amendment aims to restrict for-profit bodies to those whose sole purpose is conservation. Very few bodies, if any, would fulfil this criterion, and this could lead to important conservation opportunities being lost. There are already sufficient safeguards built into the clauses. The Government’s responsible-body selection process will be rigorous, and ultimately, the Secretary of State has the power to de-designate responsible bodies which are not fulfilling their role.

Turning to the noble Earl’s Amendments 113, 114, and115, while I respect his intention to safeguard landowners’ interests if a responsible body should cease to operate, these amendments will not provide any substantive additional safeguards and in fact may have the unintended consequence of undermining the general intention of the custodianship provisions. The custodianship provisions act as an important backstop in the event that a responsible body ceases to be a responsible body, something that we expect will happen only rarely. They ensure that a conservation covenant can continue while a new responsible body is found, something that the Secretary of State will want to do swiftly. Our provisions already enable the Secretary of State to exercise the powers afforded to a responsible body. This will include the power provided under the Bill to bring the covenant to an end through agreement with the landowner, if both parties agree that this is the best course of action. Amendment 115 would set an arbitrary 12-month time limit on custodianship, after which a covenant would automatically be terminated. This could lead to opportunities for conservation being lost on a technicality, which is exactly the eventuality that this clause seeks to avoid.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 116, tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness, whom I thank for his consideration of the Bill and for his proposed amendments in this group. However, I assure him that this amendment is not needed. If parties wish to convert existing non-statutory agreements into conservation covenants, so that they can take effect as statutory conservation covenants, they are free to do so. There is no need for an additional mechanism for this purpose. Responding to what my noble friend said earlier in his speech, the Government do not believe that it is necessary for this legislation to require a landlord to secure approval from the tenant, or vice versa, before entering into such a covenant.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords, and I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this short debate.

I reiterate that we are clearly all supportive of conservation covenants. However, in Committee and on Report there has not been a single dissenting voice against the amendments that I have tabled. I had hoped that the Government would listen to this clear message, but it appears that they may not be able to hear it. I do not understand why the taking of advice would be prohibitive of cost in terms of setting up a perpetual covenant over land; that seems entirely reasonable. The Government say that intention must be shown in order for a covenant to be established. If an intention is to be shown then the covenant should say that it is a covenant. That shows the intention. Otherwise, the only beneficiaries will be lawyers such as myself arguing over whether intention was shown.

Finally, the Minister does not recognise that in the absence of any specificity as to the duration of these covenants, they are perpetual by default. If the parties do not get around to saying how long it will last, it will last for ever. They must be advised of that and they must understand it.

Given that today is “Back British Farming Day” and that these amendments are promoted and supported by the NFU, I really think that your Lordships’ House should get behind them. I hope so. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 109.

Amendment 109 withdrawn.

Amendment 110

Moved by

[The Earl of Devon]

110: Clause 113, page 113, line 27, leave out “in writing signed by the parties.” and insert “signed as a deed by the parties,
(d) the agreement makes provision for the payment of consideration to the landowner, or states that no consideration is to be provided, and(e) the agreement includes provision regarding the duration or end date of the agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds formality to the process of creating a conservation covenant to reflect the serious, long-term nature of the commitments being made, and to ensure conservation covenants include provisions regarding the duration of the obligation and the consideration due to the landowner in return for the commitments given.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

19:05

Division 4

Ayes: 162

Noes: 144

19:18

Amendment 111 not moved.

Clause 115: Responsible bodies

Amendment 112 not moved.

Clause 128: Body ceasing to be a responsible body

Amendments 113 to 116 not moved.

Amendment 117

Moved by

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

117: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Land use framework for England
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 March 2023, lay a land use framework for England before Parliament.(2) The framework must set out—(a) the Secretary of State’s objectives in relation to integrated land use within a sustainable land use framework;(b) principles to guide decisions by government and public authorities on the most effective use of land;(c) proposals and policies for meeting the objectives; and(d) the timescales over which those proposals and policies are expected to take effect.(3) The objectives, principles, proposals and policies referred to in subsection (2) must contribute to—(a) achievement of multifunctional land use, balancing the range of needs for land, including agriculture and food production;(b) achievement of objectives in relation to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, including achieving carbon budgets under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(c) sustainable development including the use of land for development and infrastructure;(d) the achievement of objectives of the 25 Year Environment Plan for halting the decline of biodiversity.(4) Before laying the framework before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a draft framework and consult with—(a) such bodies as he or she considers appropriate, and(b) the general public.(5) The Secretary of State must, no later than—(a) 5 years after laying a framework before Parliament under subsection (1), and(b) the end of every subsequent period of 5 years,lay a revised framework before Parliament under the terms set out in subsections (2) to (4).(6) The Secretary of State must, no later than 3 years after the laying of a framework before Parliament under this section and at three year intervals thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of the framework and progress in achieving the objectives, principles, proposals and policies under subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would provide a land use context to enable the Secretary of State and public authorities to make optimal decisions about the multifunctional uses of land to achieve the targets, plans and policies for improving the natural environment and other purposes.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 117 requires the Secretary of State to create a land-use framework for England. I am conscious of the hour and the fact that this was also raised during debates on the Agriculture Bill and in earlier stages of this Bill. I am also conscious that it is extremely cold in the Chamber and dinner looms, so I will be brief.

I have had considerable support from noble Lords from all parts of your Lordships’ House on this issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott, who have also put their names to the amendment. It has become even more important since we last discussed it. Pressures on land from all sides continue to grow, and that is reflected in land prices, which are rocketing up. In particular, the pressures that are really growing and coming into focus include the need for more land for carbon sequestration, for food production and increasing our food security, for tree planting and for forestry, to reduce our reliance on imported timber. There is also pressure for land to halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity, provide green open spaces post Covid and help communities and people protect their health and their mental health.

There are other pressures as well: by 2050, we will need land to house 7 million more people in this country, if the population estimates are correct. That will also mean land for development and infrastructure to support the jobs for this population increase. If we add together all of those things, plus other land uses, the calculation shows that, to meet all of society’s needs for land over the next two decades, we will need a third more land than we have. We desperately need a framework to allow land to be used in the most effective way, for multiple functions—both public and private—to be met by the same piece of land and for decisions on competing land-use pressures to be made on a rational basis, at national, regional and local levels. The three other nations of the UK have all seen sense and have land-use frameworks—England does not.

In addition to all that, the list of land-use schemes that the Government are introducing is growing. Noble Lords have heard about many of them during the course of the Bill: local nature recovery strategies, Nature4Climate and other carbon schemes, biodiversity net gain, the new range of agricultural support schemes in ELMS, major tree-planting initiatives and whatever designations of development land that will come out of the Government’s planning changes, when we see them. There are lots of government schemes. A land-use framework would set all of these in an integrated and logical framework that would act like the glue between them to allow them to operate successfully together, rather than in their current silos. In Committee, the Minister said that local nature recovery strategies would do that job, but they do not include planning and development land uses.

More and more organisations are advocating the need for a land-use framework. I have previously mentioned the Climate Change Committee, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Rural Economy and the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, on which I should declare an interest as a commissioner. Since we last discussed this topic, another bunch of folk have decided that a land-use framework would be a good idea: the food strategy report that Henry Dimbleby produced for the Government called for such a framework, and the forthcoming Royal Society report will do the same. So I believe that the case for developing and implementing such a framework is undeniable and pressing. For example, it is crucial that the Government’s forthcoming planning reforms are informed by such a framework.

What we are faced with is like trying to do one of these awful jigsaws that well-meaning people give you for Christmas. It is a complex land-use jigsaw where there is no picture on the box and you have a third more pieces than will actually fit into the jigsaw. I do not know about noble Lords’, but I hate those offerings —they are impossible to do—and that is what we are trying to do with land use at the moment. I hope that the Minister will hear the rising tide of support for a land-use framework and accept my amendment.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. I have supported the noble Baroness in her cause of a land-use framework for England for many years. Indeed, if I remember rightly, one of the recommendations of the House of Lords Committee on the Rural Economy was that we needed a land-use framework. That was some years ago and, as the noble Baroness has said, the case is even more pertinent now. The Bill increases the need for one with the conservation covenants. There is no limit to what land these covenants could be on. If they are going to be in perpetuity and they take all the best agricultural land, then we might well be doing ourselves a disservice in the long term when we need that land to grow food for a starving population.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has set out all the points. It is desperately important for the Government to integrate all their policies; at the moment, the pieces of the jigsaw are all over the place. Their strategies, including the new soil strategy, would work so much better if there were a structured plan for them to work under. I just cannot understand why the Minister and Defra are so reluctant to do this when the devolved Administrations have seen the logic of it.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.

I also want to speak about this interesting clause, which I have been scratching my head about for some time. The need for some top-down planning was clearly identified by Henry Dimbleby in the recent national food strategy report. However, top-down planning on its own and on the scale envisaged is not practical, as there is always a need for local factors to be considered at the same time. While there is some merit in the concept of focusing public funding on the right thing in the right place, it is neither realistic nor desirable to micromanage what happens right down to parish level. As food producers and environmental guardians, farmers and land managers should be at the core of any approach to developing a framework. A framework for land use should be about joining up policy on the ground, not dictating what is done on the land in a very prescriptive way. Any land-use framework should be positive and enabling—allowing land managers to deliver more from their land, whether for the environment, food or other economic activity—rather than negative and restrictive.

The most interesting objective of the clause recognises the need to consider agriculture and food production. Farmers and landowners have often asked for a more strategic approach to land use, particularly now that land may be taken out of production for carbon-offsetting purposes, housing or whatever, so a clause along these lines helps to deal with the issue. However, this clause has much wider ambitions that could greatly restrict the progression of farming and the diversification of farm businesses, let alone other rural businesses. Zoning would almost certainly make it harder or more expensive to get planning permission for a new or different enterprise.

A land-use framework can never succeed in circumstances where there are going to be changes in technology, climate conditions, consumer demand and business viability, to name just a few considerations, all of which could happen in very short order. Furthermore, there are also likely to be major, currently unforeseen implications for land values and tax considerations that need much more research. I therefore cannot support the amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I have just tossed out more or less everything that I was going to say. I feel the need to respond to what he has just said, which I think is founded on the idea that each patch of land, each farm, is a discrete entity that has no real relationship to the entities around it. As is most obvious when we think about the climate emergency, the fact is that the carbon emitted from or stored on that land has global implications. That is very obvious in relation to flooding. I will not open up that debate, but certain land uses in this country are associated with large amounts of water runoff, and that has literally life-or-death implications for the communities downstream.

The noble Lord also referred to food production. We have to think about the food security of the UK in a world in which food security will become an increasing issue in the coming decades.

We have to think about systems holistically, and indeed we have signed up to do just that. Like all the nations in the world, we are a signatory to the sustainable development goals—a mix of economic, social and environmental goals—although we are not currently on track to deliver any single one of them. The question is: the Government have signed up to these goals, but how will they deliver them? Making sure that land is used well—not in a way that harms other people—surely has to be a foundational measure.

19:30

I pick up on the point about multiple uses that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made in so ably introducing this amendment. Here we are talking about agroecology and permaculture approaches. I am no believer in central planning, and we are not talking about directing things: “Do this with this acre or hectare of land.” We are looking at types of land, patterns of land and areas of land that we need to get certain outcomes from. We need to see multiple uses: a permaculture approach, where you can have several layers on the same piece of land. These are the kind of things we are talking about.

Finally, it is worth noting that it is interesting that this amendment arises before Amendment 118 about food strategy. These two are very much related, of course, and on land use we need to think about whether we are producing the kind of food we need and, particularly, whether we have in place government incentives and policies that lead to us producing the kind of food that is bad for people and the planet, or whether we are putting in place the right policies and incentives to produce a good outcome for both.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I merely wish to say that I am very worried about this proposal. It seems not to deal with the real issue and to ask Defra to do what it cannot do. What we really need—we know we need it—is a department of land use that takes over the planning, housing and other responsibilities of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. There is no way forward until we begin to realise that this is what we need. To ask Defra, which has only a bit of all this, to do this seems to be a mistake. I fear it will end up with a document, if that is what it is, that will have little influence and will not be able to do the job. It will mean that Defra will not be doing the detailed work it is capable of doing.

I know why the noble Baroness has put this forward and have sympathy with what she is trying to do. It just seems to me that this is not a suitable answer. We have to go for a much bigger issue, which is that in this country we do not have an integrated way of looking at land. The noble Baroness referred to the Climate Change Committee. In our view, that was the way we had to look: in a much more general way than this amendment provides. I am unhappy about it and will not find it possible to support it.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben and will just extend what he says. Essentially, his point is that we cannot ask Defra, which has a narrow remit, to take the integrated and across-the-board view that is necessary.

We also need to take into account the pressures on land—population, for example. As the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, the population projections over the next few years from the Office for National Statistics are very considerable; we are talking about an extra 7 million people over the next 10 or 15 years. These are the sort of pressures we have to take into account when we look at land use. Although I am sympathetic with her point, we have to consider this properly, systematically and rationally.

No one wants the land to be ill-used or underused. None the less, the practicalities of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Deben’s view about the wider nature of this issue mean that this amendment is deficient.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that we support the intent of this amendment. Given the competing demands on land in our country, we believe it is time for a national framework. If it works in other parts of the continent and in other parts of the United Kingdom, the time has come and we would support it.

I fear the Minister will say that, for a number of reasons, he is not able to accept it. I therefore applaud the noble Baroness for her campaigning on this over many years and the fact that she has put together a proposal for an ad hoc House of Lords Select Committee on this. I certainly support that. I think it is an incredibly important initiative, and I hope other Peers will support that proposal so that this issue can be taken forward in a broader way.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the enthusiasm of the devolved Administrations for this type of approach. It would be hard to find anything more enthusiastic than the way the Scottish Government have approached it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, must have experienced this with the various organisations she has dealt with across the border. I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister has looked at some of these other countries. In fact, in spite of all the things the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has incorporated in her amendment, the Scottish Government have gone way further than that. We need to think about how far we want to go in this type of organisation.

My noble friend Lord Carrington mentioned the drawbacks that could occur. The Scottish land use strategy has been in place since 2016. There are a whole raft of policies—a natural resource management policy to tabulate stocks of ecosystem services and use an ecosystem approach. Land-based businesses, including the Crown Estate, have trialled the natural capital protocol. They had a statement on the land use strategy, then found they needed to incorporate a national marine plan as well as a national planning framework. It overlaps into forestry as well.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking in favour of Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. I feel she made a very good case for an overarching land use framework to address the acute shortage of land we know we have in the UK and the competing pressures on it. This has been a developing theme that she has very much championed throughout the passage of this Bill and the Agriculture Act before it.

Whether it is setting aside land for habitat renewal and biodiversity, identifying land for planting trees to help with carbon sequestration, providing better public access to green spaces or becoming more self-sufficient in food, all these issues have to compete with the need for more housing, hospitals and schools, and it all needs to happen on the same scarce and expensive pieces of land. As my noble friend says, it has become an impossible jigsaw.

As we pile on the pressure for more and more uses for the land, there is still no accepted understanding of what the priorities are and how all those needs can be addressed. We are virtually operating on a first come, first served basis: those who already own the land decide its future, regardless of the pressures stacking up for other, maybe more pressing, needs.

Which land should be used for growing food and which for nature recovery? We never really resolved that during consideration of the Agriculture Act. Where are the millions of trees in the tree action plan going to be planted? How can we maximise our land use to mitigate the impact of climate change and contribute to net zero? What will be the impact of the new planning laws on our desire for biodiversity net gain? Are we in danger of locking up land through conservation covenants before we have decided on its ideal use? These are all urgent questions that need to be addressed, and we believe the creation of a land use framework is an excellent way to address them.

However, I am very pleased that, since the earlier debate, my noble friend has received considerable support for her proposal for a Lords special ad hoc inquiry into this issue; I was very pleased to add my name in support. I believe this would be an excellent step forward. Undeniably, as noble Lords have said, this issue is hugely complex and not easily captured in an amendment to a Bill. Whatever the outcome of her bid, I hope she will keep raising this issue, in the planning Bill and beyond, until we can reach a settled view about how to prioritise our land use for the future. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to whom I apologise for referring to as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in my fourth slip-up with names in two sittings.

I thank her for focusing on the significant land use changes required to deliver our environment, food, housing and infrastructure needs. As she set out clearly during Monday’s debate, land-use change can be achieved quickly—in the case of wetlands or new housing development, for example—but it can also happen very slowly, for example in the case of new woodlands, peatland restoration and so on. That long view on our natural capital, natural wealth and ecosystems is critical to our strategic approach. The Government are delivering the keystone reforms required to manage that change. For example, our action plans on trees and peat target the most critical changes required to meet our net-zero ambition while also driving environmental recovery. The Bill makes provision for environmental improvement plans and local nature recovery strategies, and both will help to steer the actions of government and public authorities, delivering targeted nature recovery that maximises the economic, social and environmental benefits of land use change. That is the strategic approach recommended by noble Lords.

Henry Dimbleby’s recent review of our food system has also made a significant contribution to our work on land-use change and land management. It has brought into sharp focus the importance of a strategic approach to land use that draws out the links between our food systems and our ecosystems. The Government are committed to responding to the review’s recommendations in the form of a food strategy White Paper.

I also briefly acknowledge and very much agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Deben. I cannot deliver the departmental changes he suggested— I certainly cannot create new departments—but the point he makes is important: when dealing with something as profound as land use for the long term, it requires, dare I say, more cross-government collaboration than has historically been the case.

I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the Government are already taking a strategic approach to land use and will keep it under review. I therefore do not think that the amendment is needed and beg her to withdraw it.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their contributions. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this is not intended to be a top-down micromanagement to parish level but is about setting broad frameworks that would give local communities, people and landowners more security in making decisions about their land for the future. It is not intended to be prescriptive in any way. The experience in Scotland and Wales, where they have these frameworks, is that it does not cramp farmers’ style. You can imagine that farmers in Wales and Scotland are not exactly pushovers, so if they are not complaining, it probably means that there is not too much resistance to it.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that this needs to be cross-government. Alas, the convention in Bills is that when you say “the Secretary of State”, in reality you mean the Government. This is not intended to be a Defra proposal; it is supposed to be a cross-government initiative, because it will need not only land in rural uses but the involvement of the Transport department, housing, the planning system and the Treasury—a whole variety of different government departments. The amendment is very much what the noble Lord is calling for. Indeed, the text I have used is the text that the Scots used in their climate change Act, which is where this provision is enshrined in Scottish law. He will be glad to hear that, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, suggested, I took out some of the overenthusiasm that Scotland has evinced on certain issues, which I thought probably would not go down a bundle in England.

I absolutely accept that Defra is trying to keep a strategic approach to all the things happening in rural land use, but I am proposing that we need a strategic approach that covers rural and urban development. Both are looking for the same land these days and, unless we get a cross-government approach at strategic level, taking account of all land use pressures, we will continue to see not only potential conflict at a national level but the conflict we have seen on individual planning and other proposals, where there is lack of clarity regarding the comparative priority of housing, infrastructure, agriculture, forestry, nature, et cetera. We all know about them; we are all part of them; we have all fought them on our local patch.

At this stage in the game, I will say simply that I thought a little bird had told me that we were reaching the tipping point whereby the Government would embrace this as something really required. Of course, we now have a new Secretary of State at MHCLG, so my little bird may have been shot and buried somewhere.

We have the opportunity of the planning Bill. I hope that I get my special Select Committee agreed to but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 117 withdrawn.

19:46

Sitting suspended. Report to begin again not before 8.46 pm.

Covid-19

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Statements

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 13 September.

“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on our vaccination programme against Covid-19.

We know that vaccinations are our best defence against the virus. Our jabs have already prevented over 112,000 deaths, more than 143,000 hospitalisations and over 24 million infections. They have built a vast wall of defence for the British people.

Earlier this year, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approved the Covid-19 vaccines supplied by Pfizer and Moderna for 12 to 17 year-olds. It confirmed that both vaccines are safe and effective for this age group. Following that decision, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended vaccination for all 16 and 17 year-olds and for 12 to 15 year-olds with serious underlying health conditions. It next looked at whether we should extend our offer of vaccination to all 12 to 15 year-olds, which would have brought us into line with what is already happening in countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Israel and the United States of America. It concluded that there are health benefits of vaccinating this cohort, although they are finely balanced.

It was never in the JCVI’s remit to consider the wider impacts of vaccinations, such as the benefits for children in education or the mental health benefits that come from people knowing that they are protected from this deadly virus. It therefore advised that the Government may wish to seek further views on those wider impacts from the United Kingdom’s chief medical officers. The Secretary of State, together with the Health Ministers from the devolved nations, accepted that advice. Our CMOs consulted with clinical experts and public health professionals from across the United Kingdom, such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. They have also benefited from having data from the United States of America, Canada and Israel, where vaccines have already been offered to children aged 12 to 15 years old.

Early this morning, we received advice from the chief medical officers, along with our counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have made that advice publicly available and deposited it in the Library at 2 pm today. The unanimous recommendation of the United Kingdom’s chief medical officers is to make a universal offer of one dose of the Pfizer vaccine to the 12 to 15 year-old age group, with further JCVI guidance needed before any decision on a second dose. They have been clear that they are making this recommendation on the basis of the benefits to children alone, and not on the benefits to adults or wider society. I can confirm that the Government have accepted the recommendation. We will now move with the same sense of urgency that we have had at every point in our vaccination programme.

As the chief medical officers reminded us today, whatever decision teenagers and parents take, they must be supported and not stigmatised in any way. We must continue to respect individual choice. As a father, the decisions that I take on behalf of my own children give me extra pause for thought. People who would not think twice about getting the jab for themselves will naturally have more questions when it comes to vaccinating their children. I completely understand that, but to those who remain undecided I want to say this: the MHRA is the best medical regulator in the world, and it has rigorously reviewed the safety of our vaccines and concluded that they are safe for 12 to 15 year-olds. We continue to have a comprehensive safety surveillance strategy in place across all age groups to monitor the safety of all the Covid-19 vaccines that are approved for use in the United Kingdom.

It is important to remember that our teenagers have shown great public spirit at every point during this pandemic. They have stuck to the rules so that lives could be saved and people kept safe, and they have been some of the most enthusiastic proponents of vaccines. That is at least in part because they have experienced the damage that comes with outbreaks of Covid-19. More than half of 16 and 17 year-olds across the United Kingdom have had the jab since becoming eligible just last month.

At every point in our vaccination programme, we have been guided by the best clinical advice. The advice that we have received from the four chief medical officers today sets out their view that 12 to 15 year-olds will benefit from vaccination against Covid-19. We will follow that advice and continue on that vital path, which is making more and more people in this country safe. I commend this Statement to the House.”

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 14 September.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the pandemic and our autumn and winter plan to manage the risk of Covid-19.

Over the past few months, we have been making progress down the road to recovery, carefully and cautiously moving closer to normal life. As we do this, we have been working hard to strengthen our defences against this deadly virus. We have been continuing the roll-out of our vaccination programme, with 81% of people over the age of 16 having had the protection of both doses. We have expanded our testing capacity yet further, opening a new mega-lab in Leamington Spa, and we have continued supporting research into long Covid, taking our total investment to £50 million.

Thanks to that determined effort, we have made some major steps forward. The link between cases, hospitalisations and death has weakened significantly since the start of the pandemic and deaths from Covid-19 have been mercifully low compared with previous waves. None the less, we must be vigilant as autumn and winter are favourable conditions for Covid-19 and other seasonal viruses. Children have returned to school. More and more people are returning to work. The changing weather means that there will be more people spending time indoors, and there is likely to be a lot of non-Covid demand on the NHS, including flu and norovirus.

Today, keeping our commitment to this House, I would like to provide an update on our review of preparedness for autumn and winter. The plan shows how we will give this nation the best possible chance of living with Covid without the need for stringent social and economic restrictions.

There are five pillars to this plan. The first is further strengthening our pharmaceutical defences such as vaccines. The latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that almost 99% of Covid-19 deaths in the first half of this year were people who had not received both doses of a Covid-19 vaccine. This shows the importance of our vaccination programme, and, by extending the programme further, we can protect even more people. Almost 6 million people over the age of 16 remain unvaccinated in the UK, and the more people there are who are unvaccinated the larger the holes in our collective defences. We will renew our efforts to maximise uptake among those who are eligible but who have not yet, for whatever reason, taken up the offer.

Next, we have been planning our booster doses, too. As with many other vaccines, there is evidence that the protection offered by Covid-19 vaccines reduces over time, particularly for older people who are at greater risk. Booster doses are an important way of keeping the virus under control for the long term.

This morning, we published the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on a booster programme. It recommended that people who were vaccinated in phase 1—priority groups 1 to 9 —should be offered a booster vaccine; that this vaccine should be offered no earlier than six months after the completion of the primary vaccine course; and that, as far as possible, the booster programme should be deployed in the same order as phase 1. I can confirm that I have accepted the JCVI’s advice and that the NHS is preparing to offer booster doses from next week. The NHS will contact people at the right time and nobody needs to come forward at this point. This booster programme will protect the most vulnerable through the winter months and strengthen our wall of defence even further.

As well as that, we will be extending the offer of a Covid-19 vaccine to even more people, as the Minister for Covid-19 vaccine deployment announced yesterday in the House—thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing him to make that statement yesterday. All young people aged 16 to 17 in England have already been offered a dose of a Covid-19 vaccine to give them the protection as they return to school. Yesterday, the UK’s chief medical officers unanimously recommended making a universal offer of a first dose of a vaccine to people between the ages of 12 and 15. The Government have accepted that recommendation, too, and will move with urgency to put this into action. We are also seeing great advances in the use of antivirals and therapeutics. Several Covid-19 treatments are already available through the NHS and our antivirals taskforce is leading the search for breakthroughs in antivirals, which have so much more potential to offer.

Secondly, testing, tracing and self-isolation have been another vital defence. Over the autumn and winter, PCR testing for those with Covid-19 symptoms and contacts of confirmed cases will continue to be available free of charge. Regular asymptomatic testing, which currently identifies about a quarter of all reported cases, will also continue in the coming months, with a focus on those who are not fully vaccinated: perhaps those in education or other higher-risk settings. Contact tracing will continue through the NHS Test and Trace system. We do not want people to face hardship as they carry out their duty to self-isolate, so we will keep offering practical and financial support for those who are eligible and need assistance who are still required to self-isolate. We will review the regulations and support by the end of March 2022.

The third pillar is that we are supporting the NHS and social care. Last week, I announced a £5.4 billion injection for the NHS to support the Covid-19 response over the next six months, including £1 billion extra to tackle the elective backlog caused by Covid-19. We have also launched a consultation on protecting vulnerable patients by making Covid-19 and flu vaccinations a condition of deployment for frontline healthcare staff and wider social care workers in England. We are already making this a condition of employment in Care Quality Commission-registered adult care homes. Although we are keeping an open mind and will not be making a final decision until we fully consider the results of the consultation, it is highly likely that frontline NHS staff and those working in wider social care settings will also have to be vaccinated to protect those around them, and that this will be an important step in protecting those at greatest risk.

Fourthly, we will keep encouraging people to take steps to keep seasonal illnesses, including flu and Covid-19, at bay. The best step we can all take is to get vaccinations for Covid-19 and flu if we are eligible, so along with our Covid-19 vaccination programme the next few months will see the largest flu vaccination campaign that the country has ever seen. Our plan also sets out a number of changes that we can all make to our daily routines, such as: meeting outdoors where possible; trying to let in fresh air if we need to be indoors; and wearing a face mask in crowded and enclosed spaces where we come into contact with people who we do not normally meet.

Our fifth pillar is how we will look beyond our shores and pursue an international approach. Last week, I attended the G20 Health Ministers’ Meeting, where I met counterparts from across the world and talked about the part that we will be playing to lead the global effort to accelerate access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. As we do this, we will maintain our strong defences at the border, allowing us to identify and respond to variants of concern. It is these defences, and the progress of vaccination campaigns both here and abroad, that have allowed us to manage the risks and to start carefully reopening international travel once again. We have already relaxed the rules for fully vaccinated travellers and I asked the Competition and Markets Authority to review the issue of exploitative behaviour in the private testing market. The review reported last week and I am looking into what further action we can take. On top of those measures, we will be publishing a new framework for international travel. My right honourable friend the Transport Secretary will be announcing more details ahead of the formal review point on 1 October.

Thanks to the defences that we have built, we have been able to remove many of the regulations that have governed our daily lives—rules that were unprecedented yet necessary. Our plan shows how we will be removing more of these powers while maintaining those that are essential for our response. This includes expiring more of the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020, such as the powers directing the temporary closure of educational institutions. The remaining provisions will be those that are critical to the Government’s response to the pandemic—for example, ensuring that the NHS is properly resourced, and supporting statutory sick pay for those who are self-isolating.

The plan before the House today is our plan A—a comprehensive plan to steer this country through the autumn and winter. But we have seen how quickly this virus can adapt and change, so we have prepared a plan B of contingency measures, which we can call upon only if they are needed and supported by the data, to prevent unsustainable pressure on the NHS. These measures would be: communicating clearly and urgently to the public the need for caution; legally mandating face coverings in certain settings; and, while we are not going ahead with mandatory vaccine-only Covid status certification now, holding that power in reserve. As well as those three steps, we would consider a further measure of asking people to work from home if they can for a limited time if that is supported by the data. Any responsible Government must prepare for all eventualities. Although these measures are not an outcome that anyone wants, it is one that we need to be ready for just in case.

Ever since we published our road map to recovery seven months ago, we have been carefully but cautiously getting this nation closer to normal life. Now we have come so far and achieved so much, we must stay vigilant as we approach this critical chapter, so that we can protect the progress that we have all made together. I commend this Statement to the House.”

19:47

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Normally, of course, we would have taken these Statements separately but on this occasion, we can take them together. I hope we are working towards taking Statements on the day they are made in the Commons wherever possible.

I looked back at this week in 2020. This time last year, the Prime Minister introduced the rule of six—and really confused the nation. Covid marshals were introduced and the offence of mingling appeared on the statute book. We had infection rates rising, from the young to the middle-aged, and we were very concerned that that meant that they would move into the older cohort of the population. I of course acknowledge that vaccine and testing regimes have made a huge difference, but the lesson we need to learn from last year, and which is signalled in the recent SAGE report, is the need to take action in a timely fashion—which, I am afraid, the Government failed to do from time to time last year.

On Monday, we had confirmation of the vaccine programme for children, and we on these Benches welcome that and support the decision and recommendation of the CMO. Children may not have been the face of this crisis, but they have certainly been among its biggest victims. Yesterday, the Secretary of State also confirmed a booster jab and again, we on these Benches welcome and support that. The obvious question is: how will all this be done? In addition to the issues of our young people, booster jabs and the flu vaccine, we have areas of the country where vaccine take-up remains relatively low. For example, in Bradford, where I am from, second doses are running at 65%; in Wolverhampton, 65%; in Burnley, 69%; and in Leicester, 61%. The first question has to be: what support will be given to those areas and others so that they can boost their vaccine take-up?

Can the Minister explain to the House what the next stage in the children’s vaccination programme will look like and by what date he anticipates that children will be vaccinated? Will it be the responsibility of parents to arrange their children’s vaccination, or will the local NHS arrange it with schools, year by year, or class by class? Will the flu vaccine, which is this year being expanded to secondary schoolchildren, be delivered at the same time as the Covid vaccine or separately? Can the Minister explain what steps will be taken to ensure that parents are informed of the benefits and risks of the vaccination? Can he confirm the Government’s position in rolling out the vaccine and whether the consent of parents will be necessary, because surely the Gillick principle will come into play here? Can the Minister explain why, 470 days since SAGE warned about the importance of ventilation in schools and colleges, it looks as though not a huge amount of action has been taken?

Yesterday, in Grand Committee, I raised the issue of anti-vaxxers demonstrating outside our secondary schools. Given the creation of safety zones around hospitals to prevent harassment and bullying from anti-vaxxers and ensure the safety of our healthcare workers, patients and their caregivers, what will we do about our schools? Can the Minister confirm that the duty of schools, their leaders and the Government is to protect vulnerable children from any form of intimidation or demonstration at their school gates? What is his view of this matter?

Despite the success of the vaccine rollout, the delta variant continues to pose a considerable threat to people. Those who are sick with the delta Covid variant are twice as likely to need hospital care as those who contract the alpha variant. Of course, the UK has not yet experienced delta in the winter. The Government have acknowledged that there is a “plausible” risk of cases rising to an extent that would place the NHS under “unsustainable pressure”. Can the Minister advise the House at what point different measures in the plan will therefore be introduced?

The Government—and, indeed, the scientists—note that

“the epidemic is entering a period of uncertainty … It will take several weeks to be able to fully understand the impact of any such changes.”

In its report, SAGE stressed the “importance of acting early” if cases rise to stop the epidemic growing. It warned:

“Early, ‘low-cost’ interventions may forestall need for more disruptive measures and avoid an unacceptable level of hospitalisations … Late action is likely to require harder measures.”


Given that deaths are currently five times what they were a year ago, with hospitalisations four times as high, why are the Government not already pursuing light-touch measures, such as mandatory masks? The CSA, Patrick Vallance, said that the UK is now at a “pivot point” where, if the situation worsens, it could do so rapidly—so would light-touch measures not be prudent?

The Autumn and Winter Plan states that the Government want

“to sustain the progress made and prepare the country for future challenges … by … Identifying and isolating positive cases to limit transmission”.

Yet the Health Secretary said that no decision has yet been taken as to whether pupils in England will continue to undergo regular testing. Does the Minister share my concern that ending regular testing for pupils is contrary to that key plank in the winter plan?

Although we are still waiting to hear what changes will be made to Covid travel rules, the Health Secretary implied that PCR tests for fully vaccinated travellers will be replaced with lateral flow tests. What will this mean in terms of possible delays in identifying cases involving variants of interest or concern to the UK?

The Health Secretary also confirmed that, although the plans for mandatory vaccine-only Covid-status certification have been shelved for now, the Government may well pursue them in future under the plan B scenario. Can the Minister provide further details about which settings and scenarios will be involved? Can he confirm whether this will require primary legislation?

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the publication of the 33-page Covid Autumn and Winter Plan, including plans A and B, rightly talks about the need to resume life as normally as is possible while Covid is still around, but to move into restrictions faster if cases surge and the NHS is pressured. The World Health Organization’s special envoy on Covid, Dr David Nabarro, has said that the UK is right to find a way to live with the virus. However, he added:

“Speed is of the essence. We’ve been through this before and we know, as a result of past experience, that acting quickly and acting quite robustly is the way you get on top of this virus, then life can go on. Whereas if you’re a bit slower, then it can build up and become very heavy and hospitals fill up, and then you have to take all sorts of emergency action.”


Why does the Statement talk about the vital importance of mitigations, such as meeting outdoors where possible, ensuring ventilation if inside and wearing face coverings? Why are there no clearer, repeated messages for the general public about all these vital interventions, especially what we can all do now to slow down the increase in cases and hospital admissions?

At the No. 10 press conference on Monday, Professor Chris Whitty said:

“Anybody who believes that the big risk of Covid is all in the past and it’s too late to make a difference has not understood where we are going to head as we go into autumn and winter.”


He is right to be concerned. The seven-day rolling figure for daily hospital admissions is now around 1,000, with an average of 8,400 Covid patients in hospital beds. These numbers are considerably greater than they were this time last year. SAGE is very concerned that, as rules are further relaxed and people start coming back into work, the number of Covid patients going into hospital is set to increase substantially. This would put the NHS under real pressure, with perhaps as many as 7,000 admissions a day in six or so weeks, so it says.

The Statement announces the final decision on the booster scheme for those aged over 50, healthcare staff and the clinically extremely vulnerable, following the third dose for the half a million people who are severely clinically vulnerable. We welcome this. However, the World Health Organization reminded us that we should also be providing doses for low-income countries, but I see that the Government are planning only 100 million doses over the next few months. That is a drop in the ocean given that only 2% of the populations of low-income countries have been vaccinated. Will the Government agree to review and increase this number?

We on these Benches welcome the news on 12 to 15 year-olds getting vaccines. We accept that this was a difficult and complex decision, but we are pleased that there finally is one. There was an excellent slot on the “Today” programme this morning, with a group of 12 year-olds asking a paediatrician some questions; he had to look one answer up on Google. I hope that all parents and children will be able to access this sort of information because we know that it makes all the difference in coming to a decision.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, anti-vaxxers are causing serious problems. Good on Chris Whitty for what he said about one celebrity who attacked the idea of 12 to 15 year-olds having vaccines. However, today, yet another celebrity attacked him on social media, saying that he should be hanged. That is disgraceful. What are the Government doing about public servants like Professor Whitty being threatened in this way? As importantly, what will the Government do about the disinformation that people are now spreading at school gates, including leaflets with the NHS logo on them?

Ten days ago, Dr Jenny Harries announced that all clinically extremely vulnerable children in England—even those still on chemotherapy—would be removed from the CEV list and expected to return to school as term was starting, regardless of their underlying condition or the fact that there are no masks, bubbles or even, in many schools, proper ventilation. Although it is really important to have all children back in school, this cohort of children is at particular risk. Their consultants and GPs are as bemused as their parents, so why is Jenny Harries’s letter to the parents of these children, explaining why they are being removed from the CEV list, not on either the NHS or UKHSA website? Will the Minister write to me to explain this decision? We are hearing confusion from parents and medics alike.

Finally, last week, I commented on the continuing farce of Ministers U-turning daily on the use of vaccine passports for clubs. It is confusing to keep up with the U-turns on U-turns; I note that the Statement is trying to have it both ways. I suspect that Ministers could do with some new flip-flops.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, for such thoughtful questions. I am very pleased to be here to answer questions on both these Statements, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her kind remarks earlier.

I too welcome the decision to bring forward the vaccination of children. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that it will be done in the same way that a large number of other vaccinations are run through the school process. As I am sure she knows, vaccinations for things such as HPV and flu have been done at primary school for some time and there are extremely well-established and thoughtful protocols for handling them. They are handled not by school nurses but by nurses employed by the local authority or on contract by the local CCG to deliver the vaccinations, and the consent forms are handled directly with the parents. There is an extremely well-established process for the very rare occasions where there is a difference of opinion between the child and the parents. It is important that we get that right. I reassure the Chamber that this process for vaccinations has been handled for years. The professionals who deal with such disagreements are extremely well trained and the Gillick principles, which are extremely well known, will be applied to the Covid vaccination. I think all noble Lords agree that that is entirely right. Children aged between 12 and 15 will be provided with information, usually in the form of a leaflet, for their use. The school- age immunisation provider will, prior to vaccination, seek consent for all the vaccination programmes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, quite rightly raised the question of children being pressured into taking or not taking the vaccine. I reassure her that the school-age vaccination programme and the clinicians involved are very well equipped and are well versed in dealing with vaccines in schools; this will not be a new thing for the schools or professionals involved. Their ability to gain consent and to communicate exactly why the Chief Medical Officer has gone ahead is an important element of the decision to accept the recommendation from the CMO on the back of the JCVI recommendation. The four CMOs have said that it is essential that children and young people aged 12 to 15 and their parents are supported in their decisions, whatever decisions they take, and are not stigmatised for accepting or not accepting the vaccination offer. Individual choice will be respected.

The rollout is starting immediately, at the beginning of next week, and we expect that it will end in schools by the end of November. The advice from Dr June Raine of the MHRA is that the flu and Covid vaccinations can happen contemporaneously—studies have supported that—but that will not necessarily happen in every case. The practicalities of the supply of Covid and flu vaccines are, as noble Lords know, extremely complex, and we do not want to make a complicated situation any worse by trying to force a combination if it is not possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about our arrangements for the current winter period and particularly about mandatory masks. I completely understand the concern of noble Lords in the Chamber about making masks mandatory. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to it as “light touch”, but our feeling is that it is not light touch to mandate the wearing of masks; in fact, it is an intrusion into people’s life in the most intimate way. That is not to say that it should not happen at all, but we are at a stage of the pandemic where we are trying to move the responsibility for individual choices, such as wearing masks, on to people to take it for themselves. Of course, if the worst happens and we have to move into plan B, we have the legal and influential role to be able to mandate masks, but at this stage it feels proportionate to try to use persuasion rather than mandation.

I remind noble Lords that the messaging around the pandemic is not the only thing we are trying to do right now. In response to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about public messaging, I reassure her that I am the Minister who signs off the marketing around Covid and other health messaging. We are currently spending a substantial sum communicating our messages on Covid. The fact that she thinks they do not exist is an example of the public exhaustion that is an inevitable result of 18 months of relentless campaigning on Covid. We have to recognise that the public can hear us only so many times before they start tuning out the message.

There are other very important messages that we have to get through to the public, the most important of which is for those who show symptoms of other diseases to step forward to get their tests, so that we can catch people who are ill with non-Covid diseases. We have a massive backlog of diagnostics; the NHS figure on the expected numbers of people who have diseases such as cancer, and need to be seen by GPs and specialists, is huge. We need to get those messages across to people as well and, while it is not a zero-sum game, to be aware that these messages compete with each other. We are using this moment where there is a pause in the Covid epidemic to try to get people back into the GP surgeries and the diagnostic hubs—back into hospital—to try to catch diseases and reduce the lists. That fightback is extremely important and is one of the reasons why we are focused on the “Help us to help you” messaging.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about testing in schools. I reassure her that we have not only put a huge effort into the double supervised testing which, as she knows, kicked off the school term but are sustaining the support for school testing. There will be a review at the end of September but there are no current plans to end regular testing in schools. We have to ensure that there is value for money and that the testing is effective, but it is extremely well supported by schools. I believe it has made a serious impact on the spread of disease within schools and pay tribute to teachers, headmasters, parents and pupils for the high rates of uptake in schools. Around one-third of all positive cases are tracked down through asymptomatic testing, which is a really good indication of how effective it is at breaking the chains of transmission.

There is a review of our border arrangements in play, and I believe the Secretary of State for Transport will be making a Statement tomorrow. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that we take border control extremely seriously. We are very conscious of the threat from variants of concern. At the same time, however, we have to recognise that vaccination makes a big difference and be proportionate in our border arrangements. We are conscious that although travel is regarded as a voluntary matter, people may have strong family roots or good business reasons. Being able to travel is one of the great joys and loves of people’s lives, so we are seeking to be proportionate and reasonable in our travel arrangements. The Secretary of State will make further announcements on that tomorrow.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on public servants, I could not agree more. The rhetoric that has been directed at public servants such as Chris Whitty and JVT sometimes leaves one feeling quite cold and disappointed at the British public. As she probably knows, we have made arrangements to put a big arm around those people who have been threatened and improve the security arrangements for them. I call on everyone to express support for our public servants, who have a very tough job. They are often communicating unpalatable, difficult truths to the public and challenging some of the assumptions and preconceptions of those who would like life to be slightly different from what it really is.

In particular, I noted the physical attack on the MHRA headquarters in Canary Wharf 10 days ago. Videos of that attack really disturbed me; it was brutal, nasty and ferocious. I pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police, who responded extremely quickly and emphatically, and to professionals at the MHRA who had steady nerves on that Friday afternoon. We cannot operate in a society where differences of opinion about public health policy lead to physical violence on the streets of London. I absolutely condemn those who participate in physical attacks of that nature, along with the kind of violent extremism that calls for people to be hanged. This is no time for that kind of extremism. Those who participate in it are trying to divide society. They really need to move on and find something else to do.

I am extremely pleased to hear what I think was the implicit support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the principle of vaccine passports. It is right that we hold such an intimate and strong measure in reserve in case we need it for plan B. The technical and regulatory arrangements for the measures have been put in place but we have held off the implementation because it is not felt that it is needed right now. However, should it be needed either to break the chains of infection and restrain the spread of the virus or to encourage vaccine uptake, which is one of the benefits of such a measure, we will turn to it as part of our plan B measures. That is a proportionate treatment of that potent but very heavy state intervention.

20:10

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the Government on the last two Statements and the decision to encourage vaccination in 12 to 16 year-olds. However, some teachers who have been very involved in assisting pupils with swabbing are concerned that there might be an expectation that they do inoculations. Can the Minister confirm that that will not be expected of teaching staff? I think he implied that it will not be in his discussion of nurses.

Will the Government seriously consider alternatives to quarantining in hotels by giving individuals the choice to be tagged and remain in one centre if they travel back to the UK? This is particularly important for British citizens working abroad who have been doubly vaccinated.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I absolutely reassure the noble Baroness that teachers will not be involved in the vaccination programme. I pay tribute to the work that teachers have done in organising pupils and, on occasion, administering the swabs themselves. It has been an impactful programme and we are enormously grateful. There is an established vaccination programme that, as I mentioned, makes use of professional nurses. That is the route we will take in this instance.

When it comes to the MQS programme, the bottom line is that hotel quarantine is extremely effective. It really does stop the spread of the disease as it comes into the country. That is absolutely relevant when we have the threat of variants of concern. We keep the question of tagging in sight. It is a very intrusive measure and we are not convinced that it will necessarily be, in current terms, as effective as hotels, but I take the point the noble Baroness made and will continue to look into it further.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a great deal in the Minister’s answers and the initial Statements with which I totally agree, particularly his statement about the threats to leading medical figures and leaders of the vaccine movement. Anti-vaxxers are a vile section of our community and I hope everything can be done to stop their activities. I also strongly welcome, as the grandfather of a teenage girl, the decision to vaccinate schoolchildren. She is delighted by that. It means she can go on holiday properly with her parents. It will make a great deal of difference to her and I know she will support it.

However, the aspect of the Minister’s answer with which I was not happy—he will know what I am going to say because I have raised this before, although not for a while in the Chamber—is the wearing of face coverings. The message is confused and the advice being given to the public is not clear. It is not made easier by photographs appearing in the press of the Cabinet sitting around a table close together with not a single face covering in sight, and pictures of at least half the Chamber in the House of Commons where virtually all the Members are unmasked. It is not the same in this House: face coverings are being worn by the great majority on all sides of the Chamber when we are not speaking. We do this not just for our own benefit and that of our immediate neighbours but for the benefit of the staff who work here. That perhaps deserves rather higher consideration in the House of Commons.

The advice being given to travellers is very difficult. Again, I would have liked earlier, much stronger advice. At present, it is mandatory if you are travelling on a Transport for London conveyance—a Tube, tram or bus—to wear a mask, but on other forms of transport, it is advisory. There is great confusion, and it gives rise to resentment among people following what they think is government advice to wear a face covering. Can we have from the Government a bit more clarity on when they believe face coverings should be worn, because I think the public are not clear about it at all?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I hear the noble Lord’s points loud and clear. We are seeking to balance the epidemiological, public health practicalities of trying to limit the spread of the disease through mask wearing with accepting the benefits of the vaccine and the limit that puts on hospitalisations and death and trying to restore confidence in the public that we live in a safe environment.

We will be debating in months to come the challenge of trying to get the country back to work and back to economic activity, to get people back into society and back into their communities. It is not that stage right now—we are going into the winter, so naturally our concerns are about hospitalisations and a possible rise in pressure on the NHS—but we must have sight of the exit from this disease. If we have a society where the Government mandate very intimate parts of people’s everyday life and where the impression given to the entire population is that a deadly disease is an imminent threat to them, I am afraid we will run into a problem in trying to get the economy moving and to get society back again.

What we are seeking to do right now is to get that balance right, and it is proportionate. I acknowledge that mask wearing is down, but people are broadly responsible, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out. Central government cannot make every decision in all of society for all time. We need transport providers to make their own decisions, which does mean that it is complicated and that TfL and overground are different. However, it feels like the right approach for right now.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I make no apology for pursuing the issue of wearing masks and face coverings, because I feel so strongly about it. My personal experience this morning when coming in on the Tube was that more than 50% of people were not wearing a mask; they were close to me. One man actually took his mask off and sneezed over me. The whole experience made me feel very uncomfortable and very anxious.

I contrast this experience with a recent train journey to Scotland. As soon as we crossed the border, there was an announcement making it quite clear that wearing masks was compulsory on the train. Absolutely every person was wearing a mask, and I felt so much more confident.

I do not really understand the explanation that the Minister has given; I listened to it very carefully. I think he said that it is not a light-touch measure, but, to me, it seems extremely light-touch. It costs very little; it protects others; it does not harm the economy, and ultimately it can save lives, so I genuinely do not understand what the problem is. I think it is about being considerate to others and, frankly and bluntly, not being selfish.

I would certainly add my voice to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. By not wearing masks in the Commons Chamber yesterday, many MPs were sending mixed messages and setting an appalling example to the country.

I want to end by asking the Minister a question asked also by my noble friend Lady Brinton about children who are clinically extremely vulnerable being taken out of that category. Can he explain why that is and what is going to happen to those children, and perhaps write to me and my noble friend on it?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I absolutely applaud the sentiments that the noble Baroness articulated: her sense of responsibility and commitment to the community are generally exactly what we are trying to inculcate in a lot of people. But I just do not agree with her or with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that having a state-mandated direction—accompanied, presumably, by fines and, therefore, court appearances for some—could possibly be described as light touch. It is the most intrusive and intimate of measures. If the circumstances require it, we are prepared to do it. We have done it, and, if necessary, we will do it again. But noble Lords really are missing the mood of the nation if they think that the vast majority of the country is in the same place.

I am afraid to say that this is a question of personal choice at the end of the day. The public health judgment—these decisions were made in participation with public health officials—does not support mandatory mask-wearing for the entire country. I agree that visiting Scotland is a completely different experience; there, policymakers have made a different decision, as they have in some other countries. But when we lifted mandatory mask-wearing on 19 July we saw a very large change in the public’s habit. Why? Because some people find it extremely intrusive and not comfortable at all, and they do not like it or are not prepared to do it. Therefore, at this stage of the pandemic it feels proportionate and right to rely on guidance and inspiration and on the leadership of both our national and civic leaders. If necessary, in plan B we will come back to the mandating of those kinds of measures. At this stage it really does not feel proportionate.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may pursue this with the noble Lord, he has used the term “proportionate” on several occasions and has now said that the Government will be prepared to come back to this if they feel that the circumstances require it. It is worth reminding the House that the term “light touch” was not used by my noble friend Lady Thornton but by Sir Patrick Vallance.

I have several questions for the Minister. First, when will the circumstances be such that the Government will agree that “proportionate” is no longer the key and that action will need to be taken to require masks to be mandatory and people to stay at home? That is what the SAGE advice is suggesting. Secondly, exactly why have the Government not taken the advice of their own advisers in this respect, given the circumstances, which have been well described across the Chamber, of increases in the number of hospitalisations and the number of infections? Thirdly, what does the Minister think is likely to be the worst-case scenario this winter and the key risks, given that the Government have, on two or three occasions over the last 18 months, not followed the advice to act swiftly and urgently and according to the advice that they have been given? Why is it so difficult to take that advice and act on it now? It appears that we have not learned the lessons about the necessity for early intervention to stop things getting worse.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I am very grateful for the questions and I will take them one at a time. I am enormously grateful for the advice of SAGE; the work it does is invaluable. However, it is not regarded as the key medical adviser to the Government—that is the role of the CMO, who advises the Government on medical matters.

On the circumstances for moving to plan B, that is a reasonable question. We do not have a specific formula or algorithm, because it is extremely uncertain how things will play out. Undoubtedly, pressure on the NHS is one of the biggest drivers of that decision, and if we were to see a spike in hospitalisations, severe disease and deaths, and beds being used up and capacity being drawn down to an extreme level, that would be one of the key drivers. But we have to also look at variants of concern, other diseases and the state of the NHS in the fightback, as well as at the flu epidemic that may or may not come. Therefore, I cannot give an easy and simple answer to that question—there is not a “four tests” type of answer to it—but we are looking at it extremely carefully.

On the criticism on speed, I remind the noble Baroness that, at the beginning of this year, the Government laid out a very clear steps process, whereby we left the last round of regulations. That was extremely well considered; there were at least five weeks between each step, and it was done in a proportionate and empirically based manner, and I think noble Lords would recognise that it was a thoughtful and reasonable way of doing things. To characterise the Government’s approach this year as being behind the curve is not reasonable. As I said, we are trying to accept the risks that we have in front of us, and Covid is only one of them: there are other pressures on the NHS, including the huge catch-up that we need to do, and the possibility of flu and other epidemics on the horizon. We cannot just focus entirely on this.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, quite rightly the Minister is in popular demand this evening. This is nothing against Boots the Chemists, which by the by does an excellent job, but with not shy of 2,000 eligible candidates on the parliamentary estate, could not the testing facilities on the estate be designated as official testing areas for flying purposes and for any other reason that tests are required? Furthermore, notwithstanding the announcement to which the Minister referred, which may or may not address this point, why, oh why, do we need day 2 testing, having had a valid test 48 hours prior to arrival in the UK from, for example, the continent?

If the Minister is minded, given that I do not think that another noble Lord is going to ask a question, could he possibly also say a word about the issue of mixing and matching booster vaccination types? Can the flu jab, to which the Minister referred, be taken at booster stage?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

Like the noble Viscount, I pay tribute not just to Boots—an excellent chemist—but all the other pharmacies, which have contributed so much in this epidemic in looking after the communities that they serve, not only in trying to provide essential services during lockdown but in their contribution to the vaccine rollout programme. It really has been a demonstration of the enormous amount of value in big and small chains and community pharmacists across the board.

As for the testing provisions here on the estate, those are of course LFD asymptomatic testing provisions, and for flying purposes you need a PCR test, so I am not quite sure whether it would necessarily read across directly.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, just from first-hand experience— Sorry, I apologise for intervening.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

It is an interesting and creative idea, and certainly one that would be worth looking at.

On day 2 testing, I recognise that it is inconvenient to do the follow-up testing if you are travelling but, for the protection of this country, it is an important part of our border public health measures.

The pre-flight testing regime is helpful; it catches some disease, but in no way could it be thought of as a reliable barrier to infection into the country. I am afraid that there is simply, as I am sure noble Lords know, too much variance in the quality of that testing regime, to put it politely. Our estimate is that it catches between 10% and 20% of disease, but we know from our own testing in this country that it certainly does not catch all of it. In fact, most people will not travel if they are blazingly ill, so almost all travel infection is asymptomatic. That is why we look to day 2 testing, because it has the benefit of catching those people who might either have asymptomatic disease or are incubating the disease and would not be caught even by a PCR test.

The day 2 test is an effective way of catching those with the disease; it is an essential part of our surveillance. We would not know how much disease was coming into the country, what VOCs were coming into the country or which countries had disease, because so few have sophisticated testing, let alone genomic sequencing. It is literally the only way we know what is coming into this country and where the threats are from around the world. That is why it has played such an important part in our testing regime to date. The Secretary of State for Transport will be making announcements tomorrow and I look forward to his update on that.

On mixing and matching, one of a great many surprising medical outcomes from this disease is the idea that you might have one vaccine one day and another one three months later. When that was first posited to me, and when I first made that suggestion in this House, it was greeted with surprise and with some concern, but actually they somehow provoke different parts of the immune system, they somehow complement each other and there is strong and growing evidence that this is a very effective and complementary way of administering programmes. They work for different types of people in different ways, and different mixes and matches complement each other in a strange Rubik’s cube of complicated arithmetic. I would have to leave it to JVT, the deputy CMO, to explain it in more detail if noble Lords would like more information on that.

20:31

Sitting suspended.

Environment Bill

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

Report (4th Day) (Continued)

20:47

Amendment 118

Moved by

[Baroness Boycott]

118: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“National Food Strategy
(1) Within two months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must review the National Food Strategy (the “Strategy”) in the light of this Act, in particular the Strategy’s approach to addressing the effect of food production and agriculture on—(a) biodiversity, and(b) greenhouse gas emissions.(2) In conducting the review the Secretary of State must consider—(a) the implications of this Act for the Strategy and any changes that should be made to the Strategy as a result,(b) how the provisions of this Act, including functions given to the Secretary of State by virtue of it, should be implemented to give effect to the Strategy, and(c) any related matters.(3) The Secretary of State must publish the review and lay it before Parliament.”

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Hayman of Ullock, for supporting this amendment. I also need to declare my various food interests, in particular in this instance that I was an adviser on the food strategy—although I have to confess that it really was all done by Henry and the people in Defra.

I have tabled this amendment because the role and significance of food in its own right is lacking in this Bill. During the passage of the Agriculture Bill, food was, again, never considered as a whole—from what we eat to how we grow it and how we sell it. It was never appreciated, it seems to me, as a system of high complexity, and it is not appreciated here in the Environment Bill either. The only way I know of trying to address what I see as alarming oversights is in encouraging the Government to take the Dimbleby review very seriously. I will try to explain why—and will try not to take too long, as it is late.

The elevator pitch, if you will, is that we cannot make it to net zero without changing the food system. The key word here is “system”: food is integrated into all parts of lives, our trade and our commerce. It is the primary cause of deforestation, damage to oceans, overfishing, plastic waste, methane emissions—the list is incredibly long. The system as a whole, whether it is agriculture, food production or distribution, releases more greenhouse gases than any other sector apart from energy. It is responsible for 25% to 30% of global emissions; that is overwhelming when compared with the 3.5% accounted for by all aeroplanes. Here in the UK, the food system accounts for a fifth of domestic emissions, but that rises to around 30% if we start to count our emissions honestly, namely by including all the food we import. I might eat a blueberry from Chile one morning, but the emissions are accounted to Chile, not to me.

There are four ways in which food specifically contributes to climate change: the damage to wild areas when they are converted to farmland or deforested; the release of carbon from farmed land that is deep ploughed; the use of fossil fuels throughout the food system, from pesticides to plastics; and the release of methane and nitrous oxide, the two most potent greenhouse gases.

Then there is the question of biodiversity. Ecologically, the food system is a disaster. Many noble Lords have expressed deep concern about biodiversity during these debates. As we know, it is crucial to our societies worldwide. Biodiversity enables carbon to be stored directly in soil and maintains its fertility. Through pollinators it provides the food we eat and supports the production of all our food through pest control and soil health. Biodiversity also provides crucial cultural benefits and well-being. We should no longer argue about the benefits to mental health that accrue from spending time outdoors. That is now abundantly clear.

Despite that undeniable and fundamental importance, thousands of species have gone extinct in this century and the primary cause of that is the production of ever more food through industrial methods. Habitats are lost, freshwater rivers are first abated and then contaminated by run-off from chicken farms and other agricultural chemicals that flood the water and destroy aquatic species. However, the biggest driver has been the conversion of natural ecosystems into crop production or pastures. Currently, land for food production accounts for 40% of the whole world’s land that is not desert and uses a staggering 70% of our available fresh water. Instead of wild animals, farmed animals now dominate—mostly cows and pigs, which now constitute 60% of the global biomass of all mammals. Humans—us lot—account for 36%, with wild animals a woeful 4%. For birds, the figures are 29% wild but 57% chickens. More than three-quarters of all agricultural land is now used to feed those animals directly or by growing stuff for them to eat. Overall, agriculture is an identified threat to 24,000 of the 28,000 terrestrial species under threat of extinction.

While current food systems threaten our biodiversity, a sustainably managed food production system can support and enhance it. At a global level, according to the recent report by Food Tank, we produce more food than we need per capita—approximately 40%. That brings us to another axis where the food system crosses environmental problems. Food waste, as all noble Lords agree and have talked about, is a scandal, and a preventable one, but single-use plastic and plastic waste in general is so much the responsibility of the food system. Food wrapping and production accounts for 8.2 billion kilos of the 20 billion kilos of plastic that comes to Europe, so much of which ends up in our seas and on our land.

Plastics are not just a problem when they are thrown away. They are a problem when manufactured, as it takes petroleum, chemicals, minerals, water and energy to make them. UK households use over 500,000 tonnes of plastic per year to wrap up or preserve food. A scrap of that is recycled. But if we change our farming system, shop more locally, buy vegetables individually and take them home in paper bags or, better yet, in reusable containers, and use less ready-made and fast food, we can crack down on this too

As someone who has worked in this field for many years, I know that tweaking bits and pieces of the food system does not really work. Yes, we have amendments in the Bill that, to achieve demands, will ask for changes to the food system such as banning plastic spoons, forks and cups. That is all great but, faced with this mountain, it is a bit like using a fork to plough a field.

Food is a system. It covers many Ministries and crosses many boundaries. As was the case when we debated the need for land reform and a land use strategy, it is not just the responsibility of Defra but should be considered in education, culture and the Treasury.

Henry Dimbleby’s report is the first such strategy that attempts—and, in my book, succeeds—in looking across this complex system of dynamics. It ranges across health, trade and inequality. I have not mentioned health today, but we all know what the food system is doing to it. The system overlooks the impact that food has on nature, climate and carbon emissions. We must take this issue seriously. It would be such a waste, literally, of an opportunity if the proposed strategy ends up gathering dust on a Ministry shelf.

When food came up during the Agriculture Bill, one of the solutions offered was the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, so I have communicated with Tim Smith, who is the head of it, who gave me permission to read some of his email in reply. He said the key issue is that

“months after we delivered the report we’ve had no response from ministers despite them being briefed throughout our working between July 2020 and February 2021.”

He further said that the Government’s response to its recommendations has not been bad, but very slow, specifically on

“animal welfare … environment … balancing consumer protections with trade liberalisation”

and

“establishing the statutory TAC to scrutinise”.

Tim also said:

“I’d add my concern at the response to Henry’s report – the industry gets it even if ministers don’t.”

Tonight, I would like to say that we can do this. The good news is that, if we take the plunge and start transforming this system, through land policies, nature-based solutions to capture carbon and so on, the results would be a win-win. It would certainly be a lose-lose if this fine report ends up going nowhere.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I congratulate her on moving it so eloquently. Given this opportunity, I just ask my noble friend when the Government will respond to both parts 1 and 2 of the national food strategy. When does he expect the Government to publish the food strategy plan and what will the timetable for its adoption be? That will be the conclusion of a fantastic debate, started by the Dimbleby report, both parts 1 and 2, on the national food strategy.

I say in passing that farming wishes to play an active role in reducing emissions and achieving net zero. There are additional ways to those outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, such as seeking to substitute food imports with home produce. Closest to home, Shepherds Purse cheese is benefiting from this, with Mrs Bell’s Blue and other of its blue cheeses competing favourably with Roquefort. That is not to say anything is wrong with Roquefort, but the food miles are less if we buy cheese closer to where it is produced, and it contributes to the local economy and provides jobs, as well.

I also echo earlier disappointment. I congratulate the new incoming International Trade Secretary, and hope this is something she runs with, but I hope the Government pay more than lip service to maintaining high standards of animal welfare in imported food and ensuring food standards of any imports into this country match the very high standards that our farmers meet. I believe this is a timely amendment, and I hope my noble friend uses this opportunity to tell us more about the Government’s thinking about the food strategy plan.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have my name on this amendment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on the way she introduced it and am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for what she just said. The timing of this amendment today is particularly appropriate. It is Back British Farming Day, and I am glad that the Minister supports that. I hope that he, like me, will congratulate all the farmers in this country, who have done so much to produce good food, as well as to maintain and try to improve our biodiversity and nature. They have had severe difficulties because of what we politicians have asked them to do in the past. That is why biodiversity has been declining in some areas, but a lot of farmers have bucked that trend and, with the help of organisations such as the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, have increased biodiversity on their farms and farmed profitably.

It must be galling for a farmer to produce first-class food, only for it to be turned into processed rubbish that is fed to the processed food capital of the western world—the UK. That processing of food has undoubtedly affected the way farmers farm and if we, with the help of the national food strategy, can change our diets, it will help to change the farming system, as well. That can only be to the benefit of this country and farmers. We must never again go down the route of nature being separated from farming. I know that my noble friend is particularly keen that we get back to a more united and comprehensive approach to farming, and I thoroughly support him on that.

21:00

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was absolutely right to mention the disappointment that so many of us feel that the Government have not responded before now to the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s report. It is so unfair on the commission and breaks many of the good words that were said to us during the Agriculture Bill. Given the concessions that we had to make on the trade deal with Australia, it is even more important that we recognise the importance of the national food strategy and that the Government take it seriously.

Given these two examples, I have my doubts that the Government will take this seriously, but I hope that my noble friend can reassure me.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the Green group’s support for this amendment—there not being enough space, given the cross-party and non-party signatures already on it. I particularly compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on her comprehensive introduction, and the following two speakers on their excellent additions to it.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a point about processed food, particularly ultra-processed food, a definition which the Government unfortunately still have not accepted, despite it being widely accepted around the world in terms of nutrition. Ultra-processed food accounts for 68% of the calories in the British diet. That is so-called food that bears no relationship to what started out on the farm. We know what we need for public health and for the state of our natural environment: far more production of vegetables and fruit, ideally produced here in the UK, meaning real changes in our farming systems.

I note the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, to the Climate Change Committee’s land use report. That said that we need to see a 20% reduction in food waste and a 20% reduction per-person in the consumption of beef, lamb, and dairy. Essentially, we need to see a massive reduction in factory farming, in methods of production that are causing enormous environmental damage, and we must stop food waste. Feeding perfectly good food to animals to produce a small amount of protein is food waste.

It was very disappointing that, in response to the Dimbleby report, we heard, though not in this place and perhaps not even within Parliament, some very dismissive comments from Ministers, yet we went right through the Agriculture Bill, the Trade Bill, and this Bill, being told: “Wait for the Dimbleby report, wait for the Dimbleby report.” That was supposed to be providing the direction. If the Government do not adopt that, we need to see this on the face of the Bill.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, sadly, I was too slow to get my name on to this amendment, but I think that it has complete support around the House. I have just one point, which is that this is something that we must be focused on not only in the UK but globally. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we must have farming that is absolutely hand in glove with nature. When the Select Committee on Environment and Climate Change looked at COP 15 and some of the essential issues that must be tackled, this whole issue of addressing the global food chain was absolutely critical. Therefore, we commend the noble Baroness for all her campaigning on this issue and hope that the Government take the food strategy seriously as all of us in this House know that they should.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, to which I have added my name. I commend her for the way she so ably introduced it—her knowledge is far greater than mine.

We have strongly welcomed the National Food Strategy and its recommendations that aim to deliver “healthy, affordable food” and build a sustainable agriculture sector in an efficient and cost-effective way. However, we support the noble Baroness’s amendment because it draws government attention to critical aspects of the impact of the ways in which we farm and produce our food, which, as she quite rightly says, are absent from the Environment Bill.

Amendment 118 first looks at the effect on biodiversity. There is no doubt that the precious biodiversity that sustains our food systems is in decline. The first ever global report on the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture, launched two years ago by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, confirms this. The National Food Strategy rightly observes:

“The global food system is the single biggest contributor to biodiversity loss, deforestation, drought, freshwater pollution and the collapse of aquatic wildlife. It is the second-biggest contributor to climate change, after the energy industry.”


The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, explained that, in the UK, agriculture contributes to, and is affected by, climate change. Every stage in the food production cycle—from preparing, growing and harvesting, through to production, storage, processing, packaging, transporting and cooking—releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Methane produced by livestock during digestion has received a lot of media coverage, while nitrous oxide emissions from mineral nitrogen fertilisers are also a problem. The Government have demonstrated that they are working to tackle this through the new ELM schemes, for example, but, as the strategy confirms, this will not be enough on its own.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke up for our farmers and, very importantly, said that never again should nature be separated from farming. The National Food Strategy also contains recommendations to address the major issues facing the food system, including climate change, biodiversity loss, land use, diet-related disease, health inequality, food security and trade. So it makes absolute sense to me that the approach should be reviewed, as proposed in this amendment, to ensure that it is making progress and continues to do so.

Amendment 118 also looks at the effect of greenhouse gas emissions and asks for a review in this area. If you read it, the National Food Strategy has an awful lot to say on emissions. For example, it says:

“Agriculture alone produces 10% of UK greenhouse gas emissions”


and that our

“food system accounts for a fifth of domestic emissions—but that figure rises to around 30% if we factor in the emissions produced by all the food we import.”

So there is no point in making UK farmers do all the hard work necessary to reduce carbon emissions and restore biodiversity, only to open up the market to cheap food produced to lower standards abroad. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about trade and referred to the impact of food miles. If we export all the environmental harms that we wish to avoid, while undercutting and potentially bankrupting our own farmers, we achieve nothing.

It is not a simple task to dramatically reduce emissions from food production or to monitor and review progress. This all needs to be an integral part of the process. So I commend the noble Baroness’s amendments to the Minister and look forward to a positive response.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions during this debate, and I also offer my thanks, in addition to those already given by the Secretary of State, to Henry Dimbleby and his team for their comprehensive review of our food system. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, not just for tabling this amendment but for her erudite and thoughtful speech, the contents of which I very much agreed with. Although the amendment here largely relates to domestic policy, all of the arguments that she raises are driving the policies and campaigns in the run-up to COP 26.

In the last debate I mentioned breaking the link between commodity production and deforestation. Even more important, perhaps, is the campaign to try to build an alliance of countries committed to identifying and then shifting those subsidies that often drive destruction. It is an extraordinary thing that the top 50 food-producing countries spend $700 billion a year subsidising often the very destruction that we are debating here today. That is four times the world’s aid agency budgets combined. It is also the same amount that scientists believe we will need to spend if we are going to get out of the hole that we are in from a biodiversity point of view. That is a really important campaign and one that I very much hope we will see some success with.

The Government have committed to carefully considering the review that Henry Dimbleby put together and responding in full with the government food strategy White Paper. This will cover the entire food system, from farm to fork. That White Paper is an opportunity to achieve our net-zero, nature recovery and biodiversity commitments, building on work already under way in the Environment Bill, as well as docking into wider government priorities, including net zero and the 25-year environment plan.

This is one of the Government’s top priorities, as we have said. Defra is working with the relevant departments across the whole of government to explore options to reduce carbon emissions from food production, to incentivise land-use change, to sequester more carbon and to restore nature at the same time, as well as preserving natural systems and natural resources. The White Paper that we produce will consider the food system in its entirety, as I said, along with its impact on the natural environment, the nation’s health and our exceptional British food producers. I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Caithness in his tribute to our farmers.

The White Paper will be published shortly after the passing of the Bill. I cannot provide an exact date, I am afraid, but it will be imminent—assuming that the Bill gets Royal Assent, which we all very much hope it does. It will also reflect and build upon the work of the Bill to address the impact of agriculture and food production on greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity.

We are committed to listening to opinions from stakeholders across the entirety of the food system. We are actively engaging with internal and external stakeholders on the development of the White Paper, and we will factor the helpful views of your Lordships’ House from this and previous debates during the passage of the Bill into the White Paper, and we will continue to engage following its publication. So while the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, is right to seek assurances as to its progress, I hope she agrees that there is no real need for the amendment.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. Many interesting points have been made. I definitely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about ultra-processed food. In fact, I was chairing something this morning where someone put up a slide pointing out that if you spend £1 in a British supermarket at the moment, you can get three peppers, six apples or a very large packet of biscuits. Obviously, if you have really hungry children at home who are craving food, you are going to end up with the biscuits. There is huge distortion within our food system, which is why the response has to be systemic change.

It was really good to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I am sorry that I forgot Back British Farming Day—many noble Lords here today are wearing ears of corn—but I know that farmers want to get this right. It is important that we must never separate nature from farming; they go hand in glove with each other. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, echoed the same point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her excellent speech, from which I learned a lot. She is absolutely right to say that we must not open up the market to cheap food.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said that farming wants to play a role. I absolutely believe that; I do not think any farmer wants to grow something that they do not think will end up providing nice, nutritious food. I was also glad to hear what she said about cheese. I come from the West Country. Last night, I had a lot of people to dinner, and I had seven different West Country cheeses, all of which were eaten by the dog just before everyone arrived. The dog was quite ill.

I thank the Minister very much for his response. I know he means everything he says. I am pleased that, in the run-up to COP 26, we are going to be looking at many of these issues and that, most importantly, the food strategy is going to be considered across government. This issue does not just belong to Defra, and that is the most important thing.

On the strength of what the Minister has said—and I think he understands the commitment of everyone in the House to trying to make this work—I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

21:15

Amendment 119

Moved by

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

119: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Economic and environmental goals
Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must publish plans to incorporate a metric for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a coefficient of GDP growth.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish plans on a metric for greenhouse gas emissions as a coefficient of GDP growth (i.e. the degree to which greenhouse gas emissions are growing more or less than GDP). The metric could be published alongside regular GDP updates with the intention that the coefficient should, over time, reduce.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is obvious that in the international system there is a bit of a crisis in knowing how to take the world consensus forward. We are looking forward to Britain making an active contribution leading up to Glasgow. I say this because the international system has at some point got to agree specific concrete parameters so that we do not have an endless debate about China, India, Indonesia, Russia or Brazil, as it were, not playing by the same rules as other people. There has to be an understanding, which I think is to be supported, and an acknowledgement that the third world will have different rules from the second and first world. You can imagine the difficulty of agreeing internationally how to define those ideas.

I have great sympathy with the Government for trying to put together a leadership role for the meeting in a month or so in Glasgow, but this is very relevant to what is in this amendment. In practice, it is narrowing down to the question of how we in this country decide how to set targets for greenhouse gas emissions. One very important way of doing it is to define those targets or metrics in relation to the growth of national income. Everybody knows that there is some connection between the growth of national income and the growth of greenhouse gases. If people say that it is not possible to have a reduction in greenhouse gases without doing something to reduce the growth of national income, I say that the fact is that one can do that. We are doing it in this country already, partly because of the accelerated reduction in emissions arising from the use of coal to generate electricity.

We have to come to some conclusions about what exactly it is that we are concretely proposing. In this amendment, we have an idea that a 1% increase in the national income should be associated with a 1% reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. That is a very crude example, but it is impossible to make progress on the short-term link to the long-term aspiration of zero emissions without trying to find some way in which people can go forward—ideally with international agreement—on how we are going to change this coefficient. That is what is in this amendment.

I am very pleased to have had the chance of an initial talk with the Minister of State last week about how these propositions can be taken forward. I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I am encouraged that some constructive thinking is emerging from the proposition in this amendment.

This also means that there has to be quite a big change in how Whitehall and government generally set targets. We do not have short-term targets at the moment. We have excellent reports from the Committee on Climate Change and associated budget work, but we have reached the point where we have to bite the bullet and look seriously at trying to acknowledge that we have to reduce the coefficient around the world, where climate change is a risk because carbon and greenhouse gas emissions are growing at greater speed than national income. We have to reverse that.

I hope the Minister will accept that work should be taken forward on the idea of these metrics to reduce that coefficient and give a positive response to the principle involved. I look forward to his response. I beg to move.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I added my name to my noble friend’s amendment. When he first proposed it to me I was not quite clear what the intention was, but it is quite clear what it requires. It gives us a metric —a figure—to display to the public what is a central matter of political dispute in this and many other countries, namely the claim that to achieve green growth and a reduction of greenhouse gases is in direct conflict with the ability to grow and become more prosperous. This country is one of the few countries that has managed to resolve that over the past 20-odd years. In most years we have grown the economy and reduced our greenhouse gases. That will be more difficult in the future and it is more difficult around the world.

All the amendment is asking is that the Government, the Treasury and the Bank of England in particular adopt some metric as an objective of economic policy and turn the ratio between growth and the reduction in greenhouse gases into a forward-looking metric that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels while assuring the public that we are still increasing prosperity. It is possible that the econometricians, statisticians and everybody else can work out a more complex or a simpler figure, but we need one figure that on a rolling basis measures the past and gives us a target and a tool for the future, so that we can counter a very insidious position where the climate pessimists say it cannot be done.

Of course, the polemicists in this argument on social media and more broadly not only emphasise that position in this country; it is making life difficult in many other countries. It defined Trump’s America and to a degree still hamstrings the American Government. It means that, however sophisticated their regimes, the oil producers still trot out the conflict as an excuse for not doing anything that will lead to a meaningful delivery of either the Kyoto or the Paris commitments. Of course, the conflict and the political argument are at their most acute in the poorest countries, where constraints on fossil fuel-based energy are seen as a barrier to raising the living standards of the poorest and most wretched on the earth.

That is why having a clear metric might help us in international negotiations as well. At present, the post-Paris commitments of each signatory are expressed in different terms. Most of them are absolute reductions in greenhouse gases, some are reductions in what they call energy intensity, and others are just lists of particular measures. It is quite difficult to determine the relativity between these different commitments and impossible to compare the level of their commitment with what are supposedly the Paris objectives.

If we started here and the Government committed to getting the Office for National Statistics and the other relevant bodies to address this issue and to come up with a single, clear measure—one that carries at least the broad range of political opinions in this country —we could then move on to convince the OECD and the rest of the world. We can start here. Whether in this Bill or in some other context, the Government really need to commit themselves to having a clear metric here, and I hope the Minister can give some encouragement to that view tonight.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly, in a slightly curious position, to speak on Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I continue to support this amendment while disagreeing with most of what they just said.

I will start with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on prosperity and GDP growth. If we define prosperity as a good quality of life and a healthy life, GDP growth is profoundly not coupled to what I would call prosperity. In both these contexts I point noble Lords to an excellent, if now slightly old, book, Tim Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth, which started out life as a government report. Professor Jackson continues to work with the APPG on Limits to Growth to produce excellent further reports on that.

However, I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will not reprise the whole growth debate at this stage of the evening. What I will point out is that we have people coming from different sides saying that we need a decent measure. Further, on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, the figures we have for our reduced carbon emissions exclude emissions produced offshore and used by us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said earlier, we are not counting the emissions associated with the blueberries we consume from overseas. We need to have counting. This is one measure of having true accounting of the actual cost.

Finally, on GDP, it is appropriate in the Environment Bill to look at how faulty GDP is as a measure. If you cut down a forest, you count the cost of selling the timber in GDP figures but not the cost of the lost forest. That really is a demonstration of how utterly faulty GDP is as a measure.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his Amendment 119; I will speak very briefly. He talked about having an international system of climate parameters, a uniform approach and targets ahead of COP 26. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to my noble friend Lord Whitty on the importance of having a metric that measures performance, past and future. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, put across a really interesting point about GDP growth, prosperity and making sure we do not lose that prosperity in economic figures. A lot of interesting points were made in this very important debate, and I hope to hear the answers from the Minister.

21:30

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I will address Amendment 119, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. I thank him for his time last week and also briefly earlier today. There is a lot of crossover in this debate between what we are discussing now and the debate led by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in Committee, where we talked about GDP and its uses, weaknesses and shortcomings.

We agree that domestic accountability is important. As the noble Lord knows, the Climate Change Act 2008 already commits us to reaching net zero by 2050 and the forthcoming net-zero strategy will set out our plans for transitioning to a net-zero economy across all departments of government. We are considering the most appropriate way to monitor the delivery of the decarbonisation measures set out in the strategy. We are also encouraging private firms to disclose their climate impacts to investors and the public and to set out how they will achieve net zero by 2050 or before. It is at a much earlier stage, but we are doing what we can to accelerate moves by the private sector to identify, with a view to disclosing and then minimising, the risk to environmental harm generally, not just carbon.

Bringing other countries with us is obviously vital. In 2019, the Prime Minister committed to doubling our international climate finance to £11.6 billion until 2025. That will help developing countries to make the transition to low-carbon and climate-resilient development and more nature-positive economies.

The proposed statistic in the amendment can, I am told, already be computed using publicly available ONS data and OBR forecasts of economic activity, together with the data published in the Government’s greenhouse gas inventory. The noble Lord made the point very well that a simple relationship between economic growth and emissions is, in itself, insufficient to assess progress towards emissions targets and is not necessarily the best metric by which to compare every nation’s progress towards decarbonisation. Ultimately, we need to break the link between GDP and emissions, the use of scarce resources and extraction generally. To some extent the UK’s record in recent years demonstrates that that is possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out, but in a narrow sense relating purely to emissions. We have not yet demonstrated that in relation to use of natural resources and our wider impacts on the natural environment, but we must.

I assure noble Lords that we are carefully considering the links between economic growth and the environment. The independent Dasgupta review highlights how economic growth and activity has damaged nature and will continue to do so unless there is a substantial change, one that involves ensuring that we learn properly to value essential things such as natural systems—nature—and those things we depend on, and attach a cost to waste, pollution and plunder. The Government agree with the Dasgupta review’s central conclusion: nature and the biodiversity that underpins it is profoundly important to all of us and sustains our economies, livelihoods and well-being. We are actively supporting and developing tools to drive sustainability in the finance sector, including as part of our response to the Dasgupta review. Over the past three decades, we have driven down emissions by 44%, which is the fastest reduction of any G7 country—I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, provided the figure, but he was hinting at it. At the same time, we saw economic growth and set some of the most ambitious targets in the world for the future, while driving forward net zero globally through our COP 26 presidency and associated diplomacy. We have an enormous amount more to do. The noble Lord makes an important point: we need to be able to measure and understand. I hope he accepts that that work is under way and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister in particular for acknowledging the importance of understanding how we can set targets. It is very easy to accept the case for saying that GDP or some other measure should not be mentioned, but we live in a world where international agreements have to be made using consistent units. The OECD or the UN is not the place to argue that we can suddenly revisit the national income accounting methods created by John Maynard Keynes and others in Cambridge in, I think, 1944-45. There has to be some international agreement about how you measure the economy.

Some people say, “Let us measure the value of forests”, and I have very great sympathy with that, or the destruction of habitats and the elimination of species—the lion, the tiger and so on. We need a practical way to see how far—and this leads up to the Glasgow debate—there can be any agreed view around the world on how we break the link that we all know exists between economic growth and emissions, which are becoming a very dangerous trend in relation to extreme temperatures, to mention only one point.

In light what the Minister has said, there should be something more specific for people in the next few years. It has not been mentioned but it is important that the people of the country as a whole understand the answer to a widely stated nostrum that we cannot do anything about climate change or we will get poorer. We have to have a narrative, with the Government behind it, so that we can actually do something about it. Changing the coefficient is a technical way of saying it, but we must get to a position where the people of this country can ask, “How are we doing on this?” and the answer is that we are doing something here and now and helping it to become part of the standard world metric. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 119 withdrawn.

Amendment 120

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

120: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Assessment of cumulative impact of offshore windfarms
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, before planning permission is granted for the construction of an offshore windfarm, an independent assessment must have been undertaken on the cumulative impact of the construction of such windfarms on—(a) the environment,(b) marine life, and(c) the countryside,both onshore and offshore.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.” Member’s explanatory statement
An assessment of the cumulative impact is intended to ensure that any potential damage to the environment will be strictly controlled and limited.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to bring forward on Report a revised amendment to that which I moved in Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it and look forward to my noble friend’s reply. I am asking that the department provides regulations before planning permission is granted for the construction of an offshore wind farm, and that an independent assessment must have been undertaken on the cumulative impact of the construction of such wind farms on the environment, marine life and countryside, both onshore and offshore.

Since we debated this in Committee, there have been a number of developments. I pay tribute to the Government for the research they have commissioned, in the form of a new database aiming to avoid an economic impact assessment for offshore wind. I hope there might still be an opportunity for doing such an environmental impact assessment where necessary, but I understand that Defra is working with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, alongside BEIS and other interested parties, with the aim of supporting the knowledge base for the sustainable development of new offshore wind farms. The remit is quite limited at the moment, and I understand that they will be looking mostly at establishing the impact of noise generated from disposal of unexploded ordnance and on applying biodiversity net gain offshore.

Will this research be extended to cover areas, for example, that have been identified by the recent report of the Fisheries Committee in the European Parliament? This said about the construction of offshore wind turbines:

“Underwater sound has been shown to have an effect, mainly on fish and marine mammals and mainly during the construction phase.”


The report also states:

“Impacts from permanent, continuous electromagnetic fields could change the behaviour of electro sensitive species”.


I have no doubt that the reason a number of sea mammals, such as whales, are banking on our shores is because of the impact not just of the construction phase but of the perpetual noise of the operation of these wind turbines. I hope that the Government will extend the research to approach that.

The point was backed up by the evidence that we heard in the EU Environment Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. One of the witnesses, Helen Quayle, who is the policy officer of the RSPB, stated that

“we urgently need a new approach to offshore wind, how we deploy this technology”.

While I welcome the research, it is very limited at the moment, and I urge my noble friend and his department to extend its basis.

I was delighted that my noble friend acknowledged, in response to an Oral Question in June, that there is a tension between different uses such as fishing and shipping in the same marine environment in which these now extensive wind farms are operating. I invite him to set out how he and the department expect to resolve that tension before we see even more wind farms being introduced. For example, is my noble friend aware that the US Government have looked into an estimate that offshore wind projects could displace some of their commercial fisheries by as much as 25%? I understand that the US Administration are studying plans to pay and compensate the fishing industry for losses incurred from the planned expansion of offshore wind developments. Given the importance of the fisheries industry to Scotland and other parts of the UK such as Yorkshire and the south-west of England, to what extent will the Government consider compensation to be justified? My noble friend has accepted that, particularly as regards inshore fisheries and wind farms, there is a notable tension already.

I would like to ask my noble friend about pylons, which is why I inserted the words “onshore and offshore” into the amendment. Pylons will have to be constructed, as I understand, to transmit the electricity generated by offshore wind farms into the national grid. I had some experience of this as the MP for the Vale of York, when we had one line of pylons. That did not have anything to do with offshore wind farms; it was just for generating electricity in the north-east and introducing it via Yorkshire into the national grid. There was a big campaign entitled REVOLT, rebelling against extra overheard pylons. We were told that, if the second line of pylons was introduced, the first would be dismantled, but a second line was introduced that sat alongside and a few metres away from the first, so people in north Yorkshire were understandably not best pleased. Will my noble friend consider whether the wires transmitting electricity to the national grid could be sent underground, rather than by overhead line transmission? It would also mean that less electricity was lost through transmission, which would make economic and environmental sense.

I would like to ask my noble friend, as I have not had the opportunity to do so to date, what the Government’s plan is for dismantling and decommissioning wind turbines. I am not aware that any information on this is in the public domain. Given the large numbers of offshore wind farms and the difficulty of placing them and embedding them in the seabed, it is potentially a problem that will escalate. Will my noble friend be able to share that information on the costs of decommissioning with us this evening, or, if not, will he write to me?

I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response to these genuine concerns. I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise much of the work that was done in the EU Environment Sub-Committee at that time and update it.

21:45

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This amendment discusses the control and limiting of any potential damage to the environment by the construction of wind farms.

The UK is a global leader in offshore wind, with that energy source powering millions of homes across the country. It is also an area that the Government have identified for growth, with the world’s largest wind farm under construction off the north-east coast. Wind farms form an important part of our energy mix. We have heard concerns voiced about their impacts on the environment, including the potential disruption to ecosystems. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned an important point: that the construction of offshore wind farms has meant a loss of 25% of fisheries. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that point as well.

However, one can only assume that the construction of offshore wind farms must have had an impact assessment, and that it must have been done with some diligence—obviously, before the big announcement made by the Prime Minister when he launched the UK’s huge wind farm venture initiative and compared the UK’s wind farms to Saudi Arabian oil. I hope that the Minister is able to explain the work being undertaken by the department and reassure the noble Baroness on the construction of offshore wind farms.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. This is an extremely important issue and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is right to raise it. In delivering net zero, it is crucial that environmental protections are maintained. I can assure her that existing planning processes are designed to ensure thorough consideration of cumulative effects prior to consenting. The need to consider cumulative effects in planning and decision-making is already set out in planning policy, in particular in the energy national policy statement, the marine policy statement, the habitats regulations assessment process and the infrastructure planning regulations of 2017, which cover the environmental impact assessment.

The regulatory framework also includes independent scrutiny by statutory nature conservation bodies—for example, Natural England. These regulatory frameworks ensure comprehensive identification and assessment of all significant environmental impacts, including the cumulative effects of the project, whether these be to the marine or terrestrial environment.

We have also brought forward amendments to the biodiversity net gain provisions in the Bill, extending the policy to terrestrial nationally significant infrastructure projects. As the noble Baroness will know, we have included provisions within the amendments to extend net gain to the marine environment once we have established the appropriate approach.

The noble Baroness asked a number of specific questions. The first was again in relation to the tension between inshore fisheries and offshore wind farms. Defra is working closely with Natural England, Cefas and the Marine Management Organisation to try to better understand the tensions and then consider the appropriate solutions. We have recently commissioned work looking at opportunities for co-location and are considering examples of good practice, such as the work done in Grimsby that enables fisheries and offshore wind farm operators to work well together. This also pays dividends for the marine environment, reducing the cumulative impacts of both.

The noble Baroness mentioned the example of the US Administration, who are currently considering a compensation scheme for the fishing industry as a result of losses incurred from the expansion of offshore wind developments. In the UK, offshore wind farm developers already pay disruption compensation to fishers temporarily displaced from their grounds by offshore wind construction. Members of the Defra programmes on offshore wind-enabling actions and marine planning are meeting US Administration officials and BEIS on Monday 20 September to discuss approaches to managing the deployment of offshore wind to minimise disturbance to the marine environment and other sea users.

The noble Baroness is right that onshore pylons are unsightly and, no doubt, not environmentally friendly. Electricity from offshore wind farms is transmitted to land, as she knows, via subsea cables. The offshore transmission network review, which was led by BEIS and Ofgem, is working to increase the co-ordination of offshore transmission to reduce the overall amount of new onshore infrastructure needed to meet the Government’s offshore wind targets.

Finally, the noble Baroness asked about decommissioning. Decommissioning is considered in the consenting process for offshore wind. In addition, Defra is discussing future options for decommissioning with developers who have programmes currently going through the consenting process. Some arrays may be repowered; however, other legacy infrastructure has been colonised and now provides important biodiversity benefits. We are working with the industry to understand how decommissioning can be delivered to maximise the gains while removing any unnecessary and avoidable pressures from the marine environment.

I hope that answers the questions that the noble Baroness asked and she feels sufficiently reassured to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for his remarks, and I am especially grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reassurance on these points. He certainly put my mind at rest on many of them. I am not sure that the idea of colonising wind turbines on wind farms sounds very appealing, but he has satisfied me. It is helpful to know of the meeting on 20 September. I would be grateful if my noble friend could update us in that regard. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 120 withdrawn.

Amendment 121 not moved.

Amendment 122

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

122: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Non-application to smoke emissions from heritage vehicles or historic buildings
(1) For the avoidance of doubt, this Act has no application to the emission of smoke from—(a) the chimney of a railway locomotive, the chimney of a road vehicle or portable or stationary engine, or the funnel of a vessel in respect of which the emission of the smoke is an intrinsic feature of the functioning of the motive power concerned and in respect of which such motive power has been preserved, restored or recreated for heritage purposes; (b) the chimney of an historic building or the chimney or other outlet of a museum intended to portray the means of internal heating of the rooms in such building or museum or facilities for the cooking of food or the provision of other services therein.(2) In this section—“heritage purposes” means a state of affairs intended to display a transport mode or machinery in a past setting for educational, recreational or tourist purposes;“smoke” includes grit, dust or other matter derived from the burning of solid, liquid or gaseous substances.”

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 122, tabled in my name and those of noble Lords across the Chamber, including the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—whom I am pleased to see in his place—I shall speak also to Amendment 127, which is in my name and supported by the same noble Lords. I declare my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association.

The Heritage Fuels Alliance, which encompasses heritage railways and locomotives, steam road vehicles, steamboats and ships, engineering museums and historic houses, has worked hard to win the argument that to ban coal burning by its members would be disproportionate and absurd. It has demonstrated that it would inflict untold damage on a sector which, in the case of heritage railways alone, brings so much pleasure to 13 million visitors a year, engages 22,000 active volunteers, provides 4,000 jobs and contributes £400 million to the national and regional economies.

The vast majority of heritage railways, road steam events and steamboat operations are located in rural areas. This means the economic benefit is all the greater, especially where some heritage railways are the leading visitor attractions in their area, while any environmental impact is well away from clean air zones. Indeed, three national parks—the North York Moors, Snowdonia and Exmoor—all welcome and actively encourage their heritage railways. As an indicator of how much they matter to the country, and to the Government too, those in England and Wales received around £25 million from the Government’s Culture Recovery Fund to help them survive the Covid pandemic.

Turning to coal burning, the latest available figures, from 2018, show that emissions from coal boilers were 0.023% of total carbon dioxide emissions. The total heritage coal use is around 35,000 tonnes, compared with total UK coal consumption of 8.2 million tonnes. The sector has accepted with reasonably good grace that, in future, the coal it burns will not be mined in Britain, despite enormous untouched reserves, but imported. It is also working hard to reduce emissions and to trial the use of biocoal.

The heritage steam sector has received assurances from Ministers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, that the Environment Bill and particularly its clean air provisions will not apply to them, but they have so far resisted suggestions that they should put these assurances in the Bill and make it clear that primary legislation would be required if this were ever to change.

An identical amendment to Amendment 122 was debated in Committee on 5 July and supported by all noble Lords who spoke to it, including the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—in her place this evening—who warned in a memorable phrase that

“this Bill could bring about the death of Thomas the Tank Engine and his or her nautical steamboat equivalent.”—[Official Report, 5/7/21; col. 1106.]

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, posed a question which I put again this evening. He said:

“It is important that people have the assurance of primary legislation, especially when we see so much legislation that contains powers for Ministers under Henry VIII clauses, pretty well to do as they like, and which this House can do nothing about by tradition because we do not vote against secondary legislation. Will the Minister say why the Government are resistant to putting a clear commitment in the Bill that heritage vehicles not only are not within the scope of the Bill but are protected from the whims of any Minister?”

I hope we will get an answer to that this evening too. I cannot resist just quoting one memorable phrase earlier in his speech when he described Ministers as being

“here one day and gone the next—indeed, they can be here one afternoon and gone by evening.”

He said:

“It is not enough, despite Pepper v Hart, just to have an assurance from the Dispatch Box.”—[Official Report, 5/7/21; cols. 1111-12.]


Amendment 127 includes a reference to other subordinate legislation to include, for example, by-laws brought in by local authorities or other public authorities to ban coal burning by heritage organisations in their localities. I hope that the Government have reflected on these amendments and agree that not only would their Bill be strengthened by incorporating them on the face of the Bill but that they would also send a message of encouragement to a much-loved sector which gives so much pleasure to millions of people, contributes enormously to the national and regional economies, and which they, the Government, have supported financially through recent difficult times. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I will not repeat the eloquent arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, made; I pay tribute to him for the wonderful work which he does in support of the heritage steam and other sectors.

I should declare an interest as president of the Steamboat Association of Great Britain, a post which I obtained unopposed, rather like the chairmanship of the Association of Conservative Peers today. It is not very onerous. It simply involves, from time to time, as we did on Lake Windermere to celebrate its 50th anniversary, turning up with one’s little steamboat and 37 others and bringing enormous pleasure to many people in our country. As I said at an earlier stage in the consideration of this matter, it is extraordinary how people will crowd to see a steam train or a steamboat passing and how it brings smiles and pleasure to their face.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the arguments so that I do not need to repeat them again today. I understand that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith has a problem with how to respond to this amendment in terms of putting something on the face of the Bill. However, if we had an undertaking from my noble friend, who has been very helpful, that the Government normally have no intention of preventing the use of coal for heritage steam purposes, that would be helpful. It would be even more helpful if she would give an undertaking that it would require primary legislation to do so, so that the interests of others were met.

I will make just one point. I am not a sceptic on these matters—I have an electric car and do everything I can to help the environment. However, I find it quite difficult that, although we were on Windermere with our steamboats, the proposition is that, in future, we cannot possibly dig the coal out of the ground from Cumbria, the county where we were, but that we have to import it from Russia in order to save the planet. I do not know whether “bonkers” is a parliamentary expression, but this strikes me as absolute bonkers. It is also counterproductive, in that it makes people whom we should have on side on these matters sceptical about the application of common sense.

I am not an expert on these matters, but it is striking that these vehicles require a high calorific content of coal which is less polluting. It seems extraordinary that we have ended up in this position. Fortunately, I am not in the Government and my noble friend will be able to explain why this makes sense in the course of a reply to this debate. However, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I am very happy to support his amendments on both occasions. At this late hour, I do not think the House probably wants to spend a lot of time talking about steam.

22:00

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it seems ridiculous that anyone could object to railway enthusiasts restoring old locomotives and preserving our heritage. Although old train engines and boats do contribute to air pollution, they will be fairly localised and minimal compared with other emissions being pumped out by, for example, the Government building new roads or opening new coal mines—or indeed allowing the growth of incinerators all over the country that operate without proper regulations. Those incinerators pump out unmeasured quantities of PM2.5; I say “unmeasured” because there is no daily monitoring of particulates to see if they exceed the Government’s annual guidance, nor of fine particulates—counted separately—despite those being the most deadly of particulates. We should allow this amendment on the basis that the Government will stop building new incinerators, stop building new roads and understand that they have a duty to fight the climate emergency which, at the moment, they are simply not doing.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the recognition that coal is polluting is true, but we need to judge every proposal on its merits, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said in a roundabout sort of way. As in all things, we need balance and we need to avoid perverse effects. I do not resile from my comment that the Bill could bring about the death of Thomas the Tank Engine.

By making it impossible to use British coal for heritage trains, boats and steam engines, we could be consigning these, in time, to the slag heaps of history. Either they will use coal imported from Russia, adding the damage of travel emissions, or these activities will die out, with the loss of valuable employment, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has explained. The vehicles, engines and boats concerned will create their own waste pile and diminish the tourism industry inspired by Thomas the Tank Engine and the Fat Controller. I would like to press this amendment, but I look forward instead to the assurances that I believe the Government are prepared to give the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on this important occasion.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester on the work that he has done over so many years as the HRA president. He has kept this issue at the forefront of everybody’s concern and, of course, the latest idea that you cannot have the right coal in this country and you have to import it from Russia just demonstrates what a stupid situation we have got ourselves into, I suppose.

Heritage railways are loved by millions. They do not operate very fast or very frequently and, as other noble Lords have said, the issue has to be proportionate. It is not just trains; it is road vehicles—road tractors, I think most people call them—and boats, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has mentioned. Of course, fixed engines are also used to pump water supply; there is a very good one at Kew Bridge, which works very well. All these things have something in common, which is their Victorian engineering. It is amazing that these enormous great bits of steel, beautifully machined and very accurately made, work really well—when they do work, which is not very frequently.

I hope that the Minister will support and accept this amendment, but I have to remind my noble friend that he and I have a track record of causing trouble. About 10 years ago—the House was much emptier than it is tonight; there were probably about 25 Members here, which was below the limit—we got very angry about something. I cannot even remember what it was now, but we decided to divide the House. However, unfortunately, because there was not a quorum, it did not count. Noble Lords can imagine the kind of talking to that we got from our then Chief Whip in the morning, but it was absolutely worth it. I do not know whether my noble friend will do that tonight—he has probably got saner with age—but I hope that the Minister will look at this and say that it is a really good idea and accept it.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I draw the House’s attention to my role as a non-executive director of the Great Central Railway in Leicestershire. The arguments have been well rehearsed, and, at this late hour, I do not want to detain the House, but I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has not got any less enthusiastic in his support for steam and heritage railways in the time I have known him, since we together set up the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail.

As we have heard, heritage railways across the country provide huge enjoyment, but they are also major catalysts for local economies in terms of tourism, jobs, apprenticeships and investment. All I say to the Minister, whose remarks I very much look forward to, is that I cannot believe that the Government intend to ban the burning of coal by steam railways or any other steam vehicles. I understand why the Government do not want to put this in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister is able to provide sufficient and very strong assurances. I know that noble Lords will listen very carefully to what she has to say.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I draw the House’s attention to my honorary presidency of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, which is the most visited tourist attraction in North Yorkshire, year after year. I am full of admiration for the mostly volunteer drivers and engineers who man it.

I was not going to speak, other than to support the work of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, both in tabling the amendment today and on the heritage railway generally. However, I beg to differ with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb: in my experience, incinerators are heavily regulated and will continue to be so. I commend the work done in Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Germany on using incineration—or waste from energy, as it is now called—to get rid of both household and other waste and reintroduce electricity into the national grid.

If the Minister cannot write this into the Bill, I hope that she will give a verbal commitment that accords with the wishes expressed by the House this evening. That would be most welcome indeed.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I have no expertise in this area and no interest to declare, but some of the happiest memories with my two young girls were taking them to see Santa on the steam train at the rural life centre in Tilford every Christmas.

However, tonight, I speak at the request of my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who cannot be with us because he has had a fall. I make it clear to the Minister that there is still cross-party support for the intentions of this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, this will affect the enjoyment of many thousands of people. I would not wish people to think that environmentalists are killjoys—we are not. We want to go forward on the environment in a positive way, but there are certain initiatives that, for heritage and educational purposes, need to be considered so that we can see where we have been and where we are.

Therefore, I hope that there are the strongest reassurances, and I commend the four Peers who have done so much, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to bring this issue repeatedly to the attention of the House.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to the amendment introduced so eloquently and passionately by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I, too, congratulate him on his work on heritage rail.

Some interesting points have been made across the House today. If I understood right, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others questioned the true pollution levels of steam engines and railways. Perhaps the Minister can give us some facts. Is it true that heritage steam engines may have a negligible impact on the environment? I invite noble Lords across the House to visit my home town, Burnley. We have the Queen Street Mill and, in it, the heritage steam engine that powered the biggest cotton mill in the town. It would be great to see noble Lords there. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, heritage steam railways are a huge part of our culture, especially for young children. They are a massive tourist attraction. We must make sure that we get the balance right. I understand that discussions are ongoing—indeed, I have had discussions with experts and researchers —about the true impact of heritage steam engines.

Finally, for my sake and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, please do not kill off Thomas the Tank Engine. It will destroy my childhood memories.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

The noble Lord can come and see Thomas the Tank Engine, who lives in Didcot, at any time.

I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords. As I said in Committee, the Government are very much aware of the important contribution that the heritage sector makes to the culture of this country, particularly the rural economy. We engaged with heritage bodies during the inquiries of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail, and we listened to their concerns during consultation. As I made clear in Committee—I am pleased to confirm it again today—there will be no direct impact on the heritage steam sector as a result of this Bill and the Government are not looking to introduce policy that would have a direct impact on it. I reiterate that nothing in the Environment Bill covers the heritage steam sector and putting it in scope would require a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

Clause 73 of and Schedule 12 to this Bill will make it easier for local authorities to enforce the Clean Air Act 1993, which, among other things, regulates smoke emissions from the chimneys of buildings. The smoke control area provisions in the Act, and the amendments to them in this Bill, do not and will not apply to smoke from steam trains. Indeed, Section 43 of the Act clearly indicates that the smoke control area provisions do not apply to any railway locomotive engine. I reiterate that this will not change. Nothing in the Bill will have an impact on the burning of coal for steam traction. Any powers that exist in other Acts of Parliament would require a vote in both Houses, but I can confirm that the Government do not intend to bring forward any restrictions on these uses. As noble Lords have set out, steam trains are a tiny source of pollution and carbon, and we have much larger sources of pollution to be worrying about. I hope this reassures noble Lords that the Bill will not have an impact on the heritage rail sector and that an exemption from the Bill is therefore not required. We cannot exempt from the Bill a sector that is already exempt.

On historic buildings, I can confirm that local authorities already have the power to exempt specific buildings, or classes of buildings, when declaring a smoke control area under Section 18 of the Clean Air Act. This means that they could exempt specific historic houses, or historic houses in general, from the requirements applying to the smoke control area. That will not change under this Bill. I want to clarify something I said to noble Lords on the fifth day in Committee. To confirm, I am aware that there may be a potential impact on canal boats in the heritage sector, as the Bill will enable local authorities to bring moored inland waterway vessels into the scope of smoke control areas should they have a specific issue in their area. However, we will consider the practicalities of implementation and will set out further detail in statutory guidance, which will be published next year.

Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for the discussion on this issue that he and others, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth, had with my noble friend the Minister earlier this year. I can reassure noble Lords that we are all very much still here. I, for one, am relieved because, had the Minister been called out during the course of this afternoon, I would have had to deal with all the groups of amendments on day 4 of Report.

I should like also to reiterate that my noble friend the Minister and his officials are happy to continue to engage with noble Lords as guidance is developed, and I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that the Government share his views about the importance of the heritage sector and that nothing in the Bill will impact on historic houses or the heritage rail sector. Thomas the Tank Engine is truly safe. I hope that with those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

22:15

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Perhaps I may ask my noble friend about her reference to canal boats. I should declare an interest as I spent the weekend on a canal boat in Wales. She implied that they might be at risk. Can she be absolutely clear that they will not be at risk because they are also an important part of our tourism industry and are very important to a number of rural areas?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I brought up canal boats because, if they are moored in an inland waterway, they may be caught by the scope of smoke control areas brought in by local authorities in an urban area. That is why I particularly mentioned that they might be brought into scope, with reduced capacity to burn coal, if the canal boats are on an inland waterway in the smoke control area of a local authority.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Can I ask a question of the Minister again before she sits down? There are at least two types of canal boat. There are those that run on diesel engines, which may or may not pollute and be subject to some sort of regulation in the future. But then, of course, there is the odd steam canal boat. They are as much part of our heritage as steam trains, fixed steam engines or my noble friend’s big steam engines in Burnley. Just because a canal boat is moving on water rather than on rails or road, perhaps the Minister could look at that matter and perhaps help us.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Perhaps I may clarify that the measure relates only to coal, not diesel, and only when moored up—not when moving.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I know that we are on Report, but this matter is important. The Government at a previous stage of the legislation indicated that heritage steam vehicles and, indeed, the amendment as broadly drafted would not be affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, on canals there are steam boats that have an important heritage. The assurance that I thought my noble friend had given was that they would not be covered. Given the assurances, if there is a loophole that would enable local authorities to include steam boats, it needs to be closed.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

This is not about propulsion but the heating system in a boat.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

The House is a little confused by that exchange. I have to say that if my Amendment 127 were to be agreed to, there would be no question of local authorities being able to bring in by-laws or other restrictions on heritage organisations from burning coal, whether on canal boats, steam boats, railway engines or historic houses. It would be a lot easier for the Minister if she were willing to accept these amendments so there would be no doubt at all that the assurances she has given can be fulfilled.

However, the hour is late and there is still a number of groups to go. I do not intend to delay the House further. I should, however, like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken—particularly those who have done so from their own experiences with heritage railways or steam boats. I thank the Minister, too, for her attempt to get us to somewhere where we certainly were not when we started on the Bill. We are close to the sort of assurances that I was looking for, which is a guarantee that the introduction of a ban would require primary legislation. If she were able to say exactly that, it would help considerably. Perhaps I may give her the opportunity to do so before I ask the House to allow me to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am afraid that I am unable to make that commitment at the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am disappointed by that. I will seek an opportunity to discuss this matter further with the Minister before we finish the Bill. However, as far as this evening is concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

Amendment 123 not moved.

Amendment 124

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

124: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Encouraging the use of reusable nappies
(1) The relevant national authority must work with industry and retailers to develop a strategy for the reduction of single-use nappy waste with measurable targets and deadlines.(2) The relevant national authority must work with industry and retailers to adopt a single, coordinated national reusable nappy financial incentive scheme in every local authority in England to improve accessibility of reusable nappies and to promote the environmental and financial benefits to families.(3) The relevant national authority must encourage local authorities to complement this national scheme with local education and support for parents, caregivers and nursery settings, including support for nappy libraries, or through hiring dedicated local nappy education providers.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 124, which is exploratory in character, on encouraging the use of reusable nappies. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have been working with the Nappy Alliance to try to inject some momentum and common sense into a subject that affects every one of us at some point in our lives. Disposable nappies comprise around 8% of residual waste in England, costing local authorities £140 million a year and making the waste pretty awful for the bin brigade.

Rebecca Pow, the responsible Minister, was kind enough to write to me to confirm that we have wide powers in the Bill to do whatever might be needed in terms of labelling or standards. If we go down that road, I would share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for consistency in labelling products that go into the waste stream. Ideally, this should apply across the UK to make it easier for manufacturers of nappies to comply. I add that reusable nappies are much more convenient and easier to handle these days than the terry nappies and pins that I used with my four boys.

I think there is also a need for some seed corn funding. There is a big saving from using reusable nappies—£420 for three years of nappies, compared to £2,250 for disposables, according to the Money Advice Service—but it is a bit more work, especially in the early stages, and you have to find cash up front. A number of nappy libraries are helping with this, but we need a source of funding for mothers who cannot afford the outlay.

Society will also save. We spend at least £70 million a year on landfill for nappies and, in London alone, 47,000 tonnes of nappy waste is generated annually. Could we use the landfill tax or some other source of funding for green purposes to prime and promote a national scheme, as the Nappy Alliance would like?

Finally, the Minister explained at a very useful meeting that Defra is awaiting the imminent results of the independent environmental assessment being undertaken on the detailed costs. Can she tell me who is doing this work and when it will report? Will she undertake to write to me and the Nappy Alliance, as soon as the results are available, with a plan to support the use of reusable nappies in a way that is friendly to our hard-pressed parents, so is voluntary and easy? I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer my support, as I attached my signature to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It may come as a surprise to the House to see both of us on the same amendment, but that shows its breadth of support. Given the hour, some people may feel like they have started to dream; for the Minister, it is possibly a nightmare. But I am not going to speak at length, because we have canvassed on this, both in Committee and on an earlier amendment that appeared in my name on the labelling of single-use nappies.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just outlined, there are real reasons in savings for families. The figures that she gave translate to a saving of £11 a week over the average time that a baby or toddler is in nappies. This is where we perhaps part company, because I will point out that that would almost make up for half the cut in universal credit that is approaching.

It is interesting that, overnight, we saw significant investment in a UK maker of reusable nappies. This is a chance for the Government to be promoting a good, positive, green industry—something they often talk about. There are huge environmental, social and economic benefits to this amendment. It is common sense and has support from across the House, so I hope we hear something positive from the Minister.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not repeat what I said in our previous debates on this, but I very much support the noble Baroness’s amendment. We agree that the Government should take action to encourage reusable nappies, including, where necessary, incentives for the low paid to be able to access them in the first place. The sooner we use innovation to encourage alternatives to single-use nappies and that whole industry, the better. On that basis, as the late hour is descending on us, I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I know the hour is late, but this is a very important subject, just because of the quantity that goes into landfill. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for a very informative meeting yesterday. I know that she is passionate about this issue and is keen to see progress, but it is also important to ensure that our policy-making is evidence-based. That is why the department has commissioned an independent environmental assessment of the relative impact of washable and disposable nappies, the most recent study having been done some time ago. This research is being carried out by Giraffe Innovation Ltd and will cover the waste and energy impacts of washable and disposable products, disposal to landfill and incineration, and recycling options. We expect to publish the final report later this year, following peer review, and I am very happy to write to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the Nappy Alliance about our plans once we have the results of the research.

We will use an evidence-based process to consider what, if any, action is appropriate. This could include backing voluntary initiatives or introducing measures such as standards and consumer information and labelling. I also confirm that existing powers in the Bill, in the schedules on resource efficiency and information, will allow us to, among other things, set standards for nappies and introduce labelling requirements.

We are delighted that some local authorities currently operate reusable nappy schemes as part of a local decision on how to prioritise funding, which may be available from a number of sources. However, we do not need primary legislation to develop a strategy or support a scheme on reusable nappies. In relation to the landfill tax specifically, reducing the number of nappies sent to landfill through reusable nappy schemes should save local authorities money over time by reducing their landfill tax bill. The amount of money saved can be spent according to local priorities. I know that certain charitable funds are available from landfill taxes. I cannot comment specifically on those, but, as we discussed yesterday, that is an avenue well worth exploring by local authorities.

Once we have the results of the independent assessment, expected later this year, we will be well placed to prioritise and develop a plan if appropriate, so I beg that this amendment be withdrawn.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her words and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 124 withdrawn.

Amendment 125 not moved.

Amendment 126

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

126: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Ecocide
(1) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government to support the negotiation of an amendment to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, done at Rome on 17th July 1998, to establish a crime of ecocide.(2) In pursuance of subsection (1), a relevant Minister of the Crown must promote discussion of such an amendment, either independently or jointly with other sovereign states, within the Working Group on Amendments of the International Criminal Court within 12 months of this Act being passed.(3) In this section “ecocide” refers to unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Whitaker, and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for offering their support to Amendment 126, on ecocide. A number of other Members of your Lordships’ House would have brought extra cross-party support to this amendment if there had been space.

I have been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, one of your Lordships’ House’s foremost advocates of human rights, to share, with your Lordships’ permission, a few words from her. She wished to say: “Criminal offences are not to be created lightly, and I have resisted so many, but the repercussions of ecocide go way beyond those of most criminal acts. The emergency demands this measure, as should our grandchildren.”

22:30

Returning to the discussion in Committee, noble Lords will remember that I moved two amendments, one of which called on the Government explicitly to back the creation of ecocide as an offence under the Rome statute, to join other crimes against humanity. The other called for the creation of a domestic offence of ecocide. Noble Lords will have noted that what has come before us on Report is a very much softer amendment. Proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment calls on the relevant Minister of the Crown to

“promote discussion of such an amendment, either independently or jointly with other sovereign states, within the Working Group on Amendments of the International Criminal Court within 12 months of this Act being passed.”

This is a call for the Government to make it a commitment to promote debate—a very moderate step forward into something where many other nations are already leading. If the UK wishes to be world leading, as it so often claims to be, it surely should be in this debate, particularly given the UK’s long-term heritage of involvement in leading on human rights issues through many decades.

I hope the Minister will agree that international law has a key role to play in transforming our relationship with the natural world by shifting it from one of harm to harmony. Despite significant progress, the clear inadequacies of environmental governance at a global scale are widely acknowledged. There are laws that are supposed to protect our natural systems, but they are clearly inadequate and failing.

I referred to the international discussion already ongoing. Thirteen member states of the ICC are having discussions at a parliamentary or government level. Two states, Vanuatu and the Maldives, have officially called on member states of the ICC to consider amending the Rome statute. As we discussed in Committee, a consensus on the definition of ecocide was reached in June. This is the definition referred to in proposed subsection (3) of the amendment.

It really is a great pity that the nature of the arrangements in your Lordships’ House make it impossible for me to test the opinion of the House tonight. I formally give notice that I am not planning to do that. I also think it is a great pity that that is clearly restricting our debate tonight, and I have restricted what I was planning to say in the interests of the hour. I hope we will hear from the Minister the strongest possible words acknowledging that this is a crucial issue. This is absolutely foundational for the future of our world. It should be a fundamental part of the Bill. With those words, I beg to move.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support this amendment. It is very late so I want to say that this would become the fifth offence that the ICC would prosecute. I will quote the words of my friend Philippe Sands, who has co-chaired the panel. He says:

“The four other crimes all focus exclusively on the wellbeing of human beings. This one of course does that but it introduces a new non-anthropocentric approach, namely putting the environment at the heart of international law, and so that is original and innovative.


For me the single most important thing about this initiative is that it’s part of that broader process of changing public consciousness, recognising that we are in a relationship with our environment, we are dependent for our wellbeing on the wellbeing of the environment and that we have to use various instruments, political, diplomatic but also legal to achieve the protection of the environment.”


I certainly believe that it sits alongside the other four crimes because the environment takes life, takes livelihoods and takes away our future.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is late and I have little to add to the excellent introduction to Amendment 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the important perceptions of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, did not give the impression of having any substantive objection to the proposal when it was mooted in Committee, just that there was no international consensus for it when it was last discussed, when the ICC was created. First, the world has moved on since then, and we are all more aware of the immense importance of biodiversity in averting the worst effects of climate change.

Secondly, we have very good diplomats, whose job is to build consensus. They should be tasked to make a start on this case. We need to make a good showing at Glasgow, do we not? A start on the process of securing agreement to this provision would give us a leading position.

Lastly, I see from the very good briefing provided by Peers for the Planet that my late husband is credited with supporting this idea, in 1985. I am not sure that he confided this to me at the time, but it is a poignant and happy reminder of how much we agreed on. I am proud to continue in the family tradition.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords who signed this amendment, for bringing forward the interesting concept of ecocide. I am sorry that I missed the debate in Committee.

It was the use by the United States of Agent Orange as a means of destroying the Viet Cong’s forest cover in northern Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos which brought to the attention of the international community the devastating environmental harm that it causes and the ensuing refugee crisis. When Saddam Hussein burned 600 Kuwaiti oil wells, the resultant atmospheric pollution spread as far as the Himalayas and caused a severe threat to the surrounding fragile desert ecosystem. There have been many other examples of armed conflict causing environmental destruction.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court deals with the four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the statute specifies that, within the scope of international armed conflict, the following actions could constitute a war crime:

“Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the … environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.


As part of the review of the genocide convention in 1973, a draft international convention on the crime of ecocide was prepared for UN consideration by Professor Richard Falk. He outlined an offence, including the use of chemical herbicides to defoliate and deforest natural forests for military purposes and the use of bulldozing equipment to destroy large tracts of forest or crop-land. This was all within the concept of military conflict. Of course, it is a precondition of a war crime that there is a war, or at least armed conflict, and that there is a commander who can be made responsible for his conduct. This amendment might be appropriately considered as a military offence in the Armed Forces Bill currently before the House. But I suspect that the noble Baroness is more ambitious and would wish to include in her definition of ecocide deliberate destruction of the environment outside a war setting.

The problem then becomes twofold. What is the actus reus and what is the mens rea? If President Bolsonaro were to decide, as a matter of policy, to destroy the rainforest to increase open grazing land for cattle, he does not do so merely out of a malign desire to destroy but with the intention of increasing the economic prosperity of his country. He may be right, or he may be completely mistaken, but has he caused widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment which is clearly excessive in relation to the economic advantage anticipated? Would a court question his political decision?

To bring the matter nearer to home, if Prime Minister Boris Johnson or Nicola Sturgeon were to agree to the exploitation of the new Shetland oil field, many would argue, including me, that it would do immense damage to the environment and contribute significantly to climate change. Even if the members of the International Criminal Court agreed with that assessment, they are hardly likely to lock up the Prime Minister or the First Minister of Scotland.

Rachel Killean, of Queen’s University Belfast, has thoughtfully gone in a different direction. She seeks to develop the concept of a separate chamber of the ICC with a jurisdiction to deal with environmental destruction. She believes in “‘greening’ the Rome Statute” and argues that

“the reparation framework adopted by the International Criminal Court”

for war crimes—the payment of compensation—

“offers an opportunity to … respond to environmental destruction”.

She postulates that the court could have jurisdiction in respect of states as well as individual politicians, and could award

“reparations that explicitly recognise the harm caused by environmental destruction”.

It would be difficult to expand the jurisdiction of the court from its existing concern with genocide and war crimes—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me for interrupting, but I fear the noble Lord is making a Second Reading speech. He was not here for earlier stages of the Bill, and the hour is late. Perhaps he could bring his arguments to a close.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I have one sentence further.

The pressure of climate change and its effect on world populations will give the concept much more resonance. Ecocide may lead to genocide. Wanton destruction of habitat, as in Myanmar, causes a flood of refugees, and that is a crime against humanity. I look forward to further developments in the future.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a few points, which can be very briefly made. The first is to commend the Minister on his acceptance of the two base problems: first, that ecocide is a serious crime; and, secondly, that it is not dealt with effectively.

There are, in turn, two solutions. The first is a model law; we are not on that tonight, so I need say nothing about it. The second is the ICC, and on the ICC there are again two points. First, the Minister said on the last occasion that reform of procedure is needed. I agree, but reform of procedure can go hand in hand with a reform of substantive law. We do it in this country all the time, as they do in almost every other country. If you left procedural reform as a precondition of moving forward substantive law, no country would ever reform its law.

The second point relates to whether it is worth the effort. On the last occasion, the Minister cast doubt on whether there was sufficient wind behind this for it to be worth investing in. From my experience of what is happening on the continent of Europe, I say there is a very significant movement in favour of doing something about ecocide. I very much hope that the Foreign Office will now show a bit more leadership on that count.

That takes me to my last two points, on leadership. First, this must be an opportunity for global Britain to show leadership on one of the most serious criminal offences of our time. We can do it, and we should not fail. Secondly, on the last occasion the Minister kindly agreed to refer these technical legal points to the Law Commission. I will not go into one single technical legal point at this hour of the night; I know it would be greatly welcomed by some but, I am sure, entirely deprecated by almost everyone else. I therefore wish to say that we in this country have always shown leadership in the law. The Law Commission is an outstanding body, and I hope it can be given the opportunity, by what the Minister said on the last occasion, to show leadership by dealing with the technical difficulties and showing that we can come up with a solution both to procedure and substantive law that would be broadly accepted across the world. If I may say so, I commend the Minister on the huge work he has done on this. It just needs a little push more, and we will be back in the leadership on such a vital point.

22:45

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling this amendment and for her very comprehensive introduction. We had an interesting discussion on ecocide in Committee following the amendment then tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and we have done so again today. As the noble Baroness and others have clearly laid out the arguments on this issue, I do not intend to give a lengthy speech; the hour is late.

In her amendment today, the noble Baroness asks the Government to set an objective

“to support the negotiation of an amendment to the Statute of the International Criminal Court … to establish a crime of ecocide.”

In Committee, the Minister said that he strongly agreed “with the premise” of the noble Baroness’s argument. My noble friend Lady Whitaker has noted that he did not seem to really have any strong objections to the proposals. This was then caveated when the Minister said that pursuing this course of action

“would require an enormous amount of heavy lifting diplomatically, with little prospect at this stage of succeeding.”—[Official Report, 14/7/21; col. 1905.]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, stressed the importance of leadership in this aspect, and I hope that the Minister would agree with him and, as he says, push it a little further. My noble friend Lord Khan, in his response in Committee, called for a “constructive role” for the UK in negotiation and this would be a positive first step.

As the noble Baroness explained in the introduction to her amendment, unlike her amendment in Committee, she is calling for the Government to promote discussion of this. This seems to me to be a thoroughly reasonable request and so, with COP 26 on the horizon and the opportunity it presents the UK for global leadership on the climate and ecological crisis, I ask the Minister—who we know understands the reality of ecocide—to end this debate on a positive note and give the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, some hope in this matter.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and Stop Ecocide International for agreeing to a meeting following Committee stage of the Bill. I found the debate we had in Committee and the subsequent engagement hugely insightful. As the noble Baroness knows and as I have made clear in my contribution during that debate, I very strongly agree with the premise of her argument.

As she knows, ecocide is not a crime recognised under international law and there is currently no consensus on a legal definition. Before the ICC and the crimes it has jurisdiction over could be established by the Rome statute adopted in 1998, ecocide had to be removed in the drafting stages because of the lack of agreement among states parties to the court. The Rome statute provides some protections to the natural environment in armed conflict. It designates international attacks that knowingly and excessively cause widespread, long term, and severe damage to the natural environment as a war crime. But ecocide in the broader sense, in the manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, described it, as an internationally punishable crime, has not yet been recognised by the United Nations.

The UK’s current priority regarding the International Criminal Court, as I said in Committee, is to reform it so that it functions better and can deliver successful prosecutions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I know noble Lords on all sides of the House share that ambition. As I understand it, if an amendment to the statute was adopted, it would only bind states parties which have ratified it. If not ratified, the court has no jurisdiction over those states. It is likely, and certainly possible, therefore, that the biggest culprits in relation to ecocide and egregious environmental damage would be exempt.

However, reform of the court is a long and complicated process. The independent expert review of the court made over 300 recommendations to improve the workings of the court, some of them fundamental. It will take time to implement these recommendations and that is a priority not just for the UK but many other states parties to the Rome statute. A significant amendment such as that proposed is currently unlikely to achieve the support of two-thirds of the states parties necessary to amend the Rome statute to make ecocide an international crime. As I said in Committee, pursuing it would require enormous heavy lifting on our part, with—at this stage—little prospect of success. There is a concern it could detract from the goal of improving the court’s effectiveness, which in any case would be a prerequisite for a meaningful application of ecocide.

Although I am afraid that I cannot commit here and now to promoting this campaign or concept internationally, I very much share the noble Baroness’s interest in this area, as she knows. I cannot take action as part of this Environment Bill but I am keen to continue discussions with the noble Baroness on how she and others believe the UK, through these international channels, can better lead in recognising and tackling egregious environmental crimes. In the meantime, I very much hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I thank the Minister for his response. It is probably rare that we have seen such quality and intensity of debate on an amendment at this time of the evening, and I sincerely thank everyone who has contributed to that. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Whitaker, who have been my stalwart supporters throughout this debate. It was wonderful to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, about her long family connection to this campaign.

That ties in with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who outlined the long-term history of the development of this concept. I am not going fully to engage in the legal issues and the questions that he raised, given the hour, but I will point out that the definition of ecocide in subsection (3) of the amendment was developed after a long process involving a distinguished panel of jurists, of whom Philippe Sands—a name well-known to many Members of your Lordships’ House—was co-chair. The interesting approach of holding states responsible is something I will certainly look into further.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who also engaged on this issue in Committee. The point that he made—that reform of procedure can go hand in hand with legal reform—very much answers one of the points made by the Minister. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that there is significant momentum in continental Europe. I would also point out that there is significant momentum within the UK, in Scotland. Indeed, a briefing was held there in the last few days with wide parliamentary engagement, so I come back to the point about this Parliament really needing to catch up.

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was significant. The Minister, in Committee and again tonight, repeated the suggestion that this would involve enormous heavy lifting and would require lots of resources from the UK Government in order to make progress. The amendment does not ask the Government to pursue a drive for the creation of the crime; it asks them to promote a continuation of the discussion. I do not believe the phrase “enormous heavy lifting” is an appropriate label for the promotion of discussion.

Before I conclude, I want to pick up on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said about the Law Commission. That issue was also raised in Committee and I do not think we have had an answer from the Minister in either of those discussions. There was a commitment to refer to the Law Commission. Can the Minister inform me now of progress on that, or at least commit to writing to me as progress is made on reference to the Law Commission?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

With the noble Baroness’s permission, I will make a commitment to the second of her suggestions. I will write to her and continue this discussion.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is with regret, and a feeling that we really are delaying while the planet burns, that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 126 withdrawn.

Amendment 126A

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

126A: After Clause 136, insert the following new Clause—
“Right of access to land(1) Within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a draft Bill to provide for a statutory right to access land for recreational purposes and educational activities, including building of understanding of natural or cultural heritage, provided that the land is accessed responsibly in accordance with a code of practice, with landowners having the responsibility to take reasonable action to ensure the right can be exercised.(2) The Bill must provide that the right to access land must extend to rivers and other waterways.(3) The Bill must provide that the right to access land does not extend to land on which a building or other structure, plant or machinery, or a caravan or other structure stands, and the curtilage of such, a sports field or land planted with a crop.”

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Yes, my Lords, me again. I have been begged to keep this brief, given the hour, and I am going to do my best, but this is also an important amendment. Looking back to the debate on day one of Committee on 21 June, I have not calculated how many hours of debate ago that was but “a lot” will probably suffice. We have had extensive debates about the need for people to be able to get out into the natural world, to spend time in it, to engage with it, to develop their understanding and love of it and to deliver positive benefits for it with their time and attention.

I shall just mention Amendment 8, creating targets for public access, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market; Amendment 9, connecting people with nature, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; and Amendment 56, making a change to the current provision in the Bill to say that the Government must take steps to connect people with nature, also proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. There was also Amendment 284 in my name, calling for a report on these issues. There were, I think, others, and I apologise for not making a complete list. I was surprised and a little disappointed to find that none of those amendments reappeared at Report, given the importance of the issue, and that the Bill already states that the Government may include steps to

“improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment”

in its environmental improvement plans.

We all know that many NGOs, campaigners and members of the public have been engaged in this debate all the way through, in ways that might not always be visible to the public but certainly have impact in the House. It is important, as it was on Monday night, to give due weight and hearing to their efforts, however inconvenient the hour that our procedures have forced the debate into. I have shared with a number of noble Lords, and would be delighted to do so with anyone else I might have missed, an extensive briefing on this amendment from the Right to Roam campaign, which calls for an extension to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act in England, so that millions more people can have easy access to open space and the physical and mental benefits it has been proven to bring, as well as enabling them to bring benefits to nature from their presence.

The amendment that I present here is modest. It calls for the start of a debate in the form of a publication within two years of a draft Bill. I sincerely thank the Bill Office for assisting me in its preparation; its relatively late arrival at this stage is entirely my own fault. The draft Bill would provide for statutory right to access to land for recreational purposes and educational activities, including building understanding of our natural and cultural heritage, provided that the land is accessed responsibly in accordance with a code of practice, with landowners having responsibility to take reasonable action to ensure that the right can be exercised. That is an outline based on the Scottish legislation.

In looking back to the Committee debate, I have to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for doing some very useful research for me. He noted that the population density of England is 279 people per square kilometre, which is more than four times that of Scotland, at 67 people per square kilometre, and nearly twice that of Wales, at 151 people per square kilometre. The noble Viscount used that figure to suggest that we could not have the right to roam in England, but I would turn it around and suggest instead that those figures are a powerful argument for opening up as much of the countryside of England as possible to give those people space to breathe and roam. The argument is even stronger for England than it is for Scotland and Wales.

Just 1% of the population own half the land in England—a rather significant number of them in your Lordships’ House—with the other 99% having the right to roam on just 8% of the remainder. Open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act is only mountains, moorland, downland, heaths and commons and, more recently, the English coastal path. There are also rights in Forestry Commission forests. However, by their nature, these are spaces largely remote from where people live. As many noble Lords agreed in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, among them, we need far more public transport into these areas—but that is an issue for another day.

Looking back over the debate in Committee, I think that we extensively canvassed the benefits for the public of access to nature, so I shall not go over the same ground. However, I want to raise one additional point that was not really discussed in Committee. We know so little about the fast-changing natural world, subject to the pressure of exotic animals and diseases and, of course, our fast-changing climate.

There are significant benefits to the landscape, to the environment, to nature, of having many more people in that environment. Citizen science has a growing place in growing our understanding. The RSPB’s Big Garden Birdwatch is billed as the world’s largest wildlife survey—how much larger and more wide-ranging it could be with the right to roam. The British Trust for Ornithology monitors the population changes of 117 breeding bird species across the UK, thanks to the dedication of almost 3,000 volunteers who survey randomly selected 1 square kilometre spaces each spring, spaces to which they are given access.

23:00

On this Bill and others, the House has widely canvassed the issue of litter in the countryside, but people can, of course, pick litter up as well as deposit it, and with significant parts of countryside litter being blown or washed from other places, they can help ensure the protection of wildlife and a more pleasant landscape by doing that. The specific issue of fly tipping has also been widely canvassed in our debate. More pairs of eyes in the countryside will be a deterrent to the fly tippers and increase the opportunity for them to be caught in the act on the handy mobile devices roamers are almost certain to be carrying.

I suspect the Minister may respond that the Government are reviewing public access to nature in the Agnew review. I have been able to uncover very little about this in the public domain and would be delighted if the Minister could tell us more, or indeed inform us later. It was commissioned by the Treasury earlier this year and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Barclay, has reportedly told Whitehall departments that he wants to see a quantum shift in public access to the outdoors.

For the reasons given on the earlier amendment, it is not my intention to push this to a vote. I regret that our debate will inevitably be very much truncated by the hour, but this is an issue I will be returning to. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her amendment. She has indeed raised important issues about the limitations of the current right to roam legislation. As a member of the Ramblers for many years, I am hugely committed to improving public access to land for recreational and educational purposes and, as the noble Baroness said, our experience during Covid brought home the huge public enthusiasm for greater access to the countryside, with all the mental and physical health benefits that derive from it. But our recent experience also highlighted the constraints, with public roads blocked, car parks full and footpaths overrun as access was limited to the established, well-trodden paths.

I do not believe that the new-found love of the countryside will subside once the pandemic is over, so we need a new contract with landowners to make sure that everyone can benefit from the peace and tranquillity of nature. This is why we welcomed the provisions in the Agriculture Act which will reward landowners for opening up new routes of access across their land, but I am disappointed that greater public access is not one of the first sustainable farming initiative pilots. Perhaps the Minister will update us on when we might see those pilots introduced. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need greater right to roam, but we need more time to consider her proposals for a draft Bill. As her amendment stands, the provision for such a Bill is rather prescriptive. We know the limitations of the current Countryside Code, but I would have liked more time to explore what is meant by “a code of practice” in her Bill, and how it would be applied.

The new clause’s proposed subsection (3) provides a very limited group of exemptions and raises questions about such things as access to SSSI sites and other precious landscapes where we would want to prioritise habitat and species recovery. I hope the noble Baroness recognises that the proposal needs to be refined before becoming a draft Bill; nevertheless, we support the general principle and hope that the noble Lord will feel able to do so as well.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her amendment. Without going into the arguments, everything she said about the benefits of access to nature, I and colleagues fully support and agree with. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 allows the establishment, recording and appeal of rights of way to agreed standards and sets out people’s rights and responsibilities.

The refreshed Countryside Code helps the public enjoy the countryside in a safe and respectful way, and we are supporting and enhancing access to the countryside in a number of different ways, including laying legislation to streamline the process of recording and changing rights of way. We are completing the England coastal path and creating a new northern national trail. Our agricultural plans set out examples of the types of actions that we envisage paying for under schemes which include engagement with the environment. We are incentivising access via our new England woodland creation offer. There is already extensive access to rivers and other waterways which are managed by navigation authorities, with licences available for recreation and leisure use. The Government’s position remains that public access to nature is a fundamentally good thing. However, the Government’s view is also that access to waterways which are not managed by navigation authorities should be determined through voluntary agreements between interested parties.

I hope that what I have said demonstrates to the noble Baroness that the Government very much share her concerns and aspirations in relation to access to nature and that she will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her positive and cheering contribution. I very much echo the point she made about how disappointing it is that the sustainable farming initiative pilots do not contain such provisions and that it would be nice to see progress on that. I also thank her for highlighting the way Covid has brought about a sea change in many people’s relationship with the natural world.

On the questions the noble Baroness raised about the prescriptive nature of the amendment, it is very much based on Scottish law, which is already in place and has worked through exactly what the code might look like. It has been very well worked through in Scotland—so the model is very much there.

On the Minister’s response, I am pleased to hear his acknowledgement of the benefits of having people out in the countryside. That is something I will certainly be taking up with him in future. I also point out that he raised the issue of rivers. It is perhaps not very well understood outside certain communities that 90% of our rivers are off limits to wild swimmers, paddle-boarders and kayakers. Of course, wild swimming is a very fast-growing, popular and healthy pastime, and this is something that people are increasingly discovering for themselves and are very disappointed by, and it is something that very much needs to be raised.

None the less, given the hour—I hope we will have a more extensive debate on this at a more reasonable hour very soon—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 126A withdrawn.

Amendment 127 not moved.

Clause 142: Extent

Amendment 128

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

128: Clause 142, page 129, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) section (Report on elimination of discharges from storm overflows) (report on elimination of discharges from storm overflows) extends to England and Wales;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the elimination of discharges from storm overflows to extend to England and Wales.

Amendment 128 agreed.

Clause 143: Commencement

Amendments 129 and 130

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

129: Clause 143, page 130, line 4, at end insert “and section (Report on elimination of discharges from storm overflows) (report on elimination of discharges from storm overflows);”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the elimination of discharges from storm overflows to come into force two months after Royal Assent.

130: Clause 143, page 130, line 29, at end insert—
“(la) sections (Reporting on discharges from storm overflows) and (Monitoring quality of water potentially affected by discharges) (reporting and monitoring duties relating to discharges from storm overflows etc);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the proposed new duties of sewerage undertakers relating to reporting and monitoring to come into force by commencement regulations.

Amendments 129 and 130 agreed.

House adjourned at 11.08 pm.