House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I have a short statement to make. I would like to draw Members’ attention to the fact that the book for entering the private Members’ Bill ballot is now open. It will be open today and tomorrow. The book will be available for Members to sign in the No Lobby from 11.30 am until the rise of the House on both days, except during Divisions. The ballot itself will be drawn at 9 am this Thursday in Committee Room 15. An announcement setting out these and other arrangements, and the dates when ten-minute rule motions can be made and presentation of Bills introduced, is published in the Order Paper.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
The levelling-up White Paper sets out a clear plan to level up every corner of the United Kingdom, including a mission to increase productivity and improve living standards in every part of the UK by 2030. We will do this through the record funding allocated in the 2021 spending review, including £1.6 billion for the next generation of the British Business Bank’s regional investment funds. That sits alongside significant investment in communities through the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, and giving local areas a greater say in investment, working in partnership with the Government through the £2.6 billion UK shared prosperity fund.
Felicity Buchan
Parts of our inner cities suffer deprivation, including in my constituency in north Kensington. Does my right hon. Friend agree that levelling up is about bringing forward all our left-behind communities, whether inner cities, coastal communities or the north, and, I add rather cheekily, will he support my levelling-up fund bid for step-free access to Ladbroke Grove tube station?
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is an outstanding champion for Kensington and, as she rightly says, it is not the case, as is sometimes portrayed, that the levelling-up fund does not have real importance for London and the south-east because, as we know, there are pockets of deprivation across this country and it is vital that we address them. Over £200 million was allocated in the first round of the levelling-up fund for London and the south-east, and clearly my hon. Friend’s council may wish to consider making a bid for the fund’s next iteration when that opens.
Ben Bradley
The east midlands has consistently been at the bottom of the charts for public and private sector investment. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he sees devolution as a key mechanism to level up, so the east midlands must surely be at the heart of that agenda. We are negotiating with the Government now in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, but will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that these will not be second-class deals and the east midlands deals will have the same finance and clout as previous deals have had?
Mr Clarke
I really enjoyed my recent visit to Nottinghamshire to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues. We are clear that devolution sits at the heart of our levelling-up mission and we have said that every part of England that wants a devolution deal can have one by 2030. We want those deals to have a sensible geography, and the strongest and most accountable leadership possible, and I am really encouraged that leaders in Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire—including, of course, my hon. Friend—have brought together a really exciting package of proposals. We look forward to coming to them in due course.
Andrew Bridgen
In recent years, the west midlands has economically outperformed the east midlands—apart from, of course, my constituency of North West Leicestershire. To what extent does my right hon. Friend believe that is due to the west midlands benefiting from its mayoralty structure? What help can the Treasury give to the east midlands to ensure that we level up with our neighbour?
Mr Clarke
I pay great tribute to the work that Andy Street has done as Mayor of the West Midlands to drive economic outperformance. I am a convinced believer in the merits of mayoral devolution, which is the best way of ensuring that levelling up is delivered at the fastest possible pace on the ground. I look forward to looking at proposals from the east midlands to ensure that we can unlock as much opportunity there as possible.
Julie Marson
Hertford and Stortford lies at the heart of the London-Stansted-Cambridge innovation corridor, which is key to helping my constituency and our region address its pockets of deprivation. Will my right hon. Friend outline how his Department is working to attract more innovation-based businesses, particularly in life sciences, to the area?
Mr Clarke
I share my hon. Friend’s passion for the UK’s world-leading life sciences sector. That is why we have invested £5 billion in health research and development, including for delivery of our life sciences vision, as well as £60 million for the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund and £200 million in the life sciences investment programme, all of which institutions in Hertfordshire can benefit from.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Chief Secretary will agree that, for levelling up to work well, there is a need for more jobs linked to exports to be created across the UK. With export growth in the UK lagging behind that of every other rich nation, why did he and his colleagues sign off cuts in funding to the North East England chamber of commerce to promote exports from that region?
Mr Clarke
I agree that a flourishing export sector is vital. That is, of course, why we are so pleased to be delivering innovative policies in the north-east such as a freeport on Teesside, which is a great example of how we will bolster the export strengths that exist for our current and future employers. We clearly want to work closely with all partners, including the chambers of commerce, who do an excellent job, but it is absolutely not just about measures in grants to any individual institution. Our ambition is to create a high-growth, high-wage economy, and exports sit at the centre of that. Our actions speak loudly about our total commitment to that.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Government said they would prioritise closing the gap in pay, employment and productivity, yet since the Prime Minister took office average monthly earnings in every single north-east constituency have fallen even further behind those in London. Can the Government see that telling families to learn how to cook and to work more hours while forcing cash-strapped local authorities to bid competitively for small pots of money will not rebalance our economy? We need a much greater focus on creating and boosting jobs in those areas that really need them.
Mr Clarke
I know and obviously share the hon. Lady’s passion for the north-east. The enormous success of our plan for jobs is something that we ought to be celebrating today. We have had the fantastic news that unemployment is at its lowest level since 1975, which is an enormous achievement and one that we should all be collectively delighted by. We face global inflationary pressures, which are a serious challenge not just for this country but the eurozone, America and, indeed, the entire developed world as we both recover from covid and handle the consequences of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we are absolutely focused on rectifying that through a concerted programme of action. Obviously, we have put together a £22 billion package of support for households, and we will take future steps as the situation warrants.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
According to an independent analysis of the Government’s own 12 metrics for measuring progress in levelling up, Bradford East is behind on almost every single one, with lower pay, productivity, Government spending, transport investment, school grades and life expectancy. I am perplexed by how the Minister can stand there and tell us that he is serious about levelling up when the Government refuse to do anything to level up places such as Bradford East.
Mr Clarke
The whole point is that that is precisely what we are not doing. We have created a West Midlands mayoralty which is channelling huge amounts of public money into supporting—[Interruption.] Sorry, the West Yorkshire mayoralty. The point stands. We have created a West Yorkshire mayoralty which is designed to drive forward growth and opportunity in that region. We have a whole programme of action, from the levelling-up fund and our wider commitments around jobs and growth, which the hon. Gentleman knows, as well as I do, will make a massive difference to the future of Bradford and the rest of West Yorkshire in the years ahead.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The UK Government’s own website states that levelling up is a moral, social and economic programme right across Government, so can I ask the Minister where is the moral argument in people not being able to feed their kids? Where is the social argument in people not being able to heat their homes? And where on earth is the economic argument in people having no money in their pockets?
Mr Clarke
Levelling up is a social and moral mission. I believe very strongly that it is vital that we close the gap between the more successful parts of the UK and the rest. I represent a constituency that sits at the heart of that process. On the hon. Gentleman’s point on the cost of living, we have put together a £22 billion package of support, including a £9 billion commitment specifically on energy bills, but we are absolutely clear that we do not solve an inflationary crisis by throwing money at the problem, as that could worsen the issue we are seeking to address. The Chancellor will keep all these issues under close review. [Interruption.] I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he most certainly does. We will bring forward a programme of measures at such time that they will make the right difference in a targeted way, which, as I say, does not make worse the very problem that we all need to solve.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Last week, Bloomberg published a report that showed that, on the Government’s own chosen 12 measures of levelling up since the Prime Minister took office, most parts of the country are either falling even further behind London and the south-east or have made no progress, including every single constituency in the west midlands. That includes salaries, home affordability, inward investment, transport spending and levels of crime all going backwards. Why is levelling up so far failing to deliver?
Mr Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman raises the Bloomberg report. We have to recognise, when we look at this issue, that levelling up is a decades-long project for reversing things that are institutionally extremely challenging in terms of the striking geographical inequalities that have arisen under successive Governments and which this Government are determined to address. The levelling-up White Paper, published this spring, puts in place a framework for the Government to work directly with people and places to help address those disparities. We will be held to account with an annual report to monitor our progress. What I would say is that the people of the west midlands made their views very clear last year when they re-elected Andy Street as their Mayor, just as they made their views very clear on Teesside when they re-elected Ben Houchen. They can see progress. They are realistic—none of this is easy and none of this is going to be an instant turnaround—but they are clear that we have a plan to deliver it and they are behind that.
Mr McFadden
The Conservatives have been in office for 12 years; they were not elected last week. This is the self-declared central mission of the Government. Tackling regional inequality is a good aim. Communities like the one I represent in the Black Country made the last industrial revolution and they can make the next one too if they are given a platform on which to stand, but now, with the Bank of England Governor warning of apocalyptic rises in food prices and a further likely steep rise in energy bills in the autumn, what will the Government do to reverse the failures outlined in the damning report last week, and bridge the grand canyon between the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on these things and the reality on the ground?
Mr Clarke
The levelling-up White Paper is a comprehensive package of measures designed to ensure we can deliver on our ambitious aims in this place. The Queen’s Speech, which we are debating this week, further demonstrates our commitment to making that a reality, including, notably, through the establishment in law of the UK infrastructure bank. It is clearly the case, as I say, that none of these problems are simple to address. We have to be honest on both sides of the House that both Labour and Conservative-led Governments have failed to narrow those disparities. We have a plan which I am confident will deliver meaningful change in short order and over the medium to long term make a transformative difference to communities.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
At Fintech Week on 4 April, I set out our firm ambition to make Britain a global hub for cryptoasset technology, and I announced a number of actions that will support that. That includes committing to consult on a future regulatory regime for cryptoassets later this year; legislating to bring stablecoins into payments regulation; and exploring ways of enhancing the competitiveness of the UK tax system to encourage further development in this sphere.
Giles Watling
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he commit to working with the cryptocurrency sector and the UK Cryptoasset Business Council to make sure that the UK’s future regulatory parameter can instil a global advantage, ensuring that our economy remains ahead of the curve?
John Glen
Yes, absolutely, and my officials are meeting the Cryptoasset Business Council later this week. We want to take a dynamic approach to industry engagement. Lots of similar organisations have spawned over the last few months, and I and my officials will work very closely with them as we lead this global leadership aspiration.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The cryptocurrency market is expanding rapidly, but what are the Government doing to ensure that the wider public are aware of the wild swings that exist in the market? Yes, profits can be made, but so can significant losses, as the past few months have demonstrated.
John Glen
We watch these things very carefully. That is why, in January this year, we announced that certain cryptoassets will be brought within the scope of financial promotions regulation. I am very aware of the Financial Conduct Authority’s advice, which shows that only one in 10 cryptoholders are aware that they can lose all their money. We need to get that number up.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Money obtained through corruption or criminality is not welcome in the UK. The Government are taking concerted action to combat that threat by investing £400 million over this spending review period, with the kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency targeting sanctions evasion and corrupt Russian assets hidden in the UK. The Government have taken far-reaching steps to improve corporate transparency, including through recent and forthcoming primary legislation announced in the Queen’s Speech last week.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the Minister for that answer. NatWest and HSBC have been hit with big fines for facilitating money laundering, and Danske Bank will probably see a fine of £2 billion for £200 billion of money laundering. This is seen not as a deterrent, but as a cost of doing business for these big banks. Does he agree that the only way that we will tackle this is through criminal prosecutions both at a corporate level and of senior managers? Does he support the calls to that effect in the economic crime manifesto by the all-party groups on fair business banking and on anti-corruption and responsible tax, and will he support such measures in the economic crime Bill?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I think he is the House’s foremost observer of banks’ behaviour, but he also knows that this is an extremely complex area of law. The Government have asked the Law Commission to undertake an in-depth review of laws around corporate criminal liability for economic crime and to make recommendations. My understanding is that the Law Commission will make an announcement on this subject imminently, and we will look at that very carefully.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
One of the key complaints from any of my constituents who are victims of economic crime is about the inability to reach out to Action Fraud, and if they do, they get no response. I urge the Minister—plead with him, in fact—to reform the work of Action Fraud and perhaps even bring about a new body in any new legislation to ensure that constituents get some sort of answer and, importantly, some form of support from the authorities of the UK state.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Following clarity from my hon. Friend to UK Finance on how banks should interpret the money laundering regulations, a number of banks continue to close existing pooled client accounts of long-established, reputable boat-broking businesses. That is now stopping those businesses trading. What further assurance can he give to banks regarding these low-risk businesses?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she will know from the letter that I sent her this morning and from our conversation with industry representatives together a few months ago, this is quite a challenging issue to resolve. I cannot direct the banks to open, and keep open, these accounts, but I will continue to engage with her and with UK Finance to see whether more progress can be made in the coming weeks.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Government have lost £4.3 billion of taxpayers’ money through fraudulent covid schemes. Now we learn that a large chunk of that money is going into the hands of terrorists, organised crime gangs and drug dealers. Will the Minister reassure me that he is taking the reports seriously and update the House on the total number of investigations the Government are undertaking that relate to covid fraud?
John Glen
I can absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that the Government take the issue very seriously. That is why at previous fiscal events the Chancellor has invested £100 million in a taskforce to deal with it. When we designed a number of the interventions, protecting taxpayers was a real consideration. It is also the case that we needed to act swiftly to assist those businesses and if we had not made some of those interventions at the time, many businesses would have gone under. We continue to engage carefully on the matter.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
We on the SNP Benches welcome the economic crime and corporate transparency Bill, and given the scale of the problem that the Tories have presided over, it is long overdue. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about making Companies House an anti-money-laundering supervisor in its own right finally to lock out the fraudsters, the kleptocrats and their dirty money from Companies House once and for all?
John Glen
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight Companies House reform as a major area that we are working on. The Government forwarded more than £60 million to start that work, which has now been accelerated. Alongside the register of overseas entities and beneficial ownership, the increased transparency of those assets will be very welcome.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
The Government are committed to helping people keep more of what they own and I give credit to my hon. Friend for his work, which was instrumental in our lowering of the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55%. That is a tax cut for low-paid workers on universal credit. He will know that from July we will raise the national insurance contributions threshold so that the amount that working people will be able to earn tax-free will increase by £2,690, helping to ensure that work pays.
John Penrose
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her kind comments. The changes that she has just re-announced are extremely welcome. With energy and food prices continuing to spiral, does the Treasury team accept that they will soon have to go even further? Do they agree that compared with increasing benefits, further cuts in these combined tax and benefits withdrawal rates will be a better way to put money in the pockets of many lower-paid families and that in future, the combined rates paid by less well-off families should never be higher than the top rates paid by the rich?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend has a keen interest in this area and I read his report, “Poverty Trapped”, with some interest. He makes a valuable point and will know that the Government have made progress in this area. The old system applied an effective tax rate of more than 90% to lower earners in some cases and, as a result of the changes we have recently made, an adult working 35 hours at the national living wage with two children over five will, for example, benefit from an additional £1,610 a year.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I invite the Minister to come to Wakefield with me? I was there on Saturday morning. The people there have not read the Bloomberg report, but they can feel the impact of rising taxes and the cost of living. They know that they will be in desperate trouble in the coming months. Will she get real and bring the Chancellor to an area of good hard-working people who face the future with great fear?
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Gentleman and am sure that I will soon make a visit to Wakefield. The Government understand the issue with the rise in the cost of living but over this year we have committed £22 billion to support people in their time of need. The people in Wakefield that the hon. Gentleman talks about will also benefit from the cuts we have made to taxes, such as the universal taper rate, a tax cut for 1.2 million people and an extra £1,000 in their pockets. We have increased the threshold to the NICs rate, a £6 billion tax cut for £30 million working people. As I said—[Interruption.]
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
High global energy prices have pushed up bills. That is why we are already helping households through the energy bills rebate package, which is worth more than £9 billion in total and £350 to the majority of households. Our British energy security strategy sets out how we will deliver a more secure energy supply that brings down bills in the longer term.
Mr Hollobone
North Northamptonshire Council last week started paying the £150 rebate to residents who pay by direct debit, and rebates will follow for those who do not pay by direct debit. Will the Minister ensure that the Government disseminate best practice to local authorities regarding how to pay the rebates quickly, because getting this money into people’s pockets fast is key to helping residents to deal with the global cost of living squeeze?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of getting the money into people’s pockets fast, which is why the first support payment is through the council tax system. I know that councils are working hard to get payments to people, whether they do or do not have direct debits. The Treasury is working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to support local authorities with delivery.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
The Government are committed to ensuring a tax system that is fair and simple. I will give three examples: first, we have equalised the national insurance and income tax starting thresholds; secondly, our work towards OECD pillars 1 and 2 will help to ensure that multinational businesses pay their fair share; and thirdly, we are tackling avoidance and evasion to ensure that everyone pays the right amount of tax at the right time.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Liverpool, Walton ranks as the most deprived community in the whole of England. I am used to constituents contacting my office unable to afford their bills and to survive on their own incomes. What is new is that local independent businesses are now telling me that they are going under. At the heart of the Liverpool economy is hospitality and the visitor economy. Locally run and owned restaurants and cafés are now facing apocalyptic price rises. The VAT on soft drinks and food consumed on premises, and hot beverages and food taken away, has risen back to 20%—it was 5% and then 12.5% during the pandemic. What will Ministers do to save local independent businesses through the tax system?
Lucy Frazer
It is important that we support local businesses, and that is exactly what the Government have done. The hon. Member will know about the business rates support—amounting to £7 billion of support to businesses—that we provided at the last Budget, including £1.7 billion for the hospitality industry through a 50% rebate on business rates. For small businesses, we also increased the employment allowance by £1,000. That is a package of support for local businesses in his area and others across the country.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government recognise the importance of access to cash in the daily lives of millions of people across the UK. In the Queen’s Speech, the Government announced that we will legislate to protect access to cash in the financial services and markets Bill, which will be brought forward soon, when parliamentary time allows. We consulted on legislative approaches last year and will publish a summary of responses to the consultation this week.
Margaret Ferrier
If we look at the demographic of people who are most likely to be reliant on access to cash, we see that in large part it is those who are vulnerable or on low incomes. If someone is down to their last £10, they cannot afford a withdrawal fee at an ATM. Will the Government look to make all ATMs free to use for the customer by working with banks and ATM providers to reform the interchange fee, so that the system accounts for varying demographics, geography and demand in a way that it currently does not?
John Glen
As I said, the Government’s response will be revealed in the legislation. When I visited the hon. Member’s constituency not so long ago, I saw that the use of hubs—banks working together to provide access to cash—is key. There are 72,000 cash access points and 430,000 cashback locations across the UK. A coherent response that addresses the hon. Member’s points will be made in the legislation.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
The Government are committed to investing in infrastructure to boost economic growth across the country, and I was delighted to see this at first hand when visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency of Southend West last week, where the local authority has secured £19.9 million from the levelling up fund.
Anna Firth
It was a real pleasure to welcome the Minister to the new city of Southend last week. Every station on the C2C line in Southend West is access friendly except for Chalkwell station, where there are 30 steep steps to clamber up and down. What further support or funding can the Minister provide to level up that final station and ensure that it is accessible to all?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to campaign for better access to stations for disabled people. I am pleased to confirm that Chalkwell is included in the Department for Transport’s £350 million Access for All programme, and that construction will begin to install a new footbridge and lift this autumn.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Government have cut the infrastructure that they promised at the last election, not least in Northern Powerhouse Rail. The economy needs greater rail capacity for passengers and freight, so does not this great rail betrayal show that the Government are not interested in the infrastructure needed for the economy in the north and the midlands to thrive?
Helen Whately
I simply do not recognise the picture that the hon. Member is painting. This Government are absolutely committed to investing in infrastructure because that is at the heart of our ambitions for economic growth and levelling up across the country, including £96 billion for the integrated infrastructure rail plan for the north of the country.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s increased investment in infrastructure, but as the Minister knows, for the investment to be most useful we need to improve the deliverability of that infrastructure practically on the ground. Could she set out further what the Government are doing to improve the efficacy of all of that money going into infrastructure so that it actually gets delivered?
Helen Whately
That is an excellent question from my hon. Friend. We are not only investing in infrastructure but making sure that taxpayers’ money gets put to good use. One way we are doing that is by working with the Infrastructure and Products Authority and with Project SPEED, which specifically scrutinises the most important infrastructure projects in this country to ensure that we are doing a better job of making taxpayers’ money go further and doing it cleaner and greener as we go.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
After London, the Lake district is the most popular visitor destination in the United Kingdom, with 19 million visitors a year, yet its only direct rail link has a single track from the main line at Oxenholme to Windermere, known as the Lakes line. There is a proposal on the table to effectively dual that line by means of a passing loop at Burneside. Will the Minister agree to meet me and folks from the local authority to ensure that—no pun intended—we can fast-track the dualling of the Lakes line?
Helen Whately
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The growth of tourism is really important as part of the wider economic growth of the country, and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about his proposal.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The designation of Immingham and Grimsby as part of the Humber ports freeport project highlights the need for increased infrastructure on the road network leading to those ports. Will the Minister agree to meet me and neighbouring MPs to discuss this, and particularly an upgrade for the A180?
Helen Whately
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the upgrade to that road. As I have said, we know that infrastructure is really important in supporting economic growth and levelling up all around the UK.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
I am very proud of the record of this Government and previous Conservative-led Governments over the past decade of significantly reducing the number of people living in poverty and reducing income inequality. In February we published the levelling up White Paper, which seeks to address the very striking regional disparities our country.
Jeff Smith
The New Economics Foundation says that recent measures such as the fuel duty cut and the national insurance threshold increase will benefit the richest 5% of families twice as much as the poorest half of households. At the same time, does the Chancellor not accept that his decision to raise taxes on working people while shielding those with incomes from other sources such as a large portfolio of properties is only going to increase income inequality further?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. By raising the primary threshold to £12,500, we have ensured that the first £12,500 that anyone earns is completely free of national insurance and income tax. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has called it
“the best way to help low and middle earners through the tax system”.
That is what this Government are about.
Gill Furniss
The cost of living crisis is causing immense hardship for my constituents in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, many of whom have been struggling for the past 12 years of this Government’s austerity policies. Can the Chancellor look me in the eye and tell me that he is doing everything he can to prevent my constituents from falling into a never-ending cycle of poverty, particularly given that the Prime Minister admitted last week that he believes the Government have not done enough?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady talks about the record of previous Governments over the past decade but, as I have mentioned to her previously, the number of people living in absolute poverty has fallen by more than 1 million since the Conservative-led Government were elected in 2010. That is a record of which we are very proud. She talks of austerity and, to bring her up to date, public spending over the course of this Parliament is growing at a record rate, both on investment and on day-to-day spending, so we can support strong investment in all the public services on which her constituents rely.
Ruth Jones
Women across the UK are the “shock absorbers of poverty,” as the Women’s Budget Group puts it. Women are cutting essentials for themselves so that their kids do not go without, and this is happening in Newport West, too. My inbox is full of emails from anxious families who are unable to pay their bills. What does the Chancellor think this says about the past 12 years of Conservative Government?
Rishi Sunak
Of course we want to be able to support those women, mothers and families who rely on us in these hard times, and that is exactly what this Government are doing. Over the past 10 years, as I said, we have reduced the number of people in poverty. We know that the best way to do that in the long term is to support people into work, which is why I am delighted to see this morning that unemployment is at its lowest level in almost half a century. The single best way to fight poverty is to have a plan for jobs, and our plan is working.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
One of the best ways to reduce economic inequality is through our plan for jobs and our freeport programme. To that end, will the Chancellor join me in welcoming the latest investment announced in Teesside’s freeport, a £150 million renewable gas facility for Circular Fuels that will create 200 jobs in construction and further jobs in the supply chain?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been a fantastic champion for his constituents and Teesside in getting the freeport. We are now seeing the proof of that policy, with yet another announcement of more investment and more job opportunities for his constituents, which he rightly says is the best way to support them through these challenging times.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Under this Conservative Government, people’s savings have declined by record levels. Data from the Office for Budget Responsibility shows that the amount of income households are able to save is set to fall by more than £1,000. This Tory cost of living crisis is pushing people into debt, yet one Government Minister said yesterday that, if people are struggling, they should simply work more hours and get another job. Will the Chancellor confirm that “Get on your bike” is official Conservative economic policy once again?
Rishi Sunak
There is an enormous amount to correct in the hon. Lady’s question. In aggregate, across the economy, savings increased over the past two years by more than £250 billion. Of course, that will not be distributed equally, but there is resilience. Consumer credit, on which those on lower incomes particularly rely, has also fallen by about £30 billion over the past two years. Households approach this period of difficulty in a more resilient shape than at any point in the past decade.
The comments by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), are absolutely right. It is wrong to take them out of context. This party and this Government are proud to be on the side of hard-working people. We want to support them into work, and we want to make sure that work pays. She was absolutely right to say what she said.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
Last year, the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7, and unemployment has fallen back to 3.7%, which is well below pre-pandemic levels. Growth in the first quarter here was stronger than that in the United States, Germany and Italy, and it is now 0.7% above pre-pandemic levels. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the UK will be the second fastest growing economy this year and that by 2025 we will once again outpace the rest of the G7, with the fastest growing economy both that year and in 2026.
Matt Western
Across the 38 countries of the OECD only Spain had a bigger fall in its GDP from pre-pandemic levels than the UK. The UK is now uniquely placed in the cost of living crisis, owing to a decade of low growth under Conservative Governments. Can the Minister name any G20 country other than the UK that is forecast to have negative growth in 2023?
Mr Clarke
The UK has bounced back so strongly from the pandemic that we had the fastest growth last year, we have the second fastest growth this year and we are going to be leading the pack once again. So, we will have the second fastest growth in the G7 in 2024, and we will have the fastest growth in 2025 and 2026. We should be proud of that achievement. There is no doubt that, if we come out of a crisis earlier, there will be an element of other economies catching up in the near term, but the IMF is clear that over the course of the immediate outlook we are world leaders.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
The success of our plan for jobs is playing a key role in growing the economy and spreading opportunity across the country. The Government protected 11.7 million jobs in the pandemic through schemes such as furlough, and of course we moved millions of jobseekers into work and supported young people through programmes such as kickstart and our apprenticeships offer.
Lee Anderson
Businesses in Ashfield are telling me that they are struggling to recruit young apprentices, even though they are offering top wages and education up to degree level. I am doing my bit by hosting an apprenticeships fair, but what more can the Government do to ensure that the young people in my area know that there are great, well-paid apprenticeship schemes available, so that they can have a fantastic career on their doorstep—and maybe a career in catering?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is an important message, which this whole House should send out, that apprenticeships really matter, that going to university is not the only way to succeed, and that people can earn and learn at the same time on our great apprenticeship courses. I believe my right hon. Friend the Chancellor visited Caunton Engineering in my hon. Friend’s constituency to promote apprenticeships, and of course I wish his apprenticeships fair every success.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Chancellor mentioned that this plan for jobs is the long-term plan for restarting the economy. Do the Government accept that perhaps they need to do more immediately than simply having a long-term plan for jobs, in order to help people with the cost of living crisis?
Mr Clarke
We absolutely do accept that, which is why we brought forward a £22 billion package of support this year, with help ranging from reducing the burden of tax to providing support on things such as energy bills. That is absolutely in recognition of a very challenging economic landscape for people to be operating in, owing to the impact of the global pressures we are facing on inflation. We are clear that we have a plan for jobs and a plan for growth, and that we will get through the current crisis and deliver a much better future for the people of this country on the other side of what have been a remarkable couple of years and a very difficult one for the whole developed world.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
Small and medium-sized businesses are at the heart of our economy, creating jobs and prosperity across the UK. Last week, we wrote to more than 2 million businesses setting out our support to them, including a £1,000 cut to employment taxes, extending the annual investment allowance limit, reducing business rates and cutting fuel duty by 5p.
Philip Dunne
In considering responses to the Treasury’s consultation on simplifying alcohol duty, will my hon. Friend consider a model that broadly relates duty to alcohol strength but without creating massive complexity and cost for the UK’s thousands of off licences and wine shops, including important small and medium-sized enterprises in Shropshire, which create jobs, supporting both the wine import and brewing sectors?
Helen Whately
As my right hon. Friend knows, we have set out our plans to make alcohol duty simpler and fairer—a change that is long overdue. That includes a new relief for draught beer, small producer relief for craft cider makers and the end of the higher rate for sparkling wine. I am listening to the sector and I have visited businesses to hear for myself, to make sure that the reforms work in practice.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
First, I wish the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), a very special and very happy birthday.
The Government of course appreciate that global inflationary forces are currently making life difficult for families, which is why we have brought forward, as we have heard, £22 billion-worth of support this year to help those in work and the most vulnerable in our society. We stand ready to do more as the situation evolves. That support is part of a broad plan that will grow our economy, encourage investment and create more skilled and high-wage jobs. That is this Government’s priority.
Rachael Maskell
With so much affluence in our country, poverty is a political choice—the choice of the Chancellor and his Government. In York this week, energy companies are cutting off people’s energy supply, landlords are evicting people, budgets do not balance, poor mental health is spiralling and fear is gripping people on low wages, ill and disabled people and the elderly. That is the Chancellor’s choice. Why will he not increase social security payments? Such payments should pay, not punish, and keep people safe and secure.
Rishi Sunak
The track record of this Government and previous Conservative Governments is very strong on reducing the number of people in poverty, because that is of course something that we want to achieve. On what is without question the No. 1 challenge that families currently face—energy bills—we have brought forward £9 billion-worth of support; many people in the hon. Lady’s constituency will have already benefited from £150 of that, and there is £200 more to come. Some of the actions of energy companies that the hon. Lady mentioned do not sound appropriate and I would be happy to look into the specific cases.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and extend my heartfelt condolences to Naomi for the loss of her son. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that NHS England and NHS Improvement, along with the British Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council UK and the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, have developed the Circuit, which is a national defibrillator network that will register defibrillators in the UK and provide an overview of where they can be found. I know that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are interested in this issue, as I met the Prime Minister with my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards). It is indeed an important issue.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
At the spring statement, the Chancellor confirmed that the Conservative Government’s rise in national insurance—a tax increase on working people and the businesses that employ them—will go ahead. Since then, retail sales are falling, consumer confidence is tanking and GDP is falling. We are the only G7 country that is increasing taxes on working people in the middle of a cost of living crisis. National insurance is the wrong tax increase at the wrong time. Does the Chancellor still think that his tax rises on working people are the right approach?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady fails to mention what is about to happen, which is the biggest tax cut for working people that we have seen in decades: the rise in the national insurance threshold to £12,500. That means that 30 million people in work will receive, on average, a £330 tax cut and, contrary to what she has just said, it ensures that 70% of people in work will pay less tax this year than they paid last year.
Rachel Reeves
The Chancellor expects people to thank him for increasing their taxes only then to decrease them a couple of months later. The truth is that the Chancellor should be asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more in tax—such as the North sea oil and gas companies that are making record profits—yet he chooses not to tax them. Will the Chancellor explain today why he will not close the outdated, unfair and unjustifiable tax loophole that sees 70,000 people benefit from non-dom tax status?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady says that we should be asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay, but that is exactly what we are doing. The NHS and social care levy means that those with the broadest shoulders, the top 15% of earners, will pay more than half the money raised from that levy. I think that she believes that that levy should be scrapped. It is an entirely progressive way to raise money to fund the tackling of NHS backlogs, for which there is, I know, huge support in this House. The Government are keen to get on and fix the pressing challenges of this country. We will fund those things in a responsible and progressive way, and that is exactly the plan that we have put in place.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. That is our priority. We started last autumn by cutting the tax rate for those on the lowest incomes and universal credit. We carried that on in the spring statement by delivering a tax cut for those on lower-middle incomes by raising the primary threshold, and our priority is to keep cutting taxes for those in work, including by cutting income tax, as soon as the public finances allow.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Inflation is running out of control, growth is flatlining, and food and energy costs are spiralling. The Governor of the Bank of England yesterday was warning of “apocalyptic” food prices. James Withers of Scotland Food & Drink says that Brexit has made nothing better and a number of things worse. People and businesses have heard absolutely nothing from this Chancellor today on how he will tackle this urgent cost of living crisis—nothing at all. Will he bring forward an emergency Budget without further delay, as the British Chambers of Commerce are asking?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady talks about Brexit. We have already heard about the difference that Brexit is making, with a freeport in Teesside, which, because of Brexit, we have been able to create—and not just there, but in Leith, Immingham, Southampton and other places too. As we have heard today, those innovations are bringing jobs and investment to parts of our country that need to see it. That is what this Government promised to do, and that is what this Government are delivering.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend tempts me with a visit to a vineyard in her constituency. She has already made the argument very strongly—when I recently met the wine and spirits all-party group. Representing a wine-producing constituency, she will appreciate, I am sure, our announcement of the reduction in the duty rate for sparkling wine. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) earlier, I am speaking to businesses in the sector to make sure that we get right the practicalities of introducing these reforms.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Rishi Sunak
I urge the British people to judge me by my actions. Over the past two years, the record of this Conservative Government stands for itself. We were there to help this country through the crisis and we are there to help them today.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Naturally, there has been criticism of the Bank of England, given the level of inflation and its inflation target, but among that criticism there have been reports that some in government, including perhaps one member of the Cabinet, have been suggesting that the independence of the Bank of England should be removed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that our central bank is independent in order to maintain the credibility and integrity of our monetary policy? Will he give a categorical assurance to the House that there are no plans of any kind to restrain the independence of our central bank?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for his important intervention. I agree with him wholeheartedly. While we face challenges at the moment, the record of 25 years of central bank independence speaks for itself, with an average inflation rate of exactly 2%. I know all colleagues will want to make sure that we return to that as swiftly as possible, and I can assure him that that is both my and the Governor’s ambition.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
Obviously we are all clear that all fraud against the Exchequer is an outrage and totally wrong. That is why we have established a £100 million taxpayer protection taskforce, which is precisely determined to focus on that. We also have a new fraud function within Government, which is heavily focused on making sure that we address those issues. We are determined to make sure that, where there has been wrongdoing, we crack down on it and recover the money to the maximum extent that we can. Obviously, when introducing these schemes, we had to balance the imperative of speed of delivery against the risks, and I think we struck the appropriate balance at that time.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
There was widespread welcome for last week’s announcement that the Government will introduce a financial services and markets Bill. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the intention of that Bill will be to ensure that future regulation is proportionate, that the regulator is publicly accountable and that we intend to maintain the international competitiveness of this great industry?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Absolutely I can. I note the observations of some economists yesterday; we will have an obligation on regulators to take account of competitiveness and of where we are in the global context.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Rishi Sunak
Of course the Government recognise that energy bills are the single biggest challenge households face. That is why we have provided £9 billion-worth of support, including £150 for English households in the most recent month, with £200 more in support to come later this year.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I believe the Conservatives are and ought to be the party of hard-working families. According to a report released yesterday by the Centre for Policy Studies, reducing the cost of childcare can increase GDP by 10% and increase access to opportunities for women in the workforce. Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agree that helping hard-working families with childcare costs is good for the economy and that it is the Conservative thing to do?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, we do support families with the cost of childcare. One thing we do is to provide families with access to tax-free childcare, which means they can get a 20% reduction on the cost of childcare, up to a cap of £2,000 a year.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Lucy Frazer
I do not want to foreshadow what the Foreign Secretary may or may not say in her statement, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that with regard to the protocol, the Government’s overriding priority has been and continues to be preserving peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that a worker working full time, or 40 hours a week, on the living wage is now £1,700 a year better off in real terms than they were in 2010 and that, after July, that will rise to almost £2,000, with everybody earning less than £36,000 a year better off under this Conservative Government this year?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his support in championing policies that support his hard-working constituents. This Government will always be on the side of people on lower and middle incomes who are working hard to provide a better life for their families, and we will keep delivering for them.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
Sadly, nothing we can do from this Dispatch Box can change global oil prices, but we can reduce the taxes that we are responsible for. That tax cut, together with the freeze, is worth, this year, about £100 for a typical family driver, £200 or more for a van driver, and almost £1,500 for an HGV driver.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Mr Simon Clarke
We are absolutely determined to reduce the burden of tax facing both businesses and individuals. We have already heard during the course of these exchanges about the action we have taken, for example, on the employment allowance and on business rates, which is precisely designed to help businesses succeed in what is obviously a challenging environment.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
In my constituency, one food bank has provided 1,269 emergency food parcels in four months, 40% of which have gone to children. Food banks are now reporting shortages as people cut back to make ends meet. This is no longer about living; it is about surviving. So will the Government end their heartless policy and immediately scrap the national insurance hike that they have introduced during the cost of living crisis?
Rishi Sunak
Whether it is expansion of the school breakfast club programme, the holiday activities and food programme or healthy start vouchers, this Government are supporting families in meeting the costs of food, particularly at this difficult time. The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about children growing up in poverty. The best way to support those children is to ensure that they do not grow up in a household where no one is working, and I am proud that, thanks to the actions of Conservative Governments, half a million fewer children are now growing up in a workless household.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
One group of companies doing well out of the cost of living crisis is the buy now, pay later lenders, with Klarna now valued higher than Barclays or Lloyds. One in 12 of their customers are using buy now, pay later credit to pay for toiletries and basic food products. Will the Chancellor, who was boasting about our consumer credit profile earlier, name the date when our constituents can finally make good on the promise that was made in this House over 18 months ago to give people protection from these legal loan sharks and access to the Financial Ombudsman Service?
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
My experience over the past four years or so has proved without doubt that truly levelling up South Yorkshire and the wider north will require transformative levels of investment. Does the Chief Secretary agree, and if so, does he truly believe that the investment is there to meet the huge challenge that we undoubtedly face?
Mr Simon Clarke
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his service as the Mayor of South Yorkshire; he did an outstanding job. It is very important that we recognise that we are going to need more great Mayors from across this House and from outside Parliament to help to deliver opportunity in the region. We are absolutely clear that our programme of investment, through a record spending review, is designed to make sure that levelling up moves from blueprint to reality over the course of the years ahead.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
This Government have completely failed on growth in the economy, with the IMF, taking into account all the current Government proposals, currently forecasting that the UK will have the slowest growth in the G7 this year. The Minister will know that putting money into the pockets of the least well-off not only relieves their hardship but puts it into the local economy as they have to spend it, of necessity, back into the local economy, thus stimulating growth. Instead of choking off growth through the £20 universal credit cut, the national insurance hike and the refusal to use a windfall to relieve the hardship of these families, what new, additional measures do the Government propose to help hard-pressed families and to improve that IMF forecast on growth?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady cherry-picks the statistics. Last year we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and this year the second fastest. After the other countries have caught us up next year, we will return to being the second-fastest and then the fastest-growing economy. There is more come from this Government to support growth. In the autumn we will cut taxes on business investment and innovation, which we all know is the best way to drive up productivity and growth.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Ministers spoke earlier about using infrastructure to level up, and they are absolutely right—we need to link local communities to where the jobs are, so transport matters. Why, then, is there a lack of joined-up government? The Treasury is paying billions towards High Speed 2 coming to Manchester, yet the Bill before Parliament will sever the Metrolink line through Audenshaw in my constituency to Manchester, meaning that the tram will not be able to run for two years. That is not levelling up, is it?
Mr Simon Clarke
What is levelling up is making sure that we have a colossal programme of transport investment designed to ensure that the connections both between regions and within regions are as strong as they can be, and I refer to the £96 billion integrated rail plan, which sits at the heart of our ambition in this space. Clearly the specifics of the proposal that the hon. Gentleman mentions are for Transport Ministers and the Mayor of Greater Manchester to discuss.
Mr Speaker
I let questions run on because the writs were moved earlier and we were late starting.
Northern Ireland Protocol
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Secretary of State, I wish to make a short statement in the context of this session. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on sub judice matters to further extend the waiver granted for proceedings in January to allow full reference to the challenge to the Northern Ireland protocol and to allow limited reference to the active legal proceedings.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Northern Ireland protocol and to lay out the next steps. Our first priority is to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. That agreement put in place a new arrangement for the governance of Northern Ireland and these islands composed of three interlocking strands: a power-sharing Government at Stormont on the basis of consent and parity of esteem for all communities; intensified north-south co-operation on the island of Ireland; and enhanced arrangements for east-west co-operation. So much of the progress we have seen in Northern Ireland rests on this agreement, and for the agreement to continue to operate successfully, all three strands must function successfully. These arrangements are the foundation on which the modern, thriving Northern Ireland is built. It commands the support of parties across this House, and we will continue to work with all communities in Northern Ireland to protect it.
As a Government, we want to see a First Minister and Deputy First Minister in place, and we want to work with them to make further progress. The basis for successful power sharing remains strong, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid out yesterday. However, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is under strain, and, regrettably, the Northern Ireland Executive has not been fully functioning since early February. This is because the Northern Ireland protocol does not have the support necessary in one part of the community in Northern Ireland. I also note that all Northern Ireland’s political parties agree on the need for changes to the protocol.
The practical problems are clear to see. As the House will know, the protocol has not yet been implemented in full, due to the operation of grace periods and easements. However, EU customs procedures for moving goods within the UK have already meant that companies are facing significant costs and paperwork. Some businesses have stopped this trade altogether. These challenges have been sharpened by the post-covid economic recovery. Rules on taxation mean that citizens in Northern Ireland are unable to benefit fully from the same advantages as the rest of the UK, such as the reduction in VAT on solar panels. Sanitary and phytosanitary rules mean that producers face onerous restrictions, including veterinary certification, in order to sell foodstuffs in shops in Northern Ireland.
These practical problems have contributed to the sense that the east-west relationship has been undermined. Without resolving these and other issues, we will not be able to re-establish the Executive and preserve the hard-won progress sustained by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We need to restore the balance in the agreement.
Our preference is to reach a negotiated outcome with the EU; we have worked tirelessly to that end and will continue to do so. I have had six months of negotiations with Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, which follow a year of discussions undertaken by my predecessor. The UK has proposed what we believe to be a comprehensive and reasonable solution to deliver on the objectives of the protocol. This includes a trusted trader scheme to provide the EU with real-time commercial data, giving it confidence that goods intended for Northern Ireland are not entering the EU single market. We are already sharing over 1 million rows of goods movement data with the EU every week.
Our proposed solution would meet both our and the EU’s original objectives for the protocol. It would address the frictions in east-west trade while protecting the EU single market and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The challenge is that this solution requires a change in the protocol itself, as its current drafting prevents it from being implemented, but the EU’s mandate does not allow the protocol to be changed. That is why its current proposals are unable to address the fundamental concerns. In fact, it is our assessment that they would go backward from the situation we have today with the standstill.
As the Prime Minister said, our shared objective must be to find a solution that can command the broadest possible cross-community support for years to come and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. That is why I am announcing our intention to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to make changes in the protocol.
Our preference remains a negotiated solution with the EU. In parallel with the legislation being introduced, we remain open to further talks if we can achieve the same outcome through a negotiated settlement. I have invited Vice-President Šefčovič to a meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee in London to discuss that as soon as possible.
However, to respond to the very grave and serious situation in Northern Ireland, we are clear that there is a necessity to act to ensure that the institutions can be restored as soon as possible. The Government are clear that proceeding with the Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law and in support of our prior obligations in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Before any changes are made, we will consult businesses and people in Northern Ireland as our proposals are put forward.
I want to be clear to the House that this is not about scrapping the protocol; our aim is to deliver on the protocol’s objectives. We will cement the provisions in the protocol that are working, including the common travel area, the single electricity market and north-south co-operation, while fixing those elements that are not, such as the movement of goods, goods regulation, VAT, subsidy control and governance.
The Bill will put in place the necessary measures to lessen the burden on east-west trade and to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are able to access the same benefits as the people of Great Britain. It will ensure that goods moving and staying within the UK are freed of unnecessary bureaucracy through our new green channel.
That respects Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory and protects the UK internal market. At the same time, it ensures that goods destined for the EU undergo the full checks and controls applied under EU law. That will be underpinned by the data-sharing arrangements that I have already set out. It will allow both east-west trade and the EU single market to be protected while removing customs paperwork for goods remaining in the United Kingdom.
The Bill will remove regulatory barriers to goods made to UK standards being sold in Northern Ireland. Businesses will be able to choose between meeting UK or EU standards in a new dual regulatory regime. It will provide the Government with the ability to decide on tax and spend policies across the whole United Kingdom. It will address issues related to governance, bringing the protocol in line with international norms. At the same time, it will take new measures to protect the EU single market by implementing robust penalties for those who seek to abuse the new system, and it will continue to ensure that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.
I will publish more detail on these solutions in the coming weeks, and let me be crystal clear that, even as we do so, we will continue to engage with the EU. The Bill will contain an explicit power to give effect to a new, revised protocol if we can reach an accommodation that meets our goal of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We remain open to a negotiated solution, but the urgency of the situation means we cannot afford to delay any longer. The UK has clear responsibilities as the sovereign Government of Northern Ireland to ensure parity of esteem and the protection of economic rights. We are clear that the EU will not be negatively impacted in any way, just as we have ensured the protection of the EU single market since the existence of the protocol.
We must restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all of its dimensions as the basis for the restoration of the Executive, and we will do so through technical measures designed to achieve the stated objectives of the protocol, tailored to the reality of Northern Ireland. We will do so in a way that fundamentally respects both Unions—that of the United Kingdom and that of the EU—and we will live up to our commitments to all communities of Northern Ireland. As co-signatory and co-guarantor of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, we will take the necessary decisions to preserve peace and stability. I commend this statement to the House.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
We are grateful for advance sight of the statement from the Foreign Secretary, and I apologise on behalf of the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is unfortunately self-isolating due to covid.
It is over two and a half years since the Government negotiated and signed the withdrawal agreement. That deal included the Northern Ireland protocol, which required, by its design, some trade barriers and checks in the Irish sea. That was clear from the outset and it was a choice by this Prime Minister and by the Government, yet now, barely two years later, the Government are trying to convince people that their flagship achievement was not a negotiating triumph, but a deal so flawed that they cannot abide by it. Either they did not understand their own agreement, they were not up front about the reality of it, or they intended to break it all along. The Prime Minister negotiated this deal, signed it and ran an election campaign on it. He must take responsibility for it and make it work.
The situation in Northern Ireland is incredibly serious. Power sharing has broken down, Stormont is not functioning and political tensions have risen, while people in communities across Northern Ireland face rising bills as the cost of living crisis deepens. The operation of the protocol has created new tensions that do need to be addressed by listening to all sides, as well as to business and to consumers, and both the UK Government and the EU need to show willing and good faith. This is not a time for political posturing or high-stakes brinkmanship.
Everyone recognises that the situation in Northern Ireland is unique, and we want checks to be reduced to their absolute necessary minimum and for them to properly reflect trade-related risks. It cannot be right, for example, that goods leaving Great Britain that have no realistic prospect of leaving Northern Ireland, such as supermarket sandwiches, face excessive burdens, and the EU needs to understand that practical reality. Unnecessary barriers will only hamper business, inhibit trade and undermine confidence and consent.
The Good Friday agreement was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. It is absolutely essential that it is protected. That is why we need calm heads and responsible leadership. We need a UK Government capable of the hard diplomatic graft to find solutions and an EU willing to show flexibility. The right response to these challenges cannot simply be to breach our commitments. It is deeply troubling for the Foreign Secretary to be proposing a Bill to apparently break the treaty that the Government themselves signed just two years ago. That will not resolve issues in Northern Ireland in the long term; rather, it will undermine trust and make a breakthrough more difficult. It would drive a downward spiral in our relationship with the EU that will have damaging consequences for British businesses and consumers. It is Cornish fisherman, County Down farmers and Scotch whisky makers who will lose out, holding back the economy while growth forecasts are already being revised down.
But this goes beyond matters of trade. Britain should be a country that keeps its word. The rest of the world is looking at us and wondering whether we are a country that they want to do business with. When we seek to negotiate new deals abroad, do the Government want to make other countries question whether we will keep our end of the bargain? There are wide-ranging and damaging repercussions, undermining our ability to hold others to account for their own commitments, when we should be pulling together in support of Ukraine, for example, not fuelling divisions with our European allies.
The right approach is for the Government and the EU to work together to find practical solutions to these problems, and to brief the media less and to negotiate more. There is no long-term unilateral solution, and only a solution that works for all sides and delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland will have durability and provide the political stability that businesses crave and the public deserve. We believe that should begin with a veterinary agreement that would eliminate the vast majority of checks on produce going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. New Zealand has an equivalence agreement, and it should not be beyond the Government and the EU to negotiate one that reflects the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland.
We would also negotiate with the EU for more flexibility on VAT in Northern Ireland, to fully align Northern Ireland VAT rules with those of Great Britain. We would use that to take VAT off Northern Ireland energy bills, funded by a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producer profits, to help ease the cost of living crisis.
If the Government are determined to plough on with the Bill that the Foreign Secretary has proposed, will they agree to prelegislative scrutiny by the Foreign Affairs Committee, and will they set out clearly to the House why this does not break international law?
Labour wants to make Brexit work and for Britain to flourish outside the EU. We want the Government to take responsibility for the deal they signed, to negotiate in good faith and to find practical solutions, not take reckless steps to prolong uncertainty in Northern Ireland and damage Britain’s reputation. We want the EU to show the necessary flexibility, to minimise all barriers, and to work with the UK Government and listen to all sides in Northern Ireland. That is the right approach, that is the responsible approach, and it is what is in the long-term interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Truss
Our priority, as the United Kingdom Government, has to be peace and stability in Northern Ireland and protection of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is vitally important that we get the Executive back up and running and functioning, and that we fix the very real issues with the Northern Ireland protocol.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgment that there are issues with taxation, with customs, and with procedures and bureaucracy. Fixing those issues does require the EU to be open to changing the protocol. As yet, and I have had six months of talks with Vice-President Šefčovič—my predecessor had 12 months of talks—the EU has been unwilling to open the protocol. Without that, we cannot deal with the tax issue, we cannot deal with the customs issue and we will not sort out the fundamental issues in Northern Ireland. It is our responsibility, as the Government of the United Kingdom, to restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement to get the Executive up and running.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about legality, we are very clear that this is legal in international law, and we will be setting out our legal position in due course.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it’s inconvenient, if government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself.”
Those are not my words, but Margaret Thatcher’s. Respect for the rule of law runs deep in our Tory veins, and I find it extraordinary that a Tory Government need to be reminded of that. Could my right hon. Friend assure me that support for, and honouring of, the rule of law is what she and the Government are committed to?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to upholding the rule of law. We are clear that this Bill is legal in international law, and we will set out the legal position in due course.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Richard Thomson.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. We have heard plenty about the alleged shortcomings of the protocol, but there should be acknowledgement of the Government’s role in negotiating it; that does not even seem to have reached the level of being limited and specific, from what we have heard today. Ultimately the problem this legislation purports to deal with is not to do with the protocol, which was made necessary by the kind of Brexit that the Government eventually negotiated; the seed of the problem was in the very nature of the settlement.
Neither my colleagues nor I deny for one moment the hurt and upset caused to many in Northern Ireland by the protocol, but we must not forget that Scotland and Northern Ireland as a whole both voted against Brexit, and that there was not cross-Union consent for where we are now. If the consequences of that deal are judged to be not in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, we need to be honest and recognise that the consequences of the entire withdrawal agreement are not in the interests of any place in the UK, because “getting Brexit done” has meant border checks for goods going from Great Britain to the EU or to Northern Ireland, but an absolute free-for-all for anything coming into Great Britain.
We on the SNP Benches have said all along that a stable agreement needs to be reached with the EU that works for all parts of the UK, and I genuinely wish the UK Government well in that, but with the crisis in Ukraine, the last thing we need to be doing is thrashing around here pointlessly in a snare of our own making. Domestic legislation will, even if passed, not wash away the need to comply with international commitments; nor will it change the fact that if the UK is neither in nor aligned with the single market and customs union, that still creates a trade border that needs to go somewhere.
Restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland and resolving the self-inflicted wounds of Brexit will require good will, trust and a negotiated settlement. I am sorry to say that the threats of unilateral legislative action by this Government to override their own deal are unlikely to be taken seriously in Belfast, and will not be taken seriously in Brussels; there is absolutely no reason why they should be taken seriously in this place either.
Elizabeth Truss
I have been very clear that we are open to a negotiated solution, but that negotiated solution needs to deliver on the ground in Northern Ireland and address the very real problems with the protocol, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledges—namely the fact that the people of Northern Ireland cannot currently benefit from UK tax and state aid decisions, and the fact that there is still full customs implementation on goods coming into Northern Ireland. In order to address those issues, it is not just the implementation of the protocol that needs to be addressed; the protocol itself needs to change, and we need that change in the mandate from the EU. It is absolutely our preference to have a negotiated solution with the EU, but we have to be clear that those changes need to happen; otherwise the protocol simply will not deliver on the ground in Northern Ireland, or restore the balance as set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we will not see the Executive in Northern Ireland back up and running, which is what we want.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The EU’s approach to the protocol is so unreasonable that it is banning the movement of tree saplings from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for planting for the Queen’s platinum jubilee. Will the Foreign Secretary promise that her new enhanced green channel will disapply not just customs rules, but these unreasonable and excessive sanitary and phytosanitary rules on plants and foods?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is right to point out the very real issues the protocol is causing, particularly on SPS rules, and particularly in respect of goods that there is no plan to transport to the Republic of Ireland. She is right that our proposals will ensure those goods are able to travel freely through the green lane into Northern Ireland as part of a trusted trader scheme. For any company violating that scheme and not following the rules, there will be enforcement, so that we make sure we protect the EU single market. This is a pragmatic solution. We are supplying commercial data to the EU in real time, so that it can manage the EU single market while we protect our UK single market.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I agree that the Commission needs to move further to reduce unnecessary checks and paperwork on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; a sandwich made in Yorkshire and sold in Belfast presents no threat whatsoever to the integrity of the European Union single market. However, why does the Foreign Secretary think that threatening to change an international treaty unilaterally—I look forward to seeing the description of why that is legal—will encourage the Commission to change its approach, especially when it is likely to undermine trust further, and may result in trade retaliation, which is not in the interests of any of our constituents?
Elizabeth Truss
The right hon. Gentleman points out that we need more flexibility from the EU, and need a changed mandate. His point about sandwiches from Yorkshire cannot be addressed through the operation of the protocol; the protocol itself needs to be changed. I have had six months of discussions with Maroš Šefčovič—my predecessor had a year of discussions—and there still has not been agreement from the EU on changing the protocol, which would fix the issues the right hon. Gentleman raised. We have seen the Belfast/Good Friday agreement undermined; we have seen the balance upset in Northern Ireland; and we have not seen the Executive fully functioning since February. In the absence of being able to achieve a negotiated solution with the EU, we are bringing forward legislation, but I am very clear that I am hopeful that the EU will change its position and be prepared to enter negotiations on that, in order to fix the very real issues that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
On the response from the EU, I point out that our solution makes the EU no worse off. We have proposals to protect the single market and to ensure enforcement of the green and red lanes. I hope that it looks at our proposals in a reasonable way, just as we are putting them forward in a reasonable way, and that we can work together on a solution.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on her excellent statement, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which enables the Foreign Secretary’s Bill to use our sovereignty, notwithstanding the protocol. Will she also ensure, through instructions to parliamentary counsel, that the Bill fully satisfies requirements when it comes to our sovereignty, the constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and the Good Friday agreement, and will she ensure that the European Court of Justice and EU law do not displace UK law? I also strongly urge her to take the advice of the Attorney General on matters of international law, despite siren voices to the contrary.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his great expertise on this matter. To be clear, on the European Court of Justice, our solution is to have an arbitration mechanism in place, as we do for the trade and co-operation agreement, rather than having the ECJ as the final arbiter.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
From the outset, the Democratic Unionist party warned this House of the consequences of the protocol, and that is why we opposed it from the beginning; we recognised the political and economic instability it would cause, and the harm that it would create for the Union.
Today’s statement is a welcome, if overdue, step. It is a significant move towards addressing the problems created by the protocol, and towards getting power-sharing based on cross-community consensus up and running again. We hope to see progress on a Bill to deal with these matters in days or weeks, not months. As the legislation progresses, we will take a graduated and cautious approach.
We want the Irish sea border removed, and we want the Government to honour their commitment in the New Decade, New Approach agreement to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. The statement today indicates that that will be covered in legislation that brings about revised arrangements. Under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, power sharing can be stable only if there is cross-community consensus, but there is not consensus on this at the moment on the part of the Unionist community. We want the political institutions functioning properly as soon as possible, but to restore Unionist confidence, decisive action is now needed in the form of legislation, in order to repair the harm that the protocol has done to the Acts of Union, and in order to put in place sensible arrangements that, in the words of the Queen’s Speech, ensure the
“continued success and integrity of the whole of the United Kingdom...including the internal economic bonds between all of its parts.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. 3.]
The words today are a good start, but the Foreign Secretary will know that actions speak louder than words. I welcome her commitment to decisive action in her statement to the House.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. What everybody in Northern Ireland agrees on—all parties—is that the Northern Ireland protocol is not working, and we do not have cross-party consent to move forward. It is vital to restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which provided for power sharing in Northern Ireland to ensure that we have the consent of all communities. The Government’s priority, above all else, is to protect peace and stability in Northern Ireland. That is our first duty as a sovereign Government of the United Kingdom.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
We are hearing a lot in today’s discussion about the legal position of the United Kingdom, but having read the protocol carefully, it seems to me that there is a real question mark around the legal position of the European Union. The protocol contains many caveats relating to the protection of community relations in Northern Ireland, none of which appears to be being fulfilled. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that she takes proper legal advice about the EU’s position, and that we do not just listen to all the comments about our position?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue with the protocol is that although we entered into it in good faith, it has not operated as we foresaw, and it is causing the real problems that we see in Northern Ireland today. That is why our No. 1 priority is to seek a negotiated solution with the EU, but in the absence of that option, it is important that we act now to restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, so that we can restore the balance in Northern Ireland and ensure that all communities there are treated with esteem.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Why should the hard-pressed public of the United Kingdom, facing an unprecedented cost of living crisis, pay even higher prices as a result of a trade war with our main trading partners because the Foreign Secretary and the DUP want to tear up the agreement that the Prime Minister negotiated and the Foreign Secretary voted for?
Elizabeth Truss
I am clear that our priority is to seek a negotiated solution with the EU, and none of the proposals that I have put forward makes the EU any worse off. We want a solution that works for the EU single market and for the UK single market. The reality is that the people of Northern Ireland are paying higher prices as a result of the operation of the protocol—for example, the Road Haulage Association says that it has caused a 34% increase in the cost of moving goods to Northern Ireland—so we are facing a real cost of living impact in Northern Ireland. We want to fix the protocol to the benefit of both the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Article 1 of the protocol makes it clear that that agreement is to be “without prejudice” to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. That means, surely, that the Good Friday agreement takes primacy over the protocol. If that is right, what evidence will my right hon. Friend bring forward to make it clear that change is necessary if we are to avoid a degrading in the constitutional order, and order generally, in Northern Ireland?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has been vital for peace and stability in Northern Ireland. It is our priority to restore that. As I said, we will set out our legal position in due course.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
What we have heard from the Government today is absolutely astonishing. This morning, they announced that they will ride roughshod over the wishes of victims in Northern Ireland by ripping up an international agreement called the Stormont House agreement. The Foreign Secretary has now confirmed that she will go against the majority of citizens in Northern Ireland—who, despite what she might say, support the protocol—by ripping up an international agreement called the withdrawal agreement. It is a very simple question, despite what some who may not want to listen to the majority of people in Northern Ireland might say: how can any international partner or any citizen in the north of Ireland ever trust this Government again?
Elizabeth Truss
An overwhelming proportion of people in Northern Ireland—78%—agreed that the protocol needed to change in polling conducted in December 2021. It is simply not true to say that a majority of people in Northern Ireland support the protocol. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is based on power sharing and esteem for all communities, and we want—ideally with the EU—to find a solution that works for all communities in Northern Ireland.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Last Thursday, the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly met for the first time in Brussels, where we had a lively encounter between the Paymaster General and Commissioner Šefčovič. Members were able to ask about the sorts of points discussed today, and it was clear that Commissioner Šefčovič believed that there was a landing place for an agreement on these difficult matters. May I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to go the extra mile and see if we can get an agreement? If we could, that would open up opportunities for co-operation in energy, science and so many other things.
Elizabeth Truss
I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that that is absolutely what I want to do. I spoke to Commissioner Šefčovič last night, and I want to see a meeting of the Joint Committee immediately to discuss this issue. But, to fix the very real issues and change the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland, particularly on areas such as customs and tax where points are baked into the protocol, we need changes to the protocol. I have had numerous discussions with Maroš Šefčovič about that, but, as yet, there is not agreement for his mandate for change to include changes to the protocol. That is the fundamental issue that we are facing, but I am very, very willing to have those discussions. I will see the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, later this week for further discussions. We are very open to resolving the issues between the UK and the EU, but we do need real acknowledgment of what is happening on the ground in Northern Ireland and of the fact that the protocol needs to change.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
So much for getting Brexit done and so much for oven-ready. What is the cost of the proposed actions? The Treasury has drawn up economic impact assessments for this course of action. When will the Government release them for the House to see?
Elizabeth Truss
The solution that we are putting forward will actually save costs by reducing the bureaucracy that traders currently face when shipping goods into Northern Ireland. So our overall proposal benefits traders into Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland; it does not make the EU any worse off, and it helps to protect the single market.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement, as I am sure will the Nobel laureate Lord Trimble, who wrote in a national newspaper this morning that it was urgent to address the problems of the protocol. As an architect of it with John Hume nearly a quarter of a century ago, he also raised the issue of the adverse influence of the European Court of Justice in Northern Ireland. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that under her sixth heading, which I think she called governance, she will take action on that issue as well?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will take action to ensure that the arbitration mechanism is in place for Northern Ireland, as it is in the trade and co-operation agreement, rather than having the ECJ as the final arbiter, which it is at present. He is right to highlight the article today by Lord Trimble. We need to go back to the original thinking behind the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which was about treating the communities of Northern Ireland with equal esteem to make sure that we have successful arrangements in place to protect peace and political stability. That has to be this Government’s priority.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The protocol represents Northern Ireland’s soft landing from this Government’s decision to have a hard Brexit. Let me be very, very clear: in Northern Ireland there is a majority of voters, MLAs and the business community who want to see the issues with the protocol addressed in a pragmatic way, through building trust and partnership with the European Union, and not through damaging unilateral action that will damage the UK’s international reputation, including with the United States. Specifically on the European Court of Justice, does the Foreign Secretary understand that if she tinkers with that jurisdiction it will force Northern Ireland out of the single market for goods and undermine Northern Ireland’s ability to trap investment in terms of our dual access to both the European Union and Great Britain?
Elizabeth Truss
What we are proposing for Northern Ireland is a dual regulatory system that encompasses either EU or UK regulation as those businesses choose, which reflects its unique status of having a close relationship with the EU while being part of the UK single market.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The powerful article by Lord Trimble, one of the architects of the Good Friday agreement, makes it very clear that the maintenance of that agreement overcomes everything else. To that extent, it would be helpful if Opposition Members who bang on about this read the protocol. Article 13.8 makes it absolutely clear that the protocol can, through negotiation, be changed in whole or in part. The point, therefore, is that my right hon. Friend is quite correct. The EU now needs to step up to its responsibilities in the protocol and do what article 13.8 tells it to do.
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is right. The protocol was never designed to be set in stone. What we have seen are the very real consequences of the protocol, which has not yet been fully implemented, on the ground in Northern Ireland. It has caused political instability and an imbalance in the relationship between the communities in Northern Ireland, and we need to fix that. My strong preference is for the EU to secure a change in its mandate so we can find a negotiated settlement. I completely agree with Commissioner Šefčovič that there is a landing zone to be had, but we need to see flexibility so we can really make sure that there is a proper green channel operating into Northern Ireland, that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from the same tax benefits as the people of Great Britain, and that we can fix those problems in a sustainable way.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
With a cost of living crisis and rising tension in Northern Ireland, the last thing our country needs is a poisonous stand-off with the EU and the prospect of a trade war with our largest trading partner. Until recently, the Prime Minister himself was saying, “Don’t worry, it’s all okay, there will be no border down the Irish sea,” and Ministers were incredulously parroting the line that we will only break international law in a limited and specific way. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is the pinnacle of incompetence or deceit for someone to negotiate and sign a deal when they have no intention whatever of honouring that deal?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have said, our priority is securing peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and restoring the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The protocol was agreed in good faith, but it has had unintended consequences. It is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to take action to restore the balance. Our preference is a negotiated solution with the EU. We think there is a landing zone to achieve that, but it requires the EU to change its mandate.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I just point out to my right hon. Friend that I only reluctantly voted for the protocol and the withdrawal agreement on the basis that we were not allowed to conclude a permanent trading agreement with the EU until we left and that it would be superseded or overtaken in due course? May I also just point out that apart from the disagreement about whether we should have legislation, there seems to be very broad agreement across the House, as there was when I proposed a motion to this House on 15 July last year, which the Labour party actually supported with very warm words, saying there were legitimate concerns among the Unionist community that had to be addressed? It is a shame that the Labour party will not will the means as well as the ends, but can I invite my right hon. Friend to engage with the reasonable elements of the Labour party to support her negotiating position so that we can reach a negotiated settlement?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very happy to engage with colleagues across the House, in particular to explain why there needs to be a change in the protocol itself to fix the issues about making a clear green lane between GB and Northern Ireland and on resolving the taxation issues. That is the fundamental issue in the negotiations with the EU, which we have conducted in good faith. I have had numerous negotiations and conversations with Commissioner Šefčovič over the past six months, but fundamentally the EU’s mandate does not allow the changes to be made that would help us to create the green lane and the free flow of goods between GB and Northern Ireland, and to address the unfairness in the tax system whereby a cut in VAT on solar panels announced by the Chancellor cannot be implemented for the people of Northern Ireland.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
However the Foreign Secretary may dress it up, unilaterally changing a previously agreed international treaty is breaking it, and it is doublespeak to suggest otherwise. The consequences are real: ordinary families up and down this country will have higher prices to pay because of a trade war. Will she take this opportunity to be honest with the British people? If we get to the point where tariffs are raised as a result of a trade war with the EU, how much will they have to pay? Or does she not care?
Elizabeth Truss
We are very clear that the Bill is legal in international law and, as I have said, we will set out our legal position in due course. Our proposals, which we will outline in more detail over the coming weeks, are very clear about how we protect the EU single market. Currently, businesses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain are facing increased costs as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. Our proposals would deal with those costs while protecting the EU single market. The EU will be no worse off as a result of our proposals.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
There is genuine anger in the loyalist community about the protocol and the way in which many people feel it undermines their British identity. Now it has been unanimously rejected at the ballot box by the Unionist community, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that if the negotiations continue to fail we will see a Bill in this House in the coming days and weeks, not months?
Elizabeth Truss
We are committed to introducing a Bill to resolve the very real issues on the ground in Northern Ireland. In parallel, we are open to negotiations with the EU, but in order to proceed on those negotiations the EU does have to be willing to change the protocol itself to fix those very real issues.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary knows that there were only three ways of protecting Northern Ireland’s special position after Brexit: a land border on the island of Ireland, which we all reject; closer alignment between the UK and the EU, which business wanted but the Government rejected; and a sea border. The Prime Minister chose a sea border. He knew the checks that that would involve, but he denied it to the Unionist community. There are solutions that can be negotiated, but is not the reason for today’s statement that the Government and the Foreign Secretary, for reasons of her own ambition, see advantage in fuelling Brexit divisions?
Elizabeth Truss
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. There is a solution, which we have put to the EU. Commercial data that is collected in the normal course of business can be shared, in real time, with the EU as well as making sure that there are strong protections on the trusted trader scheme so that any untoward activities are acted against. We can do all that, make that happen and protect the EU single market, while, at the same time, enabling the free flow of trade. What we need, though, is flexibility in the EU’s mandate so that it is prepared to change the protocol. As many in the House have said, the protocol was never intended to be set in stone, but it is our duty, as the United Kingdom Government, to act to restore peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said about the deal we signed up to. Some of us were always clear this was a tolerable path to a great future. The thing that made it only tolerable was that we knew that this was unfinished business. Today, we face just the problems that the protocol foresaw. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, the protocol has provision for it to be changed. As I welcome this as the right solution for the way forward—and what nonsense we have heard; this is a solution that could be negotiated—I ask her to repeat once again that we will protect the EU’s legitimate interests as we restore the primacy of the Good Friday agreement and the constitutional integrity of the UK.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have established the trusted trader scheme and the sharing of commercial data with the EU. What we are proposing, as part of this Bill, is proper enforcement to make sure that the EU single market is protected. In our view, that is the best solution; it makes sure that there is free flow of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland while, at the same time, protecting the EU single market. As we have heard across the House, people recognise that there are real issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. My No. 1 preference is to get a negotiated solution with the EU, but it has to be willing to look at these types of pragmatic solutions that will both protect the EU single market and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary must be alarmed at the comments that emerged this morning from the chairman of Marks & Spencer. He has already had to close his business in France. His business in the Republic of Ireland is about to close—[Interruption.] Oh, he is a Conservative; therefore, he should not be doing business—that seems to be the Liberal view emerging. To export goods, his business in the Republic of Ireland has to fill in 700 pages within an eight-hour period. It has to do some of the wording in Latin to satisfy the European Community, and it also has to be typed in a certain font or it will not be allowed. It costs him an additional £30 million. He said on the radio this morning that the EU told him that it would like the same procedures for his businesses in Northern Ireland. This is a power grab. People talk about a trade war—this is a trade war to crush business in Northern Ireland. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure, when she is speaking to the Cabinet, that it knows clearly that if it keeps the protocol, power sharing is not coming back?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been very clear in my statement that we are bringing forward legislation to sort this issue out and to deal with the bureaucracy that we are seeing—the requirement for customs declarations and customs codes from businesses that are simply operating within the United Kingdom. That is why we want to create the green lane that allows properly protected goods to move freely within the United Kingdom, and we are committed to that legislation. In the meantime, if the EU is prepared, in parallel, to move to a negotiated settlement to resolve the very issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, we are of course open to those talks, but we will not allow it to delay our taking the action we need to take to restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In the last Parliament, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, under my chairmanship, produced a comprehensive set of alternative arrangements that were workable and high-tech and that would erase the need for the current perniciously applied checks that most in this House agree are unnecessary. Given that they would satisfy the EU’s stated objections, why does she think that the EU have stonewalled them?
Elizabeth Truss
I am not going to speculate as to why the EU has not changed its negotiating mandate, but it is very clear that there is a solution—my right hon. Friend worked very hard on that—that satisfies the requirement to protect the EU single market and, at the same time, restores the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We need to make sure that we move forward as fast as we can to that solution.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
To make his EU deal work, the Prime Minister inserted a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some accepted the absurd claim that there would not be any checks across that border. That misjudgment has proved electorally disastrous and potentially fatal to the Union. The Foreign Secretary has announced today that the Government may well breach the agreement that the Prime Minister negotiated. What assessment has she made of the impact of that announcement on trade negotiations that are under way with other countries around the world?
Elizabeth Truss
As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, there are very real issues about the way the Northern Ireland protocol is working. We need to fix the Northern Ireland protocol. Our preference is for a negotiated solution, but if that is not possible, we are putting legislation through the House of Commons and through Parliament. As I said, we are clear that the Bill is legal in international law, so there is no question of violating international law.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Depending on which newspaper I have read over the past two days, I can understand either that the Government want to tear up the protocol altogether or that they see this proposal as an insurance policy while negotiations continue. My right hon. Friend has been clear this morning that the latter interpretation would be correct. I welcome that very much and ask her to try to ensure that, while the negotiations are going on, there is some consistency in Government messaging that, actually, a negotiated settlement would be preferable.
Elizabeth Truss
There are some things that are within my powers and some things that are not, and controlling what the British media print is simply not within my power. We are very clear that we are not about scrapping or tearing up the protocol. We want to change the protocol, ideally working with the European Union, but the mandate does have to change to get the changes on the ground that we need to see. In the absence of that, the legislation will ensure that those changes are made. There is provision specifically in the legislation to implement a negotiated solution; I was very clear about that in my statement.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Last week it was reported that the Attorney General has provided legal advice as part of the background to this Bill. I have no doubt that that will be based on her views on parliamentary sovereignty and the supremacy of domestic law, with which she previously favoured this Chamber the last time we were planning on breaking international law. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) says that we should ignore “siren voices to the contrary”, but the difficulty for the Foreign Secretary, the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Stone is that the siren voices to the contrary include the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Has the Foreign Secretary read paragraph 55 of the judgment in the first Miller case, which was about triggering article 50, in which the Supreme Court is clear that international treaties signed by the UK Government are binding on the UK in terms of international law and that, as such, our obligations under them cannot be unilaterally rewritten? Is she aware of that?
Elizabeth Truss
We fully respect the rule of law, and we are very clear that this Bill is in line with international law.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I realise the importance of this statement, but I inform Members that we have a very well-subscribed debate to follow, so it would be helpful if we could have brief questions.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What is absolutely clear is that those hon. Members seeking to undermine the Government’s negotiating position have not emerged from the trenches they dug themselves in the last Parliament, have they?
Elizabeth Truss
What I think we have heard today is that Members on both sides of the House agree that there is a real problem with the way the Northern Ireland protocol is operating, and that needs to be solved. I hear people saying that they want to get an agreed solution with the EU. I hope that the EU will change its negotiating mandates so that we are able to achieve that.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary made it clear that one of her primary reasons for acting in this way is to try to get the Executive back up and running in Northern Ireland. However, she also said in her statement that the Bill
“ensures that goods destined for the EU under the full checks and controls”,
so there will still be checks. On that basis, has she received an assurance from the DUP that, even with these continued checks, it will agree to re-enter the Executive?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been clear that our No. 1 priority is to restore the balance in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has been undermined by the operation of the protocol. What we are proposing—and I will be bringing out more details on this in due course—is a green lane of trusted traders that is properly protected for goods into Northern Ireland, and a red lane for goods that have to go through the full customs controls into the EU single market. I am very clear that, as well as the protection of the UK single market, part of our agreement is the protection of the EU single market.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s repeated insistence on her intention for a negotiated settlement. Echoing the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), I emphasise that that is important not just in terms of the overall objective but in terms of the United Kingdom’s international reputation and our ability to demonstrate that we act with the greatest concern for our legal obligations. Will she consider making available in due course the draft of any proposed legislation, so that those of us who wish to work constructively with the Government to make sure that we do this lawfully can test the proportionality of the measures against the objectives and the legal advice she has received?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have said, our priority is to secure a negotiated solution. It will require the EU changing its mandate, and I hope that, following today’s statement and the comments by Members right across this House, we will see some more flexibility from the EU. We are committed to acting in line with international law—we are very clear about that. We will set out our legal position in due course, and I am very happy to have more discussions with my hon. Friend about the precise contents of the Bill.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State referred to the need to ensure that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. Does she accept that there is no possibility that that could happen? It is simply not practical or possible. There is no political consent for it and it would be easily avoided if it were to come about. That is a nonsense that needs to be dismissed.
In terms of cross-community consensus, can the Secretary of State assure the House and the people of Northern Ireland that her Bill will be placed before Parliament before the summer recess, so that people can see what progress—practical rather than words—has been made?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very clear that we will be bringing the Bill out in the coming weeks. That is an important priority for this Government and we understand that we cannot see any more delay. We have already had 18 months of negotiations on this issue with the EU. Regrettably, we are not yet in a position where the EU is willing to consider changing the protocol. That is why we are obliged to take forward the Bill. During that time, as I have been very clear, we remain open to negotiations, provided that there is a willingness to address the real issues on the ground in Northern Ireland.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Members will remember the years of negotiating under the previous Prime Minister to try to withdraw from the European Union. That process was dragged out by the European Union, and it was only when we had a new Prime Minister, who acted decisively, that we withdrew from the EU and got a free trade agreement without any quotas. May I suggest to the Foreign Secretary that she should publish this Bill straightaway and get on with it, because the only way we will get the EU to come to the negotiating table and really negotiate with us is if we threaten them with that Bill? Can she be more precise about exactly when the Bill will be published—will it be next week or the week after?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is urgent that we act and I assure him that the Bill is coming in the following weeks.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Businesses and communities dealing with the consequences of Brexit need honesty and certainty, not the chaos and confusion of a potential trade war, so will the Foreign Secretary reassure them? She has repeatedly said today that what she intends to do is in line with international law and has talked about the trade and co-operation agreement. I know that she will not as yet publish the legal advice, but will she tell us which international laws she intends to abide by, what the adjudication mechanism might be, and whether the EU has agreed to it?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have made clear, our proposals are legal in international law and we will set out the legal position in due course.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has put forward sensible and practical proposals for protecting the integrity of the EU single market, and they could be quite easily reciprocated by the European Union. Has she put the proposals to Mr Šefčovič? If so, what was his response? If he has refused to accept them, what reason has he given?
Elizabeth Truss
I have put these proposals to Vice-President Šefčovič and we have had extensive discussions about how we make sure that both the UK single market and the EU single market have been protected. The issue for the European Commission in terms of accepting our proposals is that his mandate does not extend to changing the protocol, so he is unable to accept the proposals on that basis.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
What the Foreign Secretary and her Government are proposing will impact on all of our constituents, so will she explain to the people of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey how unilaterally breaking an international treaty and potentially sparking a trade war will help them with the £20 price increase they currently face on their average weekly shop?
Elizabeth Truss
Our priority in putting forward this legislation is to protect the hard-won peace and stability inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is our priority and that is why we are taking this Bill forward. We are very clear that the EU is no worse off as a result of the proposals, which protect the EU single market and make sure that there is no irregular activity.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Sadly, last week at the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, Vice-President Šefčovič used incredibly disappointing language in relation to the UK. Does she agree that it is incumbent on the EU to enter into sensible negotiations with the United Kingdom to find practical and deliverable solutions to the real problems faced by the people of Northern Ireland? It is incumbent on us and the EU to work together to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
Elizabeth Truss
We have engaged in negotiations with the EU in good faith. We want to achieve the practical solution in all the areas that I laid out, including customs, taxation and governance. Fundamentally, that requires a new mandate, so that we can see the increased flexibility that will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome Foreign Secretary’s commitment to address the issue, but I urge her not to give in to those who today in this House have shamelessly almost urged the EU to engage in a trade war with the UK; who have urged her to dismiss the views of the majority Unionist community, contrary to the Good Friday agreement; and who have ignored the fact that the EU has not acted in good faith and lived up to its commitments to seek alternative arrangements to the Northern Ireland protocol. Does she realise that, given the broken promises of the past, we can only judge what has been said today when we see a Bill progress through the House that outlines the points that she has made?
Elizabeth Truss
We are committed to bringing forward legislation to deal with this very real issue that is upsetting the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is why I am making this statement and why we are clear that we need to act.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the priority that she has given to the Belfast agreement is correct, and that the reasonable evolution of the protocol that she is proposing would not make the EU worse off, but would be better than its other border arrangements—for example, its trade arrangements on its eastern flank, with Belorussia?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our proposals would secure the single market and allow data sharing, which we are already doing on commercial data, on goods crossing the Irish sea. They also include strong enforcement provisions that compare very favourably with other customs arrangements around the world.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
A veterinary agreement would remove the vast majority of barriers to trade between GB and Northern Ireland, and is widely supported—by farmers, fishermen, the five parties in Northern Ireland, the European Union and the United States Government. Will the Foreign Secretary please explain why she has failed to agree a veterinary agreement with the European Union, as that is surely the pragmatic solution that she keeps saying she wants?
Elizabeth Truss
Various issues in the protocol are preventing the free flow of trade between GB and Northern Ireland, including customs codes. I want a comprehensive solution that creates a green channel in which commercial data is shared.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
International agreements are renegotiated and reopened all the time. Indeed, the European Union is a persistent and repeat renegotiator of international agreements—so much so that it was written into the protocol that it could be renegotiated. I also heard Maroš Šefčovič say last week that we could get to a landing zone on the issue, but it is quite clear that the EU’s over-zealous interpretation of some elements of the protocol and his lack of a mandate to get us there is preventing us from making our way to that landing ground. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the legislation that she is proposing is the only way in which we can ensure the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the integrity of our United Kingdom?
Elizabeth Truss
Our proposals, which deal with customs bureaucracy and tax inequality, are ultimately the solution we need to deliver. If the EU has a new mandate and is prepared to look at those things, I am very clear that there is a landing zone with the EU. In the absence of that new mandate, we have to act, because this is about protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the balance between the communities in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, it is about protecting the entire United Kingdom.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister told this House in 2019 that the protocol that he negotiated was a
“great success for Northern Ireland…fully compatible with the Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 581.]
So to be clear, why are the Government now abandoning their oven-ready Brexit deal?
Elizabeth Truss
The protocol was agreed in good faith by the Prime Minister, but it has had unintended consequences. It is the duty of the Government to restore the balance in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Does she agree that, although we have heard many reasoned and well-evidenced examples from Opposition Members as to why the protocol is not working, we have not heard a single example—except for a veterinary agreement, I think—that shows the path towards solving any of the problems, other than saying that whatever she and this Government do must be wrong, obviously. Will she assure me that the proposed legislation will deal with all these complex matters and put to bed, once and for all, the issues in Northern Ireland for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland, as one United Kingdom?
Elizabeth Truss
The provisions in our Bill will do just that. We have heard acknowledgement from the Labour party that there are real concerns about the way in which the Northern Ireland protocol is operating, but we need to move to the solution, which requires the EU to change its mandate and the terms in the protocol itself. Otherwise, we cannot address the customs and tax issues. I urge the Opposition to look at that in more detail.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I sincerely lament that there are some MPs today—particularly from Northern Ireland—who have introduced a level of majoritarianism. That is not going to work in Northern Ireland; it is not how our system operates.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the work that the Northern Ireland Secretary has engaged in for some time. The House is aware of the White Paper that was published last summer and aware that the conditions to trigger article 16 had been met, and it is now fully aware of the constitutional imperative—for good governance and democracy in Northern Ireland—that this matter is resolved. I implore the Foreign Secretary, in recognising that urgency, that weeks and weeks for the introduction and passage of legislation is not quick enough; we need to see movement now.
Elizabeth Truss
I am giving this statement to the House today because we are bringing forward legislation in the coming weeks to address the precise issues mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He is right that, ultimately, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is founded on power sharing and respect for all communities in Northern Ireland, and that is what we are reflecting in our proposed solutions.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. The path that she has set out is exactly the right one, but there have been 18 months of negotiations so far, which have been met with what Lord Trimble describes in an article today as a “brick wall of intransigence”. Although a negotiated agreement is indeed the preferable solution, the protocol and its interpretation by the EU today are throwing up serious consequences for the Good Friday agreement, our economy and our Union, so will my right hon. Friend set a deadline by which the negotiations must be completed?
Elizabeth Truss
To be clear with my hon. Friend, we are bringing forward legislation in the coming weeks that will progress through Parliament as legislation normally does. In parallel, if we are able to reach a negotiated solution with the EU, which will require it to change its mandate, we can put that solution into the Bill by the time it gets to Royal Assent, but we will not allow the negotiations to slow down the path of legislation. That is important, because the situation is urgent. We have already had 18 months of negotiations that have not yet borne fruit, so we cannot allow any more delays.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Can I press the Foreign Secretary on why she is laying the ground for a trade war with our largest trading partners just as the Bank of England is warning of an “apocalyptic” rise in food prices? Those are the tactics she is using and the threats she is making. Will she meet the UK Trade and Business Commission to discuss our recommendations for a way of removing the bulk of checks in the Irish sea with a veterinary agreement and standards protection? The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) has made that same point. The Foreign Secretary says that she wants a wider agreement, but why not start with that veterinary agreement and with standards—unless she is in fact aiming to dilute and remove standards?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very clear that our proposed solution reduces bureaucracy all round. It will make the EU no worse off, in that we will continue to protect the single market, supply the commercial data and have strong enforcement mechanisms. I am very happy to hear the hon. Lady’s ideas in more detail, but the fundamental issue is that the customs requirements that are baked into the protocol are creating this bureaucracy, and without changing the protocol we are not able to deal with that.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her determination to see progress. I also welcome the point made by many Members that change is necessary. Does she agree that we share the common goals of maintaining economic prosperity for Northern Ireland and preserving the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the integrity of our respective Unions? Does she think that a focus on those goals is the key to getting through the next months?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We share those goals, and I know that everyone in this House is committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I have heard many across the House express an understanding of the problems that the Northern Ireland protocol is causing, and I think that where there is disagreement it is on how we pursue those goals. As I have said, I am open to a negotiated settlement, but it does require changes to the protocol. We cannot allow any further delay that would have a worsening effect on the position in Northern Ireland and further undermine the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Brexit is already making people poorer, and the Government are now risking plunging the UK into a trade war with our closest neighbour and biggest trading partner. For farmers in Somerset and Devon, this will be a disaster. The Foreign Secretary has already sold farmers down the river when she was International Trade Secretary. Is she prepared to do the same again to farmers across the south-west who are already teetering on the brink?
Elizabeth Truss
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of my time as Trade Secretary, when we opened new opportunities for British farmers around the world. I have always believed that the food Britain produces is so excellent that it is well capable of competing with other offers around the world.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should send a clear message to those in Brussels who would wish to see us backslide on Brexit or undermine and break up our precious Union that this will never be acceptable to this Government?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been clear that our priority is restoring the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. While our preference is to secure a negotiated outcome with the European Union, we cannot delay in taking the action we need to take to restore that balance in the Good Friday agreement and protect our precious Union.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The emergency safeguarding measures are provided with a legal basis under the protocol, but under the protocol they can only be temporary. The problem the Secretary of State has is that there is no legal basis within the protocol for a permanent change. She says that she wants a negotiated settlement, and of course we would all seek that, but how is the Bill that she proposes to introduce unilaterally in this House going to change the position in international law, which is that she cannot unilaterally abrogate the treaty that she has signed?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have said, the Bill is legal in international law and we will set out the position in due course.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Will she comment on the transfer of data within the UK’s trusted trader scheme to the EU and on how could that process be further improved?
Elizabeth Truss
We are already sharing large amounts of data that we collect as part of the trusted trader scheme with the EU to give reassurance that trade is not being diverted from the GB-Northern Ireland route into the EU. We want to build on that with enforcement measures so that those violating the trusted trader scheme are not allowed to continue to do so.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I am just wondering where we would be to today if the DUP had given in and set up an Executive. Would we be in this position where we can start—I call this a start—to try to redress some of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol?
I want to highlight one area. Many people in Northern Ireland have seen the protocol as the introduction of a surrender Act for Northern Ireland to become part of an all-Ireland economy. That has created its own difficulties. Many Members have focused on measures to do with veterinary medicine and food, but this affects every aspect of our economy, and I am mainly worried about the constitutional position and the message that that has given to Northern Ireland. To those who have seen it as a surrender Act, I am telling them today: it is no surrender.
Elizabeth Truss
There are fundamental issues that have been exposed since the protocol came into being that have damaged the east-west relationship for Northern Ireland, which is a key tenet of the Good Friday agreement. Those issues will have to be fixed; otherwise, they will be a running sore.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
If the Foreign Secretary had some self-awareness, she would realise that saying that the protocol had unintended consequences, and that the EU needed to change because it had somehow acted in bad faith by upholding the deal that the UK Government negotiated, was a ridiculous argument. If she has such an obvious customs solution that will not cost companies any more in IT roll-out, that will actually save companies money in the UK and Europe and that will protect the European single market, why does she not publish her proposals now, if they are so obvious and easy to move forward on?
Elizabeth Truss
I have explained the outline of the proposals, and I will be publishing more details in due course.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
It is curious that the Foreign Secretary chose to quote polling rather than the fresh election results that show a comfortable majority of people supporting the protocol and an even larger majority rejecting the idea of holding the institutions to ransom. She is misrepresenting our position and that of the people of Northern Ireland, who want the protocol as a protection from Brexit. While they are happy to see it evolve, they know that there was not a whisper about consent or consensus when the Conservatives and the DUP were voting gleefully for ever-harder versions of Brexit. Where there is unanimity, it is in distrust of the cynical approach of this Government. When will this Government stop using our fragile shared society for their own malign political needs?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady knows that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is based on the principle of power sharing. That requires the consent of all communities in Northern Ireland, and that is what we seek to achieve with the legislation we are putting forward.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Other Members have referenced Lord Trimble’s article in which he says that the Government must now
“act on its responsibility to safeguard the future of Northern Ireland and replace this damaging and community-splitting protocol”.
With his comments in mind, one really wonders what John Hume would make of the divisive and majoritarian approach of his successor, the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood).
The Foreign Secretary’s statement is welcome. It correctly identifies some of the fundamental problems with the protocol and the need to act in the absence of agreement with the EU. Given that she has accepted the need to address these issues urgently, does she understand that good intentions for another day will do nothing to address the urgent problems we face, and that we need to have words backed up by actions immediately?
Elizabeth Truss
As I said, we will be bringing forward legislation in the coming weeks.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate the extent of the frustration and anger not only on this side of the House but in the country? She talks about the unintended consequences of an agreement that this Government signed and were warned would have exactly these consequences, and she talks of protecting our precious Union. Does she appreciate that a unilateral withdrawal from the Northern Ireland protocol would have serious implications for the Union she seeks to protect?
Elizabeth Truss
Let me be clear that we are not talking about withdrawing from or scrapping the protocol. What we are talking about is legislating to fix the specific issues in the protocol that are causing problems in Northern Ireland.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is not just about how people in Northern Ireland voted recently. In August 2016, the former DUP First Minister wrote to the UK Government calling for a special position for Northern Ireland, and people supported that. Issues have been raised about supermarket goods, and anyone who has been to Northern Ireland recently, as I have, will realise there are pragmatic issues to solve, but they need to be solved with the EU. Exactly how do unilateral threats and legislation build the trust and good will necessary to get to the best outcome?
Elizabeth Truss
I believe there is a landing zone and a negotiated outcome that can work for the people of Northern Ireland, for the UK and for the EU, but that landing zone requires a change of mandate. We have now had 18 months of discussions with the EU, which has not yet agreed to change the protocol. The protocol was never designed to be set in stone, and we have seen that it is not working for the people of Northern Ireland. Of course I encourage a pragmatic solution, and I encourage more flexibility from the EU, but we cannot allow the situation in Northern Ireland to deteriorate by not taking the action we need to take now to fix the protocol.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for her clear attempt to find a way forward, which we all want.
There is rising anger in Northern Ireland in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said on the radio this morning—I notified him at 10.46 am that I would be mentioning him—that filling out a form to buy something should not make someone less British, which illustrates his woeful misunderstanding of the Unionist position and, further, undermines his ability to act impartially as Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Does the Secretary of State agree that this is precisely why tensions have been escalating? And does she understand that this typifies why the Unionist community my party represents has lost faith, and that words cannot restore that faith? As I think she is saying, we need to see concrete legislation and less harmful discourse.
Elizabeth Truss
We are very clear that we need to restore the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we need to ensure that all communities in Northern Ireland are treated with esteem.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
We spent so much time debating the Northern Ireland protocol that this Government could not have been unaware of a single dot or comma. Were they simply unable to understand the implications of their own protocol deal, or did the Prime Minister present his oven-ready Brexit deal knowing that he would end up deliberately breaking international law? Is this Government stupidity or Government duplicity?
Elizabeth Truss
We negotiated the Northern Ireland protocol in good faith, and I have been negotiating with Maroš Šefčovič in good faith, but we have seen real consequences for the people of Northern Ireland that need to be addressed.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Under the current Brexit arrangements, freight trade through Holyhead is down 34%, whereas north-south trade in Ireland is up by 34% and south-north trade is up by 49%. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that such economic fundamentals argue against her taking precipitous unilateral action on the protocol?
Elizabeth Truss
Those figures demonstrate that there has been trade diversion in Northern Ireland, and they demonstrate that we need to restore the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement to make sure east-west is treated with equal esteem to north-south.
Points of Order
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I humbly beg your advice on a matter of significant importance. On 25 February 2019, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) wrote to the then chair of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), expressing genuine concerns regarding issues of sovereignty and national security related to the activities of the then Conservative party treasurer, Sir Ehud Sheleg. The right hon. Member responded that my hon. Friend should consider any accusations he was making against an individual carefully so as not to risk libel, with the implication that legal action would be forthcoming should he pursue his genuine concerns.
Last Thursday, however, an article in The New York Times suggested that my hon. Friend was right and that there are genuine questions to answer about whether a donation from Sir Ehud to the Conservative party complied with UK law, given that it appeared to have originated from Sir Ehud’s father-in-law, Sergei Kopytov, a former senior pro-Kremlin politician in Ukraine and apparent owner of significant assets in Crimea.
Additional serious questions arise. Did Sir Ehud host a reception with the Russian ambassador to the UK following the annexation of Crimea? Are assets apparently owned by Mr Kopytov, such as a Mercedes-Benz car, used by individuals involved in the Russian state? Did the bank transfer at issue in the New York Times article originate from a Russian bank? Were sanctioned entities involved? Exactly what current and former links do the Sheleg-Kopytov family hold with key actors in the Russian state? Finally, has electoral law been broken and, relatedly, has our national security been compromised?
I have written to the current co-chair of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), asking for an apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and, above all, for a response to these very important questions. However, when I have previously written to the right hon. Gentleman—I have written to him six times—I have never received a response. I live in hope of a response this time but, should I not receive one in the coming days, what recourse might I have, given the gravity of these matters?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. First, I assume that she has notified the right hon. and hon. Members named.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am afraid that correspondence between Members on a party basis is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Lady knows, or will acquaint herself with, the many ways of pursuing the substantive point in proceedings, as well as by perhaps raising concern with the Electoral Commission, given what she has said.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Wednesday 27 April, I asked the Prime Minister, at Prime Minister’s questions, whether he would apologise to bereaved families and care workers in the light of the High Court ruling that the Government had broken the law when in 2020 they discharged patients to care homes without testing them for covid first. I believe that in his response he inadvertently misled the House, by claiming that
“the thing we did not know in particular was that covid could be transmitted asymptomatically”—[Official Report, 27 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 762.]
This matter was raised as a point of order by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on Thursday 28 April. Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that you are not responsible for the content of the Prime Minister’s speech, but I am sure that none of us wants the record to be inaccurate. As such, I was wondering whether you had received any indication from the Prime Minister that he intends to correct the record, for example at the start of Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow. If not, what further avenues might be available to me and other Members to ensure that the Prime Minister returns to the House and corrects the record, if he chooses not to do so when he appears tomorrow?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. First, I have not received any notification about anything the Prime Minister might be saying tomorrow. As she knows and indeed mentioned, this matter was raised on 28 April, and I am afraid there is nothing further I can add to the response given then.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 3 March, the World Health Organisation’s Inter-governmental Negotiating Body opened talks on securing global arrangements in respect of its management of future pandemics. Given the far-ranging implications of such a thing, and the fact that on 1 August that body will meet again before bringing forward formal proposals, what indication have you had that a Minister will attend the House to outline the Government’s position?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not had any indication and do not know anything about whether the Government wish to make a statement on this subject, but I am confident that Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the points he has made and I am sure they will be fed back through the appropriate channels.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today’s Daily Mail carries a story that Dignity in Dying, the campaign group that wants to bring assisted suicide to this country, has been boasting to its donors that it can buy a debate in this place. It suggests that for £40,000 it can secure the 100,000 signatures that are required for a petition to get a debate on the Floor of the House. Can you advise me as to how we can ensure that this bought debate does not take place and how we can protect the petitions system from this kind of abuse?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously, people are entitled to campaign for support for their point of view, and petitions are a recognised campaigning tool. The point he raises is an important one. Obviously, it is the Petitions Committee’s role to consider petitions for debate, and I suggest that he may wish to raise this particular matter with it.
Bill Presented
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Brandon Lewis, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Ben Wallace, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart, the Attorney General, Conor Burns, David T. C. Davies, Leo Docherty and Iain Stewart, presented a Bill to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles and promote reconciliation by establishing an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, limiting criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and police complaints, extending the prisoner release scheme in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, and providing for experiences to be recorded and preserved and for events to be studied and memorialised.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 10) with explanatory notes (Bill 10-EN).
Debate on the Address
Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I start the main debate, I remind all Members that those who hope to be called in debates must be present for the opening speeches and must return to hear winding-up speeches at the end. I advise that those who have contributed get back in good time to ensure they do not miss any of the winding-up speeches—that has happened on occasions recently and it is very discourteous to the Front Benchers if those Members do not return. It is also courteous to remain in the Chamber for the majority of the debate and not to disappear for hours on end, so that one can appreciate all the contributions that other colleagues have to make. Each contribution is as important as the others.
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (v) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the amendment.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech fails to announce a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas producers, in order to provide much-needed relief from energy price increases for households.”
The cost of living crisis is the biggest issue facing our country, which is why we have chosen it as the subject of today’s debate, and I welcome the Chancellor’s participation. We should start by being sober about the unprecedented social emergency our country faces. According to a report that has just been published by the Food Foundation, 2 million of our fellow citizens went without food for a whole day in the past month because they could not afford to eat; 7 million families had to skip a meal, and that was true of nearly half of those on universal credit. This is not just about families out of work; it is about families in work too. This is a social emergency and it is also a looming economic threat, depriving our economy of the spending power it needs. The question at the heart of this debate is whether this Gracious Speech, this Government and, yes, this Chancellor are up to the challenge this emergency represents.
The Chancellor wants us to believe that his measures in response are the best we can do, but they are not—not by a long shot. The cost of living crisis is driven most of all by what is happening to energy bills, so let us look at the three chances he has had in the past seven months to act on energy bills. Last August, nine months ago, the first energy price rise was announced—this was a £139 increase in the price cap. So way back then he knew what was happening. Then in October he delivered the Budget. Wholesale energy prices were rocketing and the warning signals were flashing, but the Chancellor did nothing. He should re-read that Budget speech, because I think it would make even him wince. It is a model of complacency. He had drunk his own Kool-Aid. He told the country back then that “wages are rising”, that we have “growth up” and that on inflation we have
“a Government...ready and willing to act”—[Official Report, 27 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 275.]
He said that the “plan is working”.
Where are we now? On wages, the Office for Budget Responsibility is this year forecasting the biggest fall in living standards for 45 years. Growth turned negative in March, with the Bank of England suggesting that the economy is going to shrink through the winter. We are now set for the highest level of inflation for 40 years. The plan is not working; it is failing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Edward Miliband
I will make some progress but then give way later.
The Chancellor did not act when he could have done. In February he had another chance, as the largest energy price rise in our history, at 52%, was announced. He could have responded in a way commensurate with the crisis—[Interruption.] Members say that he did, but let us look at this. What was his grand offer to the country? It was a £150 council tax discount based on outdated property values, which missed out hundreds of thousands of the poorest families, and of course there was his £200 “buy now, pay later” loan scheme. This is a loan scheme that he risibly claims is not a loan, although it has to be paid back, and it does not even come in until October. What are families supposed to do in the meantime while they wait for his loan? It is almost as though the Chancellor is so out of touch that he does not realise that 10 million families in our country have no savings at all.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The £150 that was given out by Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council was gratefully received on the doorsteps, as was the money given out by Westminster City Council. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should speak to his council leaders in Barrow, Hyndburn, South Derbyshire and Bassetlaw, all councils that failed to get that £150 out into people’s bank accounts. If he is so concerned about the cost of living, why are his council leaders holding that money in their bank accounts instead of returning it to the people?
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman anticipates a later part of my speech. That is the Conservative party today: it will blame anyone else and never take responsibility. The hon. Gentleman should have been supporting our measures, because in his constituency 11,353 people would get our combination of a VAT cut and the warm home discount of £600. If he votes against us tonight, he will have to explain to them why he is denying them the help they need.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I wonder whether he shares my anger at the news this week that the Government have underspent their net zero budget by a staggering quarter of a billion pounds, at exactly the same time as our constituents are struggling to keep their homes warm and deal with accelerating fuel poverty.
Edward Miliband
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. At every step of the way, the Government have had the chance to act, and they have not done so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The figures for Northern Ireland are very interesting: 241,000 people—13% of people—in Northern Ireland are in poverty. Some 17% of all children, 14% of all pensioners and 11% of the whole working-age population are in poverty. Those figures scare me; do they scare the right hon. Gentleman?
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have been around politics for a long time, as the House knows, but I cannot remember—nobody in the House can remember—facing the kind of emergency that we do currently.
The spring statement was the most recent chance for the Chancellor to redeem himself; it was just days before the April energy price rise came into effect. It was apparent to everyone across this House and in the country that what he had offered was woefully inadequate. People were literally pleading with him to do more on energy bills, but he just doubled down on his failure. He has had three chances in the past seven months, and none of his responses has been equal to the emergency. The truth about this Chancellor is that at every step of the way he has been in denial, slow to act and wholly out of touch in his response.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
It is right that we debate what more we can do, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the measures that we have put forward on the national living wage and universal credit, and the national insurance threshold changes, add up to more than he is suggesting?
Edward Miliband
No, I do not accept that, and I can tell the hon. Lady that 8,014 families in her constituency will benefit from the changes we are suggesting if she votes for them tonight. Let me tell her and the House what the Chancellor’s failure means in reality. This year, the basic level of universal credit for a single person aged over 25 is £334 a month. The Chancellor’s measures this April were so feeble that someone on that benefit will be expected to find as much as £50 or more a month simply to cover the increase in their energy bills. That is leaving aside the soaring costs of food and other goods. That £50 is around 15% of their income, so what are they going to do? They will not be able to afford to pay their bills, they will get deeply into debt and they will go without food. It is already happening to millions.
On Friday, in the citizens advice bureau in my constituency, I met someone who is in circumstances similar to those I described. Let me be honest: I have no idea how I would cope in those circumstances. Does any Member of this House? Maybe the Chancellor can tell us what somebody in those circumstances is supposed to do. If he cannot answer that question, it should tell him something—that he is failing in his duty to the people of this country who most need his help.
What makes the Chancellor even more culpable is that something that could help is staring him right in the face. It is something on which the case has become unanswerable, and on which the Government have run out of excuses, while oil and gas producers are making billions: a windfall tax. It is so hard to keep track of the Government’s position on a windfall tax that I have given up, but I think the Chancellor has said he is prepared to look at the idea. Honestly, the British people cannot afford to wait for him and his dithering anymore, or for his hopeless excuses.
I want to go through the hopeless excuses, because this is an important argument that this House and this country need to have. What are the Government’s excuses for not applying a windfall tax? First, they said in January that the oil and gas companies were, in the words of the Education Secretary, “struggling”. BP has its highest profits for a decade, Shell has its highest profits ever, and the boss of BP, Bernard Looney, describes the price hike as a “cash machine”—and these people say the companies are struggling. Perhaps we can have a show of hands: does anyone on the Government Benches still believe that those companies are struggling? What is the Government’s next excuse? They argue that a windfall tax will hurt investment—
Edward Miliband
Oh, it will, says the hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position. Right, here we go. The problem is that the companies themselves say that is nonsense. BP’s chief executive officer, Bernard Looney—whom I take as more of an authority than the hon. Gentleman—was asked two weeks ago which investments he would not proceed with if a windfall tax was levied. What was his answer?
“There are none that we wouldn’t do.”
Even BP does not buy the Tory arguments against a windfall tax on BP.
Edward Miliband
No; I will make some progress. The final excuse—[Interruption.] I want to come to this because it is important, and I am perhaps anticipating the Chancellor. The final excuse is that it is somehow anti-business to levy a windfall tax. Let us dispose of that argument, too. I strongly recommend that Members who believe that argument read an article that I have with me—I am happy to put a copy in the Library of the House—by Mr Irwin Stelzer, a long-time confidant of Rupert Murdoch. This is the first time I have quoted him in the House. A few days ago, in an article entitled, “Now is the time for a windfall profits tax”, he wrote:
“People who believe in capitalism believe that private sector companies should be rewarded for taking risks…not be rewarded for happening to be around when some disruption drives up prices, producing windfalls.”
That is the point: these profits are unearned and unexpected, and the British people are paying for that windfall. These companies are profiting not from decisions they have made, risks they have taken or wealth they have created, but from a global spike in prices to which Britain is badly exposed—a spike exacerbated by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
What is the principle that the Government are defending here? What is their hill to die on? Is the principle that they really wish to defend that oil and gas companies should pocket any profits, however bad the geopolitical instability? Is that however large the crisis and however gigantic the windfall, taxation must not change? That proposition was rejected by Margaret Thatcher, Geoffrey Howe and George Osborne—remember him?—all of whom levied windfall taxes. Who else do we see supporting a windfall tax today? I have to say, it is a pretty big tent: John Allan, the guy who runs Tesco; Sharon White, the woman who runs John Lewis; Lord Browne, the guy who used to run BP; and Lord Hague, the guy who used to run the Conservative party—the usual leftie suspects.
The truth is that the Government have run out of excuses and, amid the chaos and confusion about their position, I think a massive U-turn is lumbering slowly over the hill. I say this to the Chancellor: “Swallow your pride and get on with it.” Every day he delays is another day when the British people are denied the help they need. Millions of families are having sleepless nights because the Chancellor will not act. What is he waiting for? As proposed by the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the Chancellor should come to the House with an emergency Budget that has a windfall tax, gets rid of VAT on energy bills, increases the warm home discount to £400, includes an emergency plan to insulate 2 million homes this year, and cuts business rates.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Edward Miliband
I will not for the moment. The Government’s position on the windfall tax is part of a wider problem with this Chancellor and this Government. Just look at the political choices he is making: he leaves non-doms shielding their millions while millions of families and pensioners face a cut in their incomes; he whacks up taxes on tenants and lets landlords off the hook; and he makes young people at work pay more, but those getting money from capital gains pay not a penny extra. Wrong, unfair, unjust, out of touch—that is who he is.
Several hon. Members rose—
Edward Miliband
I will not give way. Of course, being this Government, they always try to blame someone else, as we heard earlier. It is hard to keep track, but this is the roll call of people who the Conservative party have tried to frame in just the past few days: the Bank of England; civil servants working from home; and, shamefully, the British people for being unable to cook properly. That, apparently, is the cause of food banks. Yesterday, there was also the ludicrous suggestion from a Minister that people were not working enough hours. The Chancellor, of all people, is also at it. Who does he blame for the massive cut to benefits? He blames the IT system—the dude from Silicon Valley. Who is he trying to kid? If he had got his act together early enough, of course he could have raised benefits properly. The thing I do not get is this: he found it perfectly possible to cut universal credit by £20 in the middle of the year—in September. It is not a case of “Computer says no”; it is “Chancellor says no.” It is not that a computer system is not up to it; the Chancellor is not up to it.
The story of the past few months is this: crypto has crashed, and so has the Chancellor—and how similar they are. The Chancellor and cryptocurrency came out of nowhere. The value surged, and it looked like the future, but it has all turned out to be one giant Ponzi scheme. The Chancellor has just been found out. He has been rumbled. Let us be honest, his colleagues all know it. He is out of touch with what is happening in the country. He is out of ideas when it comes to doing the right thing. He is out of his depth when it comes to the challenges that this country faces.
The problem, of course, is that today’s cost of living crisis does not stand alone; it comes on top of a decade of failure. That is why families and our economy are so vulnerable. Over the past 12 years, growth has averaged just 1.4%—the worst record of any Government since the second world war. This is the worst decade for living standards since the 1920s, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Indeed, wages would be £7,000 higher on average if wage growth under this Government had matched the rate of growth under the last Labour Government. Taxes are at their highest level since the 1950s. Public services are struggling. Never have so many paid so much for so little. Twelve years of Tory economics have failed, and what does the Chancellor offer in the future? More of the same: anaemic growth at just 1.7%, and squeezed wages as far as the eye can see.
This is the plan for growth that we need: we should tackle the cost of living crisis, so that people have more money in their pockets. We need to put in place an industrial strategy, so that we have good jobs in the industries of the future; that is what Governments all around the world are doing. We need a plan to give people proper rights, to boost wages at work, and to make our economy fair. Where is the employment Bill? It was promised in 2019, but it is still not here. When it comes to being on the side of the workers, Conservatives may mouth the words, but their actions tell the real story.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned jobs, particularly as today unemployment has fallen to its lowest level. The number of people out of work is now lower than the number of vacancies in the economy. He has just made an extraordinary number of unfunded spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. I want to highlight the big difference between the Labour party and the Chancellor. I remember the spring statement; the shadow Chancellor made a commitment to raising benefits early, because, she said, it would cost no money. It would actually have cost £24 billion across the spending period. There was no sense of how to pay for it. That is Labour from start to finish.
Edward Miliband
It is good to see that the right hon. Gentleman has clambered back onto the career bandwagon. I thought that he was no longer a loyalist. The truth is that it was the Resolution Foundation that pointed that out, and I can give him the reference.
I will wind up now. I have mentioned the basics of a modern economy, and this Government are failing on all of them; they have no cost of living plan, no growth plan, and no plan for rights at work. They have not learned from the mistakes of the past decade, and they are condemned to repeat them. The truth is that this Gracious Speech does not remotely rise to the short or long-term challenges that the British people face, but this House can make a difference tonight. I say this to Conservative MPs directly: we have all heard from our constituencies what families are facing. This is an emergency for millions of people. A windfall tax could make a difference.
Edward Miliband
No, I will not. Conservative Members should use this opportunity to tell the Chancellor to act. It is the right and fair thing to do. The case is unanswerable. If they do not act, they will have to explain to their constituents why they refused to support help that could make a difference now. I urge Members to vote for our amendment tonight to help tackle the social emergency that our country is facing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
I am proud to speak today in support of a Queen’s Speech that will both ease the cost of living with billions of pounds of support for families and grow the economy, creating more jobs, more investment and higher wages.
The International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the World Bank have all warned that high inflation is the most acute challenge facing not just the UK, but the global economy. We are not alone in facing these challenges: covid has disrupted supply chains; Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated the shock in energy prices; and businesses are facing shortages. The causes are indeed global, but, of course, the consequences are being felt here at home. Families up and down the country are being hit hard by the rise in prices of fuel, of food and of heating. I cannot say to people that this will be easy; the next few months will be difficult. There is no measure any Government can take and no law we can pass that can make these global forces disappear overnight. No honest Chancellor could stand here and promise that prices will not rise further, or that the Government can cover every extra pound on people’s bills.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rishi Sunak
I will give way in a second.
To suggest that no help is available, as some have said today, is both misleading and irresponsible.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The other day, the Chancellor said that he could not increase benefits because of IT problems. At the start of the pandemic, quite rightly, he increased universal credit by £20 a week. Will he do that again?
Rishi Sunak
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience, he will know, perhaps better than me, that there are multiple different benefits on multiple different systems, and while universal credit does have the flexibility of being changed at different times—a policy, by the way, that the Labour party opposed at every step of the way—the remainder of benefits and pensions cannot be uprated mid-year. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will speak to that later.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
indicated assent.
Rishi Sunak
None the less, I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman supports universal credit. That is one thing that the Government are proud of introducing. The benefit can respond in a crisis, as it so admirably did.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Chancellor has just admitted that he could increase universal credit by £20, so why does he not do it?
Rishi Sunak
Because we want to make sure that we get support to everyone in a way that suits them. What we did do—and we heard this from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) when he gave a case study on universal credit—is cut the universal credit taper by the biggest amount ever. That was the biggest tax cut that we have seen for people on low incomes, which is in contrast to the cherrypicked example that we heard from right hon. Gentleman. What does that mean for a single mother on universal credit, working on the national living wage, renting, and with two children? It means that that mum will be £1,600 a year better off this year. That is what this Government are doing. Help is there, and anyone seeking to pretend otherwise is simply causing more worry and more anxiety.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
There is no recognition from Labour Members of the £22 billion that the Government put in to help with the cost of living, particularly the 5p cut in fuel duty. However, I do have one ask of my right hon. Friend. The oil companies are not passing the cuts to the pumps. They take ages to reduce the prices when the international oil price falls, but oil bosses are earning multi-million pound salaries and getting multi-million pound bonuses. They are, in essence, the new oligarchs. I urge him to consider both a windfall tax on the oil companies, which we can then use to cut taxes for the lower paid or to cut energy bills, and a pump-watch monitor to make sure that there is fair competition and that consumers get a fair deal at the pumps. None the less, I genuinely recognise all the work that he has done thus far to cut the cost of living.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his advice and support, and I will come on to both of his points momentarily. He is right to remind the House that so far we have provided £22 billion of direct support. That is not a trivial figure; it is £22 billion of support to help families up and down our country at a time of challenge. We have taken action, as we heard, to cut people’s bills, starting with fuel duty—I commend him for his campaigns on that. It has been cut by 5p a litre, which is worth £100 this year together with the freeze, and council tax, cut by £150.
What the right hon. Member for Doncaster North did not mention was that that £150 of support, which, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), has made a huge difference to families, came faster than any support the Labour party was offering in its proposal, and it went to a far broader group of people than their proposal, because we wanted to support those on middle incomes as well.
Rishi Sunak
VAT would have been worth about, I think, £8 a month at the time. This is £150 in people’s bank accounts in April.
We also cut the taper rate on universal credit, giving an extra £1,000 to the average household. The warm home discount increased to £150, the national living wage increased, giving low-paid workers a pay rise of £1,000, and we will go further.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I want to take the Chancellor back to what he said earlier in his speech about the Government’s acting quickly on the covid crisis. Does he recognise that many of our constituents are in a crisis now? I know he is installing a new swimming pool in the house he lives in, but I can tell him that people in Glasgow East are struggling and his Government need to do more.
Rishi Sunak
This Government have always acted to protect this country at times of challenge; we have done so through the past two years and we continue to do so now. As has been said, £9 billion of support on energy bills was announced in February at the same time as the price cap was increased, and it covered 50% of the rise in bills—accepting and being honest with the House, as we discussed at the time, that no Government could cover every pound of an increase when we are in a situation with global inflationary forces, and that it would be both irresponsible and misleading to pretend to the British people that that was possible.
But we are going further: in October, a further discount on energy bills worth £200 and, in just a few weeks’ time, a massive tax cut for workers when the national insurance threshold is increased to £12,500. That is a £6 billion tax cut for working people, the biggest increase in a personal tax threshold ever, and it will mean that everyone in this country can earn £12,500 without paying a penny of income tax or national insurance. That means, in contrast with what we have heard, that 70% of working people will pay less tax this year than they did last year.
Taken together, all the measures I have just mentioned equate to a £22 billion plan to help cut costs for families and help people with the cost of living. Of course, as the situation evolves, our response will also evolve. I have always been clear that we stand ready to do more.
That brings me to the topic of a windfall tax. Unlike the Labour party, we Conservatives do not believe that windfall taxes are the simple and easy answer to every problem. However, we are pragmatic, and we want to see our energy companies, which have made extraordinary profits at a time of acutely elevated prices, investing those profits back into British jobs, growth and energy security. I have made it clear and said repeatedly that, if that does not happen soon and at significant scale, no option is off the table.
Global economic forces are indeed hitting the British people hard, and that is why the Government are stepping in to help. Ultimately, however, over the long term we on the Conservative side know that the best way to raise living standards is to grow the economy. That is why our economic plan and this Queen’s Speech will create more jobs, more investment and, crucially, higher wages.
During the pandemic, we provided billions in support not only to the economy, but specifically to businesses. Because of schemes such as furlough we were able to keep millions and millions of people in work, and the success of our plan for jobs is clear. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), unemployment right now is the lowest it has been in almost half a century, job vacancies are the highest they have ever been, and total pay is rising in real terms and is more than 4% higher than before the pandemic, even adjusted for the inflation we are seeing.
That does not happen by accident. It is the result of a responsible Conservative Government delivering a stronger economy—an economy that grew faster last year than any of our competitors. That strong recovery is making a difference to people’s finances. Taken together, the combination of policy measures the Government have announced and the growth in the economy offset around half the shock to incomes caused by higher global energy and goods prices. Half of that shock has been offset by the result of our actions to grow the economy and support people directly.
Of course we need to do more to create further economic growth. That is why this Queen’s Speech includes measures to do exactly that.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Given that the right hon. Gentleman was just talking about growth in the economy, he will be aware that the Governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee told the Treasury Committee yesterday that growth would be negative in the fourth quarter of this year. Growth is slowing, unemployment is rising and inflation is soaring—is that not correct?
Rishi Sunak
I think the hon. Lady said unemployment is rising. No—it just fell this morning to the lowest level in almost half a century. I will come on to our growth figures in just a second, but we have had a strong recovery and are forecast to continue growing strongly relative to peers.
We do need to do more, and that is why the Queen’s Speech includes measures to boost our national infrastructure, to level up, to back financial services—one of our biggest and most successful sectors, employing millions of people across the country—to cut red tape, to use our new Brexit freedoms, to back British businesses, to reform higher education and to strengthen our energy security. We on the Conservative side know that over the longer term, the best way to create growth is to have an economy where businesses can invest more, train more and innovate more.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
While the Chancellor is still considering a windfall tax, I want to tell him about one constituent of mine who got in touch: a 62-year-old woman in Walton, who decided to disconnect from British Gas for fear of a bill coming through her door in a few months’ time.
Rishi Sunak
I am very sorry to hear about the circumstances of the individual concerned. I would be happy to talk to her directly, if that would help, but I hope the hon. Gentleman, in his role, can explain to her the support that is in place to support families such as hers, whether that is direct support with her energy bills, the £150, the fact that her national living wage may well be increased depending on her situation or, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions reminds me, the fact that she can talk to her local council to access the household support fund that is being doubled to £1 billion to provide direct support to those who are most vulnerable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rishi Sunak
I am now going to make some progress. Our plan is to build the economy of the future. That is why, this autumn, we will cut taxes on capital, on people and on ideas to drive up growth and support businesses to do so.
While we are talking about growth, we have heard a lot during these debates—I think the right hon. Member for Doncaster North also mentioned it—about the Labour growth that we experienced between 1997 and 2010. It was obviously a very long time ago that we last had a Labour Government, so let me remind the House of the facts.
Under the Labour Government, the UK’s cumulative economic growth was third in the G7. Under this Government, despite having lived through the worst recession in more than 300 years, our cumulative growth is also third in the G7. Let us also remember that when the Opposition last arrived in office, unemployment was 7%. When they left, 13 years later, it was of course higher at 8%. New figures out this morning, as we have heard, show that today, the UK’s unemployment rate is less than half that, at 3.7%, the lowest in almost half a century.
The story is the same on public finances. The deficit in 1997 was 2% of GDP. By 2010, it was nearly 10%, and £1 in every £4 the Government spent was borrowed. There was, as we heard, no money left.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I add to what the Chancellor says that under this Conservative Government we introduced the living wage, which has increased wages for the poorest in our country at a higher rate than the last Labour Government ever had the courage to do, and we now have the lowest unemployment rate for 50 years?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This year’s increase in the national living wage is worth £1,000 to someone working full-time who is on the national living wage. That will benefit millions of people, particularly those on a low income. That is our priority and those are our values.
The approach to borrowing that I have described is not the approach of this responsible Conservative Government. Today, despite having spent hundreds of billions throughout the pandemic, we are providing the highest sustained level of public sector investment in decades and investing record amounts in public services such as the NHS. This Government are on track to have borrowing low and debt falling again. That is our record: robust growth, more jobs and being responsible with the country’s finances.
History reminds us that, at times when we face severe supply problems, an unconstrained fiscal stimulus risks making the problem worse, pushing up prices still further and ingraining expectations of higher inflation—a vicious cycle leading inexorably to even higher interest rates and more pain for tens of millions of mortgage holders and small businesses. Let us be in no doubt, simply trying to borrow and spend our way out of this situation is the wrong approach; those paying the highest price would be the poorest in our society. Instead, the Government are taking a careful, deliberate approach. We will act to cut costs for those people without making the situation worse. We will continue to back people who work hard, as we always have, and we will do more to support the most vulnerable—and, unlike others, we will not simply borrow our way out.
So yes, we are helping families by cutting their costs, and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise. That support will always be part of a broader plan to grow the economy, encourage investment and create more high-skilled, high-wage jobs, all built on the foundation of strong public finances. That is our economic plan. We are providing £22 billion-worth of support to help families with the cost of living. We are creating more jobs, more investment and higher wages. That is what this Queen’s Speech is all about, and I commend it to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Obviously a lot of colleagues wish to get in, so there will be a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. I call SNP spokesperson Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I would like to say it is a pleasure to follow the Chancellor, but we have just heard 16 minutes of platitudes and no new ideas. He said that Opposition Members are causing people more worry. What is causing people more worry is not having enough money in their pockets to pay their bills. It is nothing to do with what we say here; it is what they see in reality.
The Chancellor mentioned yet again his £9 billion support package for energy bills, but he did not say that only a third of that is money from the Treasury that will not be clawed back. Two thirds of that £9 billion will be added to our energy bills and recovered through our bills, so he is making bills higher for some while providing crumbs of support to the most vulnerable. He mentioned growing the economy while ducking the fact that, after the past five years, the economy had already started to contract in March. Then, for good measure, we heard some bluster about Labour’s past record, as if to hide the issues. What that tells us is that Westminster has not been working for a very long time.
It is a dereliction of his duty as Chancellor to have no new measures and no new finances associated with the Queen’s Speech to address the Tory cost of living crisis. The stark reality is that the longer nothing is done, the more people will plunge into fuel and food poverty. The April 2022 price cap is 75% higher than just a year ago. National Energy Action estimates that up to 6.5 million households could now go into fuel poverty. That underlines why more action is needed by the Chancellor. The October increase coming could see up to 40% of households becoming fuel-poor. National Energy Action previously estimated that about 10,000 premature deaths a year arise from fuel poverty. How many more premature deaths are likely to occur with these increasing fuel costs? They have such an impact that people die early through fuel poverty. How can any Minister who claims to have compassion stand by and do nothing? Even the British Chambers of Commerce has asked for an emergency Budget. Companies such as Scottish Power are calling for £1,000 of support for energy bills, and yet the Chancellor has insisted that taking measures now would be silly. Why is he so out of touch with reality when even businesses are telling us what is required?
Looking back to April 2020 and the onset of the covid crisis, the Government increased universal credit by £1,040 to help people to live, but back then home energy bills were 75% cheaper and petrol was 50% cheaper, and we are now dealing with food inflation and with general inflation rising to 10%. If that £20 a week uplift was required for people to live two years ago, surely the Chancellor must recognise that he needs to reinstate that uplift and do so quickly. Even Asda chairman and Tory peer Stuart Rose backs reinstating the £20 per week uplift to universal credit, so it really is time for the Chancellor to listen. People on universal credit are more likely to be on prepayment meters and are therefore further penalised with a higher energy tariff. Those people will be forced to self-disconnect this winter, as they simply will not have the funds to put in the meter. They do not have a dilemma about whether to turn the heating on; they do not have the choice.
Yesterday I was at a meeting with Ewan McCall of the Wise Group. He and others within the Wise Group deal with people who are on the frontline of fuel poverty. A survey of nearly 300 people in Glasgow found that 24% were self-disconnecting or rationing their heating. There are really heartrending individual stories behind this: people reliant on candles and using hot water bottles, reduced to living in misery. The Wise Group, like others, provides fantastic help with turnaround, but it can only do so much. Other groups such as the Trussell Trust, which does fantastic work with food banks, have confirmed that ever more people are reliant on their services.
Rather than action, we have had the bizarre admission from the BEIS Secretary that his Department’s nuclear power policy will increase our energy bills. It is economic madness—and, unfortunately, madness cheered on and encouraged by Labour. It should come as no surprise that new nuclear will add to our bills. With an upper estimate of £63 billion for the capital and finance costs for one new nuclear power station, it is crazy to proceed when the costs of renewable energy are ever falling. So-called small modular reactors are neither small nor cheap, at circa £2 billion per new station. Rolls-Royce does not want a contract for just one small modular reactor; it wants a contract for 12 to 15. The Government should be focusing on providing cheaper dispatchable energy and agreeing a minimum electricity price for the proposed pumped storage hydro scheme at Coire Glas and the proposed extension at Cruachan Dam. Those can be delivered much quicker and at a fraction of the costs of nuclear. Indeed, the £1.7 billion that the Chancellor has used to buy a stake in Sizewell C would pay for Coire Glas to be built outright.
One obvious way to reduce bills and emissions is to increase energy efficiency measures massively. The Scottish Government rightly treat that as a national infrastructure programme and spend four times more on it per capita than the UK Government. The Green Alliance estimates that retrofitting 11 million homes will reduce peak heat demand by 40%. Shamefully, instead of showing increased ambition, the UK Government have not even brought forward the regulations for ECO4, yet the programme was supposed to have started on 1 April and is part of the £9 billion package the Chancellor keeps bragging about.
This Government are trapping more children in poverty who are therefore destined to have fewer opportunities and to be less likely to have positive outcomes in life. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that there are currently 4 million children in poverty and says that the legacy of this Queen’s Speech will be even more children going into poverty. Yet at a stroke, overnight, the Chancellor could lift 250,000 children out of poverty by scrapping the two-child limit for universal credit. When he knows that he has at his disposal the power to take 250,000 children out of poverty overnight, why does he not act and scrap the cap? Why are Tory Back Benchers not calling for the two-child limit to be scrapped altogether? Instead we hear demands for tax cuts which the Chancellor has promised are coming, but which will disproportionately help the richest and not the poor.
Another decision taken by this Government is not to uprate benefits even close to the rate of inflation. That is a conscious decision, and as others have said, blaming the IT system is a piece of nonsense. The Chancellor is hiding behind weak excuses. There is something far wrong if the Government’s IT system is so poor that they cannot press a button to provide a percentage uplift.
We have heard one new policy announcement, which is making 91,000 civil servants redundant during this crisis. It beggars belief that the Government use the slogan “Making work pay” while wanting to sack 91,000 people. Unfortunately, many who are working know that work does not pay. The number of people who are in work and in poverty is increasing, and no amount of bluster will change that statistic. The Government could help by making the minimum wage equivalent to the real living wage. At a stroke, that would take more people out of poverty, and it would not cost the Government any money, so why do they not do that?
There is talk about balancing the books, and another cohort on whom the Government have balanced the books is pensioners. Scrapping the triple lock is costing pensioners more than £500 a year during this crisis. If inflation is running at 10% when the next uprating assessment is undertaken for pensions, will the Chancellor stand by the pledge to reinstate the triple lock? Will he actually increase pensions by 10%, if that is what inflation is telling us? It would be good if he could confirm that. Okay, he is just staring into space.
The topic of pensions takes me to the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and the millions of women still awaiting compensation. The recent Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report has highlighted and confirmed that there was clear “maladministration” in how the Department for Work and Pensions delivered—or failed to deliver—the news of the increased pension age for millions of women. Some form of compensation would not only be at least a nod towards justice, but put money in people’s pockets at this time of need.
I met two representatives from Ayrshire WASPI on Friday, and they highlighted that fair compensation in Ayrshire will be about £150 million for 15,000 women. That money would then be spent locally on services and goods in a real form of levelling up. Even then, much of that money would return to the Government in various taxes. Sadly, by the end of this calendar year, more than 220,000 women across the UK will have died waiting for justice in the seven years since the WASPI Campaign began. Thousands more women will die waiting unless the DWP and the Treasury sit down with campaigners to agree fair, fast compensation. I put it to those on the Front Bench: how acceptable is it just to sit back and let people die, instead of providing them with justice and the compensation they deserve?
Returning to the issue of the Treasury and how to pay for support, we agree with Labour on the principle of a windfall tax. However, it should not just be a cash raid on the North sea; rather, it should be a wider pandemic profit levy. Tax Justice UK has identified that just six companies made an excess profit of £16 billion in the financial year 2020-21. A 10% additional levy on them would realise £1.6 billion for the Treasury. A much wider pandemic profit levy of 10% across the board would raise even more money.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said that companies should not profit from circumstance and from just being there. On that principle, he should agree that a pandemic profit levy makes more sense, because that would affect companies that benefited from the covid situation just by virtue of being there. That levy would also target the companies that made excessive profits from personal protective equipment contracts awarded to them directly by the Government.
There is no doubt that things have moved with the oil and gas sector. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the chief executive of BP has said that investment would not be at risk. If we look at the reality of it, Shell and BP combined are on course to reach £40 billion in profit this year, so there must be some loose change there for the taking. It is interesting that the Tesco chairman wants a windfall tax on oil and gas, so I am sure he would also welcome a windfall tax on Tesco and other companies that benefited during the pandemic.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for giving way. It is two or three short months since I welcomed his stance against Labour’s calls for a windfall tax, but putting that aside, he quoted Bernard Looney, the chief executive of BP. Is he aware that, as well as saying that currently committed investments would not be at risk from a windfall tax, Bernard Looney has also said that future investments could be?
Alan Brown
At the end of the day, there is so much excess profit here that something needs to be done. We need to have a serious conversation about it. Interestingly, in front of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the chief executive of Centrica spoke about the record profits it is making and about how it pays much more tax in Norway than here. He confirmed that a tax regime can be balanced and that he is quite happy paying more if it is a stable regime. We could have a serious debate about a tax regime that realises more money for the Treasury, especially in this time of need.
That takes us to the Treasury. The Chancellor has generated his own windfall. As our energy bills have nearly doubled, so has the VAT intake to the Treasury. As petrol prices have soared, so have the VAT returns to the Treasury. Indeed, the duty cut he was bragging about is actually a loan paid for by the extra VAT that was already getting raked in. As we have heard, there is now a real risk that that duty cut is being gouged out by greedy petrol companies and not being passed on to consumers. That is another thing on which the Chancellor needs to get a grip. Oil and gas revenues have increased by £3.5 billion in the past couple of years, and I have a funny feeling that in the autumn statement, the Chancellor will predict even greater income from oil and gas revenues. That income alone should be getting recirculated and used to support people.
The Scottish Government are doing what they can to mitigate the crisis, but we cannot make decisions a normal country can make. The Scottish Government introduced the game-changing child payment and doubled it to £20 a week, and it will increase to £25 a week later this year. That could lift 50,000 children out of relative poverty, but it cannot have the positive impact it otherwise would have had due to Tory cuts. That also demonstrates the lack of real options for Scotland within the current constitutional settlement. We cannot make decisions a normal country can make. It is not in our gift to change VAT on energy bills. Whatever the views are on a windfall tax, we cannot do that. We do not have control over fuel duty or VAT either. We have limited borrowing powers. We are locked into bad decisions by the UK Government on the race for nuclear—encouraged by Labour—on money on nuclear weapons, and on being taken out of the EU, and we are short-changed in funding from the UK Government in relation to that.
As a country, we are energy-rich, yet we have citizens living in fuel poverty. We have exported oil and gas for years, but we do not even have an oil and gas fund. It is time for a different direction. We have had 315 years of the so-called most successful Union ever, yet we have a Government whose slogan is “level up” and “we know best”. If the Union is so successful, we should not need a slogan about levelling up. It is time for independence and time we made decisions for ourselves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee, Mel Stride.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I rise to very much welcome this debate, which addresses one of the great challenges of our time: the cost of living. Right at the centre of that lies the rate of inflation, which many Members have referenced in the debate so far, and that responsibility is with the Bank of England. In very recent times, the Bank has come in for a good deal of criticism for apparently not having got on top of that rate of inflation. It is currently above 7% and will rise to 10% in the autumn, before falling back again next year. That is well detached from its target of 2%, so the question arises: is the Bank of England culpable for having missed that target to that extent? I want to speak—partially, at least—in defence of the Bank of England, which is one of the most important independent institutions in our country, and to make the following observations.
First, as the Chancellor has already pointed out, the level of inflation across the world is elevated. There are some exceptions to that, but most leading economies are facing very high levels of inflation. In fact, the United States, Spain and Germany have higher rates of inflation than we do in the United Kingdom, and our rate is broadly similar to that across the eurozone.
My second point is about what one can expect from monetary policy under the current circumstances. The main drivers of inflation are a war in Ukraine; surging energy prices; surging food prices; some of the effects of the unlocking of the economy and its rapid growth, and supply chain bottlenecks that developed as a consequence; and then what played out in the labour market as the economy opened up. Very few of those factors are amenable to being controlled through interest rates and monetary policy. Of course, it takes time for monetary policy to take effect. If interest rates are put up, it typically takes about a year or more, through the transmission mechanism, to have an effect on demand and to start to bear down on inflation.
For about 80% of the rise in inflation above the 2% target, therefore, we should not hold the Bank of England particularly culpable. The notions of those people—some of whom are on my side of the House—who have called into question the independence of the Bank of England as a consequence of high inflation are misplaced. We should firmly defend the Bank of England in that respect.
There is one area, the other perhaps 20% of the growth in inflation, which relates to what has happened in the labour market, where the Bank is at least partially culpable, because it was slow to establish the fact that the market was getting overheated. What appeared to be isolated areas, such as among HGV drivers and other pools of labour in the labour market, soon spilled over into a more general price increase across labour. The danger now is that we will have a wage-price spiral in which wages chase prices and, in turn, drive up wages further. There is a real danger that we are in a position where future expectations of inflation have become substantially de-anchored from that 2%, which will be a challenge in the medium and longer term.
Overall, however, it is extremely important that we have confidence in the Bank of England, imperfect though it is, and even though it is presiding over a situation in which there are high levels of price increases.
Stephen Timms
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the independence of the Bank of England. At the Liaison Committee in March, he suggested to the Prime Minister that there should be a one-off uprating of benefits, given that inflation is much higher than the 3.1% by which uprating was applied. I agree with him about that and I wonder whether he stands by that suggestion.
Mel Stride
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I do indeed stand by that. I still believe that it is possible, in a relatively fiscally neutral manner, which would not require a fiscal loosening across the period of the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, to smooth the way in which benefits are indexed. It seems particularly regrettable that benefits such as universal credit are tagged to a 3.1% increase, which goes back to what inflation was in September, given that we are now facing 8%, 9% or 10%-plus inflation. There is the possibility of smoothing that out, so that on the way up it becomes less painful for people, and some of it will be taken back as it all comes out in the wash for everyone down the line. I am happy to continue to work with him with that in mind.
That brings me to other fiscal measures that can be taken to ease things for our struggling constituents. We have heard about a windfall tax in great detail today, which I would support. Although I would not be as partisan as the way in which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made his case earlier at the Dispatch Box, I think the arguments that he has put forward are largely sensible. I am pleased that in turn the Chancellor has indicated that the door is at least partially open, albeit caveated on the investment performance of the companies concerned.
Unlike the Opposition, I think that it is important to look at the size of the civil service and to have an ambition to get it back to its size in about 2016 before a number of these different crises struck and we had to gear up the numbers involved. If we were to do that, it would be possible to save a total of £3.5 billion a year, which would be a useful amount to have.
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have completely run out of time. I had much to say, as I know many other hon. Members will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, Stephen Timms.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who chairs the Treasury Committee. I agree with much of what he said.
Cost of living rises affect everybody. The Work and Pensions Committee focuses on families with the lowest incomes who depend on social security. The prospects for them at the moment are bleak. The Committee argued—unanimously, cross-party—against the removal of the £20 a week uplift in universal credit last October. The Government went ahead anyway and cut the main benefit rate to the lowest real-terms level for more than 30 years. As a proportion of average earnings, it is lower now than when Lloyd George introduced unemployment benefit in 1911. Benefits are at a historically low level and no Minister can justify that—we have asked.
We now have a massive cost of living surge. Citizens Advice reports that a single unemployed person spent 15% of their benefit on energy bills two years ago. It is now 25% and it will be 50%—just on energy—when the cap goes up again in October. How can people pay their other bills, which are also going up? National Energy Action told the Select Committee that, after last month’s energy price rises, 6.5 million UK households are in fuel poverty. It is a disaster for families with long-term health problems; being cold at home makes respiratory and circulatory problems much worse.
The Gracious Speech provided no help at all to people dependent on benefits. At the Liaison Committee, I asked the Prime Minister why the spring statement did nothing. His answer was that
“we want to support people into work wherever possible”,
but a large number of people cannot work and they have to survive too. Surely, the Government must now respond to the immense pressure on those families.
Mike Brewer of the Resolution Foundation pointed out to our Committee the obvious problem with benefits going up by 3.1%, as they did last month, when inflation is 8% and rising. He proposed revisiting uprating, immediately for universal credit, as the Chancellor confirmed that he could and as he did at the beginning of the pandemic, and in October for those benefits needing longer—there are some of those, as he has pointed out to the House. That must surely now be done.
Universal credit was raised by £20 a week before, so the Chancellor should do it again. I agree with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, who has just reaffirmed the case for an interim uprating, about which he pressed the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee. The Prime Minister said that he would look at it. It is urgent.
Crisis highlighted that local housing allowance rates have been frozen for two years in a row. Average rents went up by 8.3% just in the last three months of last year. Families on the breadline face an average £372 deficit between the local housing allowance and the cheapest rents in their area. In research just published, Lloyds Bank Foundation reports that 44% of universal credit recipients are having money deducted, averaging £78 a month—nearly a fifth of what single over-25s can claim. Deductions are for advance repayments, old tax credit overpayments, energy or rent arrears. The foundation says that that is
“driving impoverishment and further debt, particularly hitting the most vulnerable.”
We need major changes, especially to the five-week wait for a first regular universal credit payment, which forces people to take out an advance.
Pensioner poverty is now surging. We know that, in 2019-20, 850,000 families entitled to pension credit did not claim it. We need real vigour behind raising take-up. The Department for Work and Pensions should have a take-up target for pension credit and a plan to deliver it. In 2010-11, the DWP trialled automatic payments of pension credit, and it should do that again.
The least well-off in our society need urgent help. As Sir John Major said yesterday:
“Everyone needs to believe that The State cares about them”,
too. There is no time to lose.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
There is much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech programme, but I want first to highlight a very serious concern about clauses 83 and 84 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which could massively erode local decision making on planning. I hope that Ministers will think again about awarding themselves the power to override local development management policies, which provide such important protection against over-development.
The main theme I want to cover today is the broader economic theme and how we ensure that we have a sustainable way to help people with the cost of living. Crucial to that is the regulatory reform envisaged in legislation such as the Brexit freedoms Bill, the financial services and markets Bill and the data reform Bill. As inflation returns to the global economy at levels not seen for 30 years, it is imperative that we have a clear, long-term economic plan to grow the economy, raise living standards, repair the public finances after covid and bring down taxes. This is the best and most sustainable way to help people with rising household bills.
Of course, like everyone else in the Chamber, I know how urgent it is that we help people with rising household bills, which is why I very much welcome the Chancellor’s £22 billion intervention. Raising the national insurance threshold is one of the biggest personal tax cuts in decades. Increasing the amount people can earn before benefits are withdrawn has put £1,000 in the pockets of low-income families, and of course the 5p fuel tax cut can help everyone.
In addition to this, we need a convincing programme to grow our economy out of the traumas being inflicted on us by the global rise in energy prices. That is why the regulatory reform in the Queen’s speech is crucial. I was one of the members of the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform established by the Prime Minister. Our report set out a substantial list of regulatory improvements to boost the economy and create thousands of well-paid jobs, especially in high-tech sectors such as bioscience. This kind of reform—only possible because of Brexit—is one of the most effective ways to grow our economy. It is the sustainable long-term way to ensure we have the Goldilocks combination of sound public finances, money to fund our public services and lower taxes.
Put simply, supply-side reforms to set enterprise and innovation free are the means by which we can make the numbers add up. We cannot spend our way out of an inflation crisis and we certainly should not borrow our way out of an inflation crisis, but we can grow our way out of this inflation crisis. None of these reforms needs to jeopardise safety, consumer protection or the environment. As set out in the TIGRR report, we need regulation that is more modern, more flexible, more proportionate and more targeted. We need new rules that are rooted in our common law tradition, can be piloted and tested, and can be amended if they turn out to have unintended consequences, so that we deliver the regulatory outcomes and high standards we want, but at a lower cost and with far less of a burden on business and industry.
Regaining the right to make our own decisions on regulation is one of the key benefits of leaving the European Union. For six years as a Member of the European Parliament, I saw at first hand how the EU legislative process works. It is slow, it is cumbersome and it gets so bogged down in political horse-trading between countries that it is no wonder it often produces such poor results. I was one of just a handful of Conservatives to vote three times against the first version of the withdrawal agreement. I did that because I did not want us locked forever in the regulatory orbit of the EU. Now we are free of that gravitational pull, we must use the opportunities it gives us. Otherwise, all those years of Brexit rows and divisions will have been for nothing.
Only when we have charted our own course on regulation can we truly say that we have got Brexit done, so now is the time to get on and do this—for our whole country, too, and that means significant changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. Now is the time to set out a clear plan for growth that will deliver the high-wage jobs, the opportunities and the lower taxes that our constituents want to help them with the cost of living and the inflation crisis we face in this country and across the global economy.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Can we judge this Queen’s Speech to be successful in addressing the cost of living crisis? The Governor of the Bank of England warned at the Treasury Committee yesterday of an “apocalyptic” situation with food supplies and therefore with rising prices. The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee’s May report warned that inflation would soon reach 10%. It also signalled lower growth than previously predicted, with a contraction in quarter 4 of this year. It also expects higher unemployment. It predicts that inflation will not return to its target of 2% for nearly three years. The squeeze in what the economists call real incomes, which take account of inflation, is the most ferocious we have seen in generations, not least because the rapid rise in inflation is being driven by soaring prices for necessities: food and energy.
These higher costs cannot be avoided or easily minimised and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) pointed out in his effective speech, it is well known that they cause most hardship to the poorest, who are least able to cope and have no savings. Despite what some Government Ministers seem to think, the poorest have little practical opportunity to increase their hours or their pay, at least in the short term.
Thus, after 13 years of Conservative rule, we see soaring poverty levels, millions relying on food banks just to get by, and the lowest level of benefits since Lloyd George was Prime Minister. It means that the social safety net created to prevent destitution has been deliberately shredded by this Government, leaving many to cope with the intensifying cost of living squeeze without effective help. And we have a Tory Chancellor who has said that it would be “silly” to add any extra help until the autumn.
Against that background, the Government’s abject refusal to alleviate suffering and use the powers at their disposal to assist those in real need is a disgraceful dereliction of their duty. Their indifference to real suffering will not be forgotten; it will be remembered as the hard times get even tougher for millions of our fellow citizens.
Labour has suggested a one-off windfall tax on the huge unearned profits currently flooding the energy companies’ coffers, which would help alleviate some of the suffering, yet the Government refuse to enact it. Instead, we have a hotchpotch of a Queen’s Speech, with 38 Bills with no focus and no connection to the realities millions of people in this country are facing. It shows just how out of touch the Government are that they prefer to press ahead with new, repressive laws against “noisy” protests while ignoring the collapse in law enforcement and prosecution levels on their watch, hoping we will forget the shamefully low numbers of crimes that are currently prosecuted and the even lower numbers which result in convictions.
This Government have let fraud run riot even as they under-resource and fragment any serious police response to it, while millions of our fellow citizens fall victim to scams and con merchants. This is a Government who prefer to campaign than to govern, and a Government who think that policy delivery is issuing a press release. We have a weak Primer Minister who runs No. 10 like he ran the Spectator office—as one long, chaotic, bacchanalian, irresponsible party.
So we have today’s threat to legislate to tear up the Northern Ireland protocol, and damn the consequences for the Good Friday agreement, or for our international reputation as a country whose word can be relied upon and that respects the rule of law. This is the Northern Ireland protocol that the Prime Minister negotiated, which he hailed as an “oven-ready” triumph, and which he asserted in the 2019 general election “got Brexit done.” Only this Government could be so irresponsible as to contemplate starting a trade war with the EU in the middle of the most ferocious cost of living crisis in generations. No previous UK Government have ever regarded breaking international treaties and breaking their own solemn undertakings as a negotiating tactic, sullying our international reputation in the process, and our country will rue the day that this one did.
This is a Government who look after their own, allowing a bonanza in dodgy covid contracts for their mates, and passing laws to wreck independent judicial oversight and clamp down on protests. The sooner they are gone, the better.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to debate this topic and discuss what we can best do to help all of our constituents who are suffering today. Inflation is running at 7% here, 7.5% in Europe and 8.5% in the United States of America. The Bank of England Governor has been clear that 80% of the inflationary forces are outside the Government’s control and the reach of monetary policy, so we must look to fiscal policy to do as much as we can, while not making the problem worse by being inflationary.
I turn first to the windfall tax. It is important to get the quantum in perspective. A windfall tax is not a silver bullet. It would be worth £2 billion overall, I think, which is about £72 a household or, if we targeted that at the lowest 25%, £280 a household. Of course that is helpful, but would it solve the problem? No.
I have three concerns about the design of a windfall tax and whether we employ it. First, on protecting consumers, it is unorthodox to suggest that price reductions in a sector are best served by whacking a tax on the producers. It is difficult to see how that would result in price reductions in the sector. Of course, we have the price cap, and that would help in some respects, but without proper controls it is difficult to see how the costs would not ultimately be passed on to consumers.
Secondly, on competition in the market, we all know that the industry is volatile: BP’s profits last year were at a record low, and they are now at an enormous high. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was absolutely right that BP and Shell have not said that a windfall tax would be a disaster for them, but in many ways they would not say that, because they are huge players in the market and they could absorb it. The problem will be much more with the smaller players and the discouragement to competition that such a tax might result in. I strongly believe that the best way to drive down prices in the market is by encouraging competition. We have lost that recently, and I do not see how a windfall tax would encourage it or get it back in place.
Finally, we need to be clear that the best thing we can do to help everyone is drive up economic growth, which is best served by businesses creating jobs and driving consumption. If we put a windfall tax on industries at random, that will discourage investment. I am not talking about individual projects here and there, and I recognise what BP has said, but in the business environment overall we need to be extremely clear about what our criteria are for imposing windfall taxes and, therefore, the impact those will have on investment in business overall. What we cannot do under any circumstances is give up our reputation for being a stable, low-taxation economy.
That aside, I have one idea of my own to put to the Front-Bench team. I think that we should introduce a measure to make it illegal to disconnect the energy supply, similar to that for the water supply. Following privatisation in 1989, the Water Act 1989 prohibited the disconnection of the water supply to domestic customers for reasons of non-payment. Companies can therefore still take people to court for moneys owed, but they cannot cut off supply. Currently, energy suppliers cannot disconnect households over the winter months in some situations, such as those who live alone or with other people who have reached the state pension age. I propose that we extend that more widely to ensure that, in the very worst circumstances, we do not have people’s homes cut off. I hope that can be taken away and considered. More broadly, when we are talking about these issues and how we best help people, let us think about the potential quantum for the windfall tax: what it will raise, the potential harm it may cause and what the alternatives are.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I will be brief—I have absolutely no choice about that. I was going to say that hundreds of thousands of people are now lying awake at night worrying about paying their bills, but the real figure is probably into the millions. That is certainly the case in my constituency. Day in, day out, I am contacted by people—I also bump into them at various events or in the street—who tell me that they are worried sick about not being able to pay their bills. It is a cliché to talk about the choice between heating and eating, but it is a cliché because there is a great deal of truth in it. Among poorer households, that choice has been there for years—it goes back to the early days of austerity—but that economic insecurity, which again I see in my constituency, is starting to travel up the income scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) referred to comments made yesterday by the Governor of the Bank of England. I think the word he used was “apocalyptic” on the food price rises that will hit this country—and others, to be fair—in the next few months.
John Cryer
And she was there.
I discovered these stark figures only the other day: only 12 years ago, the number of people using food banks was fewer than 30,000. It is now in excess of 2.5 million. Those figures illustrate what is happening in the country, if no other figures do. They should be sprayed on people’s eyeballs. More than 2.5 million people have been forced into using food banks.
This is an economic situation without precedent, certainly in living memory. I had hoped we had learned that at times of national catastrophe, full-scale Government intervention is always the answer. We should have learned that from covid, when it was clear, but the lesson has not been learned, and clearly not by the Chancellor. Full-scale state intervention is the only way to respond in times of national catastrophe. Sadly, the Chancellor is not in his place. Perhaps he has gone for a long lie down to think about the advantages of a windfall tax. We have a desiccated Chancellor who is wedded to the idea that the free market will deliver all, but it will not. We should not really be surprised by that when we have a Minister, the honourable—I use the word in its broadest possible sense—Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who said, very clearly, “If you’ve got problems, just work a few more hours.” We are sent here to represent people, not attack them. She attacked British workers.
In the same vein, a few years ago, leading members of this Government produced a book called “Britannia Unchained”, which some of us might remember. It said, in very clear terms,
“the British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours”
and
“we retire early.”
That is just factually incorrect. We work among the longest hours in Europe, and we very often retire later than people in other European countries. That historical contempt for British workers is behind the laissez-faire attitude to the current situation, and if it does not change quickly, we are heading for catastrophe.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Helping our constituents with the rising cost of living is clearly the most pressing challenge facing our country, and most other countries in western Europe and North America, over the next year. The issue was rightly at the top of the Queen’s Speech, because it needs to be right at the top of the Government’s agenda for the year ahead.
Prices are rising right around the world. A number of factors have come together. Some are supply-led; some crucial supplies are still suffering from the impact of the pandemic. Others are demand-led. Pent-up demand has been released, resulting in excess demand, as people make purchases that have not been possible over the past couple of years. There has been a switch to lower-carbon fossil fuels; people are moving away from coal and other dirty fossil fuels to cleaner fuels such as gas. That is all coming together to cause an increase in prices that few of us have seen in our adult lifetime.
A large package of support is clearly necessary. I welcome the support the Chancellor has already announced and introduced, and in particular the strong focus on helping low-paid workers and those most likely to be struggling. There is last month’s increase in the national living wage; the additional money through the universal credit taper, which gives well over 1 million families over £1,000; and, from July, the increase in the national insurance contribution threshold, which will put another £330 in people’s pay packets. Together, those measures will mean that the lowest-paid workers are significantly better off. That is part of a £22 billion package, which is an enormous amount. It is difficult to grasp quite how big a number it is. It is, for example, more than the budget for the police and Border Force combined. These are not insignificant figures. They also come on top of the sums that were spent to help to get people through the pandemic, when the wages of 12 million workers were paid, either through furlough or the self-employment income support scheme.
However, many of our constituents are still struggling. As prices continue to rise over the coming months, even more will struggle, so more will need to be done. The Government need to look constantly at what can be done to provide effective and sustainable support. I welcome the special Cabinet meeting last Thursday, and hope that it will be part of a long series of reviews to consider the measures that might be introduced. I urge the Treasury and other Ministers to look at how we can narrow the time gap between the calculation of consumer prices index and earnings growth figures for uprating pensions and benefits, and those increases coming in. The figures are calculated so far ahead of when they come in. In normal times, the difference between, say, September’s CPI figures and April might amount to half of 1% of a pension, or 50p or 60p a week. However, when there are very sharp increases in inflation, it can be £4, £5, £6 or £7 a week.
On a windfall tax, I would normally oppose retrospective taxation, but given the circumstances in the energy markets, it can be justified here. However, we need to be confident, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, that the benefits of such a tax outweigh the costs. We have to understand what the costs are, and the benefits are perhaps not quite as high as people imagine. They certainly would not pay for the package that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the former Leader of the Opposition, set out. There would probably be about £14 billion or £15 billion spare. That would be about £5 per month per household, instead of the large amounts that the Government have delivered.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I will begin by talking about something that I care a lot about, which ought to have been in the Queen’s Speech, but was not: the Hillsborough law and, particularly, the Public Advocate Bill that my noble Friend Lord Wills first introduced in the other place in 2014. He and I have been introducing it in both Houses ever since.
The Bill’s aim is to prevent families bereaved by public disasters from ever again having to endure the horrors that the Hillsborough families and survivors have endured over the course of 33 years. Something similar was in the Conservative manifesto in 2017, but it has disappeared, and I do not understand why. Disasters continue to happen and, although each has its own particular circumstances, there are common themes—issues that a public advocate, as proposed in my Bill, would work to ameliorate at an early stage, saving those affected years of heartache, pain and cost, and saving the public purse millions of pounds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) mentioned the issue in her speech, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) told the Prime Minister on the first day of the debate that he should simply adopt my Bill. Naturally, I agree. The Bill would fulfil a manifesto promise. Why has it disappeared? I simply do not understand it. The Public Advocate Bill should be enacted, and the Hillsborough law should be passed by this place; that is long past due. I hope that, even now, the Government decide to do it. They would get a lot of support from Opposition Members.
The past 12 Tory years have seen economic growth stagnate. It has fallen from 2% a year on average under Labour to just 1.5%, and is forecast by the Bank of England to go negative shortly. Inflation has hit 7% and is forecast to reach 10% later this year. Energy bills are already up 54% this year and will rise further in October. Food and fuel prices are soaring because of the end of frictionless trade with Europe after Brexit, and because of the shocks caused by the Ukraine war and covid. The coming food price increases will be “apocalyptic”, according to the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday, yet the Office for Budget Responsibility says that real wages will be lower in 2026 than in 2008, before the global financial crisis.
My constituents have faced 12 years of frozen wages, and real-terms cuts to the support that they used to rely on in difficult times. The Government recently cut universal credit by £1,000, and have increased benefits by 3% when inflation is more than 7%; that is a real-terms cut for some of the poorest in our society. The Government have just increased taxes for working people by increasing national insurance. It is one of 15 Tory tax rises that have left taxes at their highest for 70 years. The Government’s failure to help the poorest people now is exacerbating the cost of living crisis faced by thousands of families in Garston and Halewood. We need measures to tackle the cost of living crisis, and an emergency Budget that imposes a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, which are coining it in because of the soaring price of energy—and we need it now. That is why I very much welcome the Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment to the Loyal Address. We really need short-term measures that will help immediately, when the bills need paying, not promises of jam tomorrow, or at some time in the future, when it will be too late to avert serious crises for many families in my constituency.
I say to Ministers, and to some Tory Back Benchers, that the old Tory trick of blaming poor people for their misfortune, as though they were morally culpable, is heartless and shows that, in addition to being callous, they are out of touch. Many of my constituents have been trying to get more hours or better jobs, buying cheaper supermarket brands and cooking on a shoestring, but they are still sinking financially. They simply do not have enough money to live because of increasing costs and real cuts in their income that have gone on for years. Many are disabled, and some cannot work, even though they want to, or change their circumstances easily. Those with caring responsibilities lose more in additional childcare costs after increasing their hours than they gain from the increased wages that they get for working for longer. Pensioners on small, fixed incomes do not have the financial resilience to cope with huge increases in the cost of living. Many budget their incomes to within pennies, and it is not fair to imply that they are at fault for their situation, or could easily change it if only they bothered to. When this Government begin to realise the truth of that, they might start to think that they should do something about it.
Energy bills are set to rise by a record amount later this year. It is shameful that the Chancellor is not really doing anything to prevent that, and is more intent on feuding with the Prime Minister about his political future than on the future of millions of people in this country. Conservative Members could do some good: they could vote for the amendment tonight.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
What do we mean by the cost of living? Well, we really mean the cost of housing, utilities and food. The argument has been put that they are all out of the Government’s control because they are driven by international pressure, but housing is a domestic competence.
I am concerned that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill has missed an opportunity. Certainly in my part of the south-west in Devon, finding affordable housing is well neigh impossible and social housing is almost invisible, and that is because there is nothing in the planning system to, first, ensure that “affordable” really means affordable—there is no regionalisation of the term —or, secondly, stop the argy-bargy between the developer and the planning authority, which means that the sum set aside for affordable and social housing is, in effect, tiny. Local authorities need more power, and they need to be able to hold the line so that we get the affordable property we need, not what the developers want.
Of course, we also have to deal with those problems that, while not generated by domestic drivers, none the less affect every man and woman on the street, and we have to provide help and support, as the Chancellor did very effectively during covid. The support that has already been provided to the poorest in society is very welcome, but I sometimes think that the Treasury does not recognise that everybody is hurting. We need only look at the statistics provided by the Office for National Statistics to see that everybody needs some support. Pensioners on fixed incomes and those who have done the right thing and invested in a home cannot just move or change their mortgage and utility supplier; they are struggling with the same issue of trying to meet the costs of housing, utility and food bills. They need some help. We should not reject solutions just because they impact on and benefit more people than just the poorest.
I am not a great believer in increasing tax; I am a great believer in reducing it. As I have said on a number of occasions, we could move forward by cutting VAT on energy bills. Now that we are renegotiating the Northern Ireland protocol and looking at talking to Brussels, it cannot be right that the VAT on residents across the United Kingdom is not under the Government’s control. That would be a sensible way forward. Tinkering with having MOTs every second or third year, rather than every single year, will not really cut it.
There would effectively be a windfall on the Treasury, which is more appropriate than a windfall on those who provide productivity and general growth in our country. However, the Government need to make ends meet, so there needs to be a thorough look at the various spending commitments and projects. We talk about HS2, but it is only one of many projects in which there is so much vested interest. I recommend that the Government ask the National Audit Office to set up a commission specifically to look at which projects we can and should cut. They may be nice, but they are not necessary.
There is one area that we have not touched on, which is causing a lot of grief. We rightly say, “Isn’t it wonderful that unemployment is at a low level?” But there is a reason for that: the fundamental reshaping of the labour market that has caused a number of people to fall out of employment. In Devon, a number of people in their 40s and 50s are out of the market, meaning that we have a 25% shortfall in that age group. Something is not working. I have talked to employers in my constituency. Unless we fix the issue, we are not going to help them to survive, and we need them to survive in order to carry on paying wages.
We need to look at what is causing the problem. There are at least two things, but there might be more. One is our benefits system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) did a grand job and the Government have implemented much of that work, but the market has changed, so the system needs to be reviewed. It seems that what is stopping people is the challenge of losing housing benefit and childcare. We have addressed this to some extent, but there is more work to do. I suggest that the Government ask my right hon. Friend to set up a taskforce to look at that issue, at the whole structure of employment and at how we can attract people from overseas to work in our markets.
The Gracious Speech has many factors to commend it, but addressing the cost of living is not one.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anneusb Marie Morris). It is sad that our Gracious Sovereign missed announcing the Government’s programme, but we look forward to seeing her again in the future.
The cost of living is one of the biggest crises engulfing our nations and regions. That is what people have said to us in the recent local elections; from Cumbria to Westminster, they are facing a cost of living crisis. In April, benefits and pensions rose by 3.1%, yet the rate of inflation was 6.2% and is to rise tomorrow. The Government’s independent fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, says that living standards are set to fall by the largest amount in a single year since records began in the 1950s, and the Resolution Foundation says that the income of an average household will be cut by £1,200 this year. That is the background of life for our constituents, but the Gracious Speech contained nothing to help them.
Some are okay. The oil and gas companies have said they have
“more cash than we know what to do with”.
That is why a windfall tax is the best way to ease people out of this crisis. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) eloquently set out, the proposal has been costed; it is not borrowing. It will raise £2 billion, and will give £600 to each household that is most in need and extend the warm home discount. Even businesses are suffering from the increase in energy prices, but it seems that the Government prefer windfall donations or windfall fast-track contracts for their friends to a windfall tax. A Minister says, “Work harder, people”, yet people have to face more insecurity at work because there were no measures to remove the pernicious fire and rehire policy, which must end.
This Government are wasteful, not innovative: £8.7 billion was wasted on personal protective equipment that was unusable, past its sell-by-date and overpriced; the Government are burning £45 million of PPE a month to get rid of it, and the contract for the waste companies is £35 million; and £11.8 billion was lost to fraud through covid support schemes. Just ask the Minister, Lord Agnew, who said it was
“a happy time to be a crook”.
And £71 million was wasted on the Chancellor’s eat out to help out scheme, which Warwick University said accelerated the second wave of the pandemic. We have also had a Government Minister leaving a note on the desks of civil servants telling them to come back, then a week later leaving the note to tell them that he was going to get rid of 90,000 of them. It might be a new Gracious Speech, but it is the same old Government incompetence.
I want to touch on two other points. Planning was mentioned in the Gracious Speech, and some of those proposals will need to be looked at. I welcome the fact that the Government will enhance the green belt but I am not quite sure what they want to do with the revised national planning policy framework. Street votes would pit one neighbour against another, and they must be based on planning grounds. And what do you do with a council such as Walsall Council? Despite 2,000 residents not wanting a transit site in Pleck, the council went ahead—against the wishes of those people, against the site allocation document and against the planning inspector’s agreement—and put it in one of the most dangerous places, where, by Walsall’s own assessment, the acceptable nitrogen dioxide levels are being breached. Young children will be living on that site. It is costing £500,000, yet the council says it has no money for allotments.
On the subject of tinkering with the Human Rights Act, this is about the right to a fair hearing and to be represented; all it does is enact the convention into UK law to provide an effective remedy. Lord Bingham said that every one of the convention rights was breached in the second world war. Just ask the people of Ukraine if they think there should be a Human Rights Act. The Government must remember that the margin of appreciation doctrine allows our country’s unique legal and cultural traditions to be incorporated without flouting the objectives of the convention, and they cannot fetter the ability of judges to do their job, because they hear the evidence.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) about a public advocate. That would end the hurt of the people involved in Grenfell Tower, the Horizon post office system, Bloody Sunday and Hillsborough. Remember that the Hillsborough inquiry took 27 years. I also want to congratulate Jürgen Klopp and Liverpool on winning a fantastic FA Cup.
Our constituents are faced with an increase in mortgages, fuel prices, food prices and energy costs; they are all going up. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has found that wages are now lower in real terms than they were in 2008. Our constituents deserve better. They deserve a safety net in bad times but, most of all, they deserve opportunity and prosperity.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and to follow her. It is also a pleasure to be able to welcome Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, introduced by this Prime Minister and this Chancellor. They are leading a Government who continue to look at finding long-term solutions to large, persistent problems and having the courage to pursue them fully. The debate today is entitled “Tackling short and long-term cost of living increases”, and many of the contributions have rightly focused on the immediate pressures on the cost of living. If I may, I want to mention a couple of points that look at longer-term solutions.
The first relates to an issue that came up in our Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee: the problem of decarbonising home heat. If we wish to achieve our net zero goals in the timeframe that we as a Parliament have set out, one of the most significant challenges will be how our households are to afford changing the way they heat their homes to be consistent with net zero. The up-front cost appears to be about £12,000, and it is well beyond the ability of any household to afford that, essentially to replace something that is working perfectly satisfactorily with something that will hopefully work perfectly satisfactorily but have much less impact on the climate. It was clear in our hearing that no obvious solutions are around today that would solve the issue. That led to a significant debate in the Committee.
I want to draw the attention of those on the Front Bench to solutions around the idea of net zero community green schemes. In a previous contribution I talked about the possibility of attracting the enterprise investment scheme towards a net zero scheme, but there are also ways to get patient capital and pension fund capital in. Bankers without Boundaries has been working with the UK Cities Climate Investment Commission on green neighbourhood funding models that combine the opportunity to retrofit housing—putting in the insulation that many very poorly insulated houses require—with the installation of heat pumps and other work on a community basis, while also considering ways to make the step change in recycling that the Government are trying to accomplish, so that we can make a big step forward on the circular economy.
Interestingly, by doing it on a community basis, we have two significant public gains: a financial model is created that can attract pension fund money because it has a long-term return and is at scale; and we get over the inequities of saying that individual households ought to be providing the finance for achieving net zero, which means many poor families and households will never be able to make that leap. Attracting such private capital can substantially reduce the cost to the Treasury of achieving that long-term gain. It will not affect energy bills in the short term but, my goodness, it is the sort of idea we need if we are to find a pragmatic rather than ideological solution to achieving green energy change.
I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), as we need substantial regulatory change in this country. Even since our exit, we have stuck with the EU’s sclerotic regulatory powers for too long. We have made insufficient progress towards getting the agility she described, and we rely too much on regulatory agencies that, I am afraid, too frequently show themselves to be asleep at the wheel.
The BEIS Committee has previously looked at the Financial Reporting Council and the Pensions Regulator and their issues with BHS and Carillion. It is nice to see an audit reform Bill in the Gracious Speech, but it is only a draft Bill. We need to look at the issues with Ofgem. Where on earth was Ofgem last year and the year before? Absolutely nowhere. Ofgem’s job is to improve competition. We had someone before the Committee who was then at university. When asked whether he had a finance director, he said, “I don’t need one.” When we pressed him, he said, “Well, I’ve got my dad.” He was responsible for £300 million of consumer expenditure on energy. Ofgem is asleep at the wheel, just as the FRC and the Pension Regulator were historically asleep at the wheel and the Bank of England is potentially asleep at the wheel, so let us have real, substantive reform of our regulatory agencies to ensure that we have performance indicators and oversight by this House and by the public.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The next two speakers will have five minutes, but then we are going down to four minutes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It was interesting to listen to what the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) had to say about green community energy funds, but a great deal is missing from this year’s Queen’s Speech. There is nothing about making misogyny a hate crime or tackling violence against women and girls, nothing about making housing more affordable and, once again, the climate emergency was not mentioned even once. Thousands are struggling because of the cost of living crisis. Now is the time for the Government to be bold on the future of energy, where it comes from and what it will cost.
One of my constituents told me, “I do not heat my home properly, and I stay in bed to keep warm.” I welcome the upcoming energy security Bill, but will it say, in no uncertain terms, that the future must be renewable energy and not fossil fuels? Will it set an end date for the UK to stop all fossil fuel extraction and leave gas and oil in the ground? Where is the windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas giants that the Liberal Democrats are calling for? Where is the retrofitting programme to save energy and ease the burden of rising bills? Why are developers still able to build homes that will need expensive retrofitting in a few years’ time because the Government have failed to introduce legislation to build net-zero homes now?
Unless we see a decisive legislative programme now, households will struggle with the cost of living crisis far into the future. In Bath and North-East Somerset, the average household energy bill has risen to a staggering £1,360, and research suggests that the Government’s short-sighted decision to scrap the zero carbon homes policy has added nearly £400 a year to people’s energy bills. Insulating our homes is not just about getting to net zero; it will protect the British people from volatile energy prices and rising bills. The sooner the Government get on with a meaningful and resourced plan to improve the energy efficiency of our homes, the better.
Access to health causes increasing anxiety to my constituents. Bath and North East Somerset has been named as one of the UK’s 20 “dental deserts”; we have only 44 dentists per 100,000 people. For many of my constituents, NHS dental treatment remains a distant prospect. One constituent told me that she was afraid to eat in case she broke one of her temporary fillings—anything more permanent would cost private fees. We will face an exodus of dentists from the NHS if the Government do not act and reform the dentists’ contract.
What about ambulance waiting times? People in the south-west are waiting longer for ambulances than people anywhere else in England, with waiting times regularly exceeding two hours. This crisis is driven by the crisis in social care. The Royal United Hospital, my local one, has at least 100 beds filled with people who are medically fit to be discharged but have no one to look after them at home. It is essentially a workforce crisis in social care. Unless the Government understand how to make social care a valued and well-paid career, the crisis will continue into the future and get worse.
Finally, where is the promised employment Bill? Ministers have been promising to enhance redundancy protections for pregnant women and new mothers since December 2019, as a direct response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s landmark investigation into pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the workplace. This Government have wasted six years talking about pregnancy and maternity discrimination at work, and have failed to do anything to tackle it. The Conservatives have been running the country since 2015. In that time, we have become poorer, more divided, more unequal and less able to face the big challenges of the future.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As a former global investment manager, I am very concerned about the trajectory of the global economy. Unfortunately, I do not think the UK is going to escape that. I am very concerned that the inflation regime around the world has changed substantially in the past couple of months. The deglobalisation that will be one of the impacts of what has happened through the Ukraine crisis will be a permanent feature and a permanent shift. We need to take account of it and be aware of what this House can do to help people with the cost of living in that environment. We know that the price of food is going to go up, but the price of fertiliser is going through the roof because supply has been disrupted to such an extent. We are in danger of being complacent about that and the change it will bring about.
I do not agree with those on the Opposition Benches who, as ever, are saying that tax and spend is the way forward. We need to look at ways in which we can help out the Bank of England. It is not the Bank’s fault that its only tool is interest rates, but unless we in this House find ways of getting prices down for people now, the Bank of England, like the Federal Reserve in America, will have no choice but to keep jacking up interest rates to the point where demand is destroyed and recession is created. Very severe recession may ensue, and that is incredibly bad for budgets and for balancing them.
I welcome what our Front Benchers have tried to put forward through the Queen’s Speech—it is fine as far as it goes, and I appreciate the help that is there for people. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that a focus on regulatory reform is particularly welcome, but unless we take radical fiscal measures to reduce prices now, in a Bill next week or the week after, I am afraid that it will be too late and we will be tipped into severe recession later this year.
I therefore recommend that we look urgently at bringing forward measures to reduce VAT rates throughout the economy and reduce fuel duty. In essence, unless we try, right now, to keep price rises to 4% or 5%—otherwise, they might be plus 10%, plus 12% or plus 15%; we do not know what they will be—we will be in very serious trouble as a country. Inflation hurts most the people at the bottom end of the spectrum. I encourage the Government to target reforms at those people and to make price help available to them. To be honest, I do not think our side of politics has focused enough on what we can do about absolute prices. It is great to help people out, but subsidising higher prices just perpetuates the problem and makes it worse.
We have to look hard at some of these things. Yes, we need to look at investment, and I welcome what the Chancellor said about that. Energy investment is going to be particularly important. We need to focus on making sure we invest in domestic food production so that we get it firing on all cylinders. We need to be almost on a war footing in that respect, because it is that serious. We need to help people with prices and to get our economy moving. I fear that if we do not, we will come up against stagflation, which is very damaging to people’s house prices and, in the end, to everything, so we have to focus on that massively.
I come back to the point that growth is the key. I agree that we should try to limit spending and look at ways to reform administration and services—I welcome the talk of reforming the civil service—but at the end of the day budgets depend more than anything else on economic growth for tax revenue increases over time. I really fear that, unless we take action this day, we will be in for a rude awakening. We cannot let our constituents down.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is now four minutes. If anybody can make their points in less than four minutes, they will be helping some colleagues, I assure them.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), who made some important points about the need for action now, in recognition of the severity of the crisis we face.
I spent yesterday morning at a crisis meeting in a part of my constituency where incomes are lowest. We looked at how the cost of living crisis was impacting on people. The meeting involved the voluntary sector, energy advisers, food banks, debt advisers, schools, housing providers, local councillors and more. We talked about people’s real struggles to feed families and pay bills; about the impact of that on the mental health of people who had previously been just managing but could not see how that could continue; about suicide attempts as a consequence of what people in the constituency were facing; and about the re-emergence of the problem of loan sharks exploiting people’s hardship.
We discussed the efforts of all those at the meeting to try to offset some of the damage faced by families, and those efforts were extraordinary, but time and again everybody said, “What we are doing is not enough. The Government need to act.” A lot could be done, including the restoration of the universal credit uplift, a meaningful increase in the household support fund and, of course, a windfall tax so that we can cap energy bills and reduce VAT on them.
The Prime Minister knows that it can be done. Last Tuesday he opened the debate on the Queen’s Speech by telling the House that the Government
“have the fiscal firepower to help families up and down the country with all the pressures that they face now.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 17.]
The problem is that they are not going to use it. They shrug their shoulders and say, as the Chancellor did again today, “What can the Government do to solve these problems?” It is not true to say that, and they know it.
Other countries have acted. To protect consumers and businesses, France has limited energy bill increases to just 4% this year by taking £7 billion out of EDF’s profits. Spain has committed to cutting connection fees and to taxing excess profits on new electricity supply contracts to protect people from soaring prices. It is spending €16 billion on support. Germany has instigated a range of measures, including tax reliefs, a reduction in fuel duty and a monthly public transport ticket costing just €9, which will also encourage the modal shift we need in the way people move about. It is a matter of choice. The Government point to growth as the answer, and growth clearly is important, but their record shows that they cannot deliver it.
In November 2019, before we knew the word “coronavirus”, growth was the slowest that it had been in a decade. Our bounce back from the pandemic has been slower than expected this year, with the Brexit deal failing to deliver for supply chains, and the Government’s failure to insulate from the cost of living crisis limiting spending and productivity. Either they do not understand the depth of the pressures—and comments such as “learn to cook” or “work more hours” perhaps indicate that they do not—or they simply do not care. If we let people sink or swim, the problem is that too many people will sink. As we know, the money is there. The oil and gas companies have it—more than they know what to do with. What we need is action now, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said. We face an unprecedented crisis in the cost of living. We needed a Gracious Speech that addressed it. We need an emergency Budget. The Government cannot sit on their hands any longer.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. We have heard much this afternoon about the hike in energy prices. It is well-documented and concerning. However, I welcome the supercharging of the effort to boost homegrown clean energy, which will drive down costs, take the volatility out of the energy markets and cut our carbon footprint. That is all welcome, but more must be done now to help. Those changes will help in the future, but we need help in our homes now, as we have heard. We also need to look closely at the use of the standing charge—a daily charge on every household—which has risen to 50p plus, putting £150 more on the bill. I am concerned that these standing charges will never come down, so it is important that we raise the matter here and that we keep our eye closely on the use of them by energy companies.
We also know that food prices are on the rise, but we are not seeing the same kind of supercharging in the Government’s response when it comes to increasing homegrown food production. Now that we have left the EU, the Government have the power to prioritise food production, using money already available through the environmental land management scheme to supercharge food production to make sure that farmers have the confidence, security and funding to produce the food that we need. Surely if there was ever a time to boost food production in the UK it is now.
I know from speaking to many people in food, farming and fishing that the sector is willing to step up and increase production, but, at the moment, they are planning to sow less, rear less and fish less because of their concerns about the cost of fertilisers, fuel, energy and so on. The Government must look very closely at how we can supercharge homegrown food production.
The real squeeze is on household budgets, especially for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. One area that we have heard little about this afternoon is the cost of housing. Rents in recent years have rocketed. In my constituency, people can barely find a house to rent. If they can find one, a three-bedroom house costs £1,400-plus, which is a massive increase on perhaps a year ago. House prices have also rocketed in the south-west, and action is needed, and needed now, to address the matter.
I welcome the fact that the Queen’s Speech includes a levelling up and regeneration Bill, but it must be a response to the housing challenges in coastal areas in particular. Existing homes must be made more efficient; that would help with energy costs, as we heard from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). New homes must be protected for permanent residence. It is far easier to get homes built in rural areas such as mine if local people know that they will meet a recognisable need, such as the acute need of housing.
More must be done to safeguard the homes in which people already live. Every week, I meet families who have been turfed out of their homes, and those homes are then flipped for other uses. Landlords are not entirely at fault, as changes in the tax system and the energy performance rating system have discouraged them from providing homes for local families. I welcome the Government’s recent commitment to changing the methodology of energy performance certificates, but more must be done to make sure that being a landlord, or providing homes for people to live in, is both attractive and secure. It is vital that the Government take more decisive action to support home ownership, secure a quality home for everyone who needs one and drive down the cost of those homes through good energy efficiency measures.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I congratulate Liverpool football club, although, as an Everton supporter, I hope people will respect my wishes and not tell them.
The Chancellor seems increasingly tetchy and indignant at the very idea that he should be expected to loosen the purse strings and support those people who are most economically challenged, but today we find ourselves in a scenario where the International Monetary Fund predicts that the UK will have the weakest growth and highest inflation in the G7 in 2023. Even before the pandemic, and before the war in Ukraine, we had weaker growth than the rest of the G7. We were less productive than our German, French and Americans counterparts by a country mile, and the UK is ranked 24th out of 25 countries in the OECD for public sector investment. In fact, British employees work 38 days a year more than the Germans and are being expected to work even harder. We face even more pain. Research by the debt collection agency Lowell has found that, after factoring in emergency savings, defaulted debt, the claiming of work-related benefits, and the use of payday loans and high-cost loans and emergency credit, my Bootle constituency is in the top 10 constituencies hardest hit by the cost of living crisis.
This crisis can be solved, and the Chancellor can help to solve it, but he will not. He never tires of telling everybody—at least, the diminishing number who are listening to him—that £410 billion has been spent on the pandemic in one way or another. We spent £1.3 trillion in one way or another in bailing out the banks, so we can bail out 66 million people and the millions of people who are in dire straits.
The Chancellor has lectured us for not being supportive of his Budget. Well, it was hardly a Budget; there was nothing in it to be supportive of. There was nothing whatsoever of any significance there. For too many of our constituents who stand on the precipice of falling into deeper poverty, the Government’s failure to tackle this issue is deplorable. We need urgent action from the Government now, in the next few days—not in six months, not in a year, not next year, but now.
If the Government will not listen to the Opposition, they should listen to the public. Government Members cannot seriously expect us to believe that their constituents are happy with what the Government have been doing or with their handling of the crisis. At most, we are little further than two years from a general election. We like general elections in Bootle, because we can send a message to the Tories. In my old council seat of St Oswalds, they did not put up any candidate in the local elections. Nobody but Labour put up a candidate in the local elections, because people know Labour are the only ones who are there to support them.
My campaign between now and the next election will remind my constituents—not that they need reminding—and for that matter anyone who will listen, that the Tories are the party of high inflation, high taxation, low growth, low productivity, low skills, low wages, low investment and low aspiration—and that is just for starters.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Prices have indeed soared in recent months, driven by a number of global factors such as covid and the war in Ukraine. Millions of people are finding it harder to make ends meet. So far, the Government have provided £22 billion of support, including the council tax rebate, a cut to fuel duty and the household support fund, but the heartbreaking stories we have heard in this debate, for example those shared by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), show that we need to do more. In particular, I think we should urgently review universal credit rates. However, we must also be mindful of the inflationary pressures of pumping more borrowed money into the economy and the long-term debt implications for our children and grandchildren.
I welcome the Bills announced in the Queen’s Speech to tackle the cost of living in the long term by addressing some of the structural issues that have caused prices to rise and wages to stagnate. I welcome the energy security Bill, which will secure our energy supply; I welcome the Schools Bill and the higher education Bill, which will drive up standards and offer a lifetime loan entitlement so that people can upskill at any point in their lives. We should also reconsider whether some of the £11 billion a year cost of higher education should be redirected to vocational and technical education to meet skills demands.
I welcome the procurement Bill and the Brexit freedoms Bill. We must make sure that this legislation provides opportunities for British industry, especially the UK steel industry, to win public sector contracts.
I support many of the planning reforms laid out in the levelling up Bill, but we must build far more homes so as to have an impact on prices. We should focus on developing whole new towns, and build hundreds of thousands of social houses, restoring the hope of having a decent home to young people.
The Bills laid out in the Queen’s Speech will do much to tackle the cost of living in the long term, growing the economy and tackling rising prices, but the elephant in the room is taxation. The biggest cost in many people’s lives now is the state, with taxation levels at a 70-year high. Many Conservative Members, and our constituents, are deeply uncomfortable with this level of taxation. However, not so long ago, when the welfare state was born, life expectancy was 65, people started work at 15, and few lived long into retirement, while the state was not required to pay for childcare or adult social care because women and the wider community provided it unpaid. Now, longer life expectancy, many years spent in education and retirement, and ever better healthcare have increased, probably permanently, the cost of the state.
So what can be done? We might not be able to reduce the overall tax burden significantly, although economic growth, improving our health and strengthening our social fabric will help, but we can reform our taxation system to share the burden more fairly. Our system of individual income taxation takes no account of how many people each income supports, so a single person earning the average salary of £30,000 a year is obviously better off than a single-earner family of four where the earning parent’s wage is also £30,000. The single person has only themselves to support, yet the family have to feed, clothe and heat four people, but both pay more or less the same amount of tax. This individualistic approach to taxation means that to have the same standard of living as a single person on a wage of £30,000, a family of four must earn £74,500—an unachievable figure for many. That makes us an outlier. Many other countries, such as France, Germany and the US, take into account the number of people an income supports. Our system makes it very hard for families to work their way out of poverty, discourages family stability, and fails to recognise the important contribution that parents make to society.
I welcome the Bills introduced in the Queen’s Speech, which will tackle the cost of living in the long term, but we must be realistic about taxation—yes, reducing it where possible, but prioritising reforms that tackle generational inequalities and put children first.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The cost of living crisis presents the biggest threat in a generation to the living standards of the working class in this country. The removal of the energy price cap has meant that bills have risen by up to 54% for millions of households in the UK. This has meant the highest real-terms energy price increase in living memory, with the worst fall in living standards since the 1950s.
Shockingly, the cost of living crisis is having a disproportionate effect on women. According to work done by the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), more than 7.5 million women are currently living in relative poverty. That translates to almost a quarter of all women across the UK. The TUC has said that the Chancellor’s response to the cost of living crisis has been “woefully inadequate”. It says that he needs to call
“an emergency budget to get pay rising, help families with soaring bills, and keep the economy moving”—
and it is absolutely right.
This cost of living crisis is underpinned by financial injustice and unfairness. It is a crisis where Tory smoke and mirrors cannot hide the truth, and where people have had to choose between eating and heating their homes while paying crippling bills. Against the backdrop of these cruel choices, oil and gas companies have managed to turn over record profits in the first quarter of 2022, with Shell recording a record quarterly profit of $9.1 billion, up from $6.3 billion in the final three months of 2021, while BP has seen its profits for the first quarter more than double on the previous year to $6.2 billion. This cannot be right.
I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that committed to bringing energy companies into public ownership, which would have regulated prices and ultimately put accountability to the people over profit. This Government should have looked towards countries such as France, Spain and Germany and used the Queen’s Speech as an opportunity to implement a low-percentage price cap on energy prices, and they should have committed to implementing a windfall tax. Calls for a windfall tax are supported not only by those on the Opposition side of the House, but elsewhere, including by the Tesco chairman, John Allan.
If the best this Chancellor can provide is a tacit threat to impose a windfall tax on energy companies, rather than a legislative commitment, that is simply not good enough. The increase in energy prices and the responsibility for the terrifying cost of living crisis stop at the Government’s door, and they have failed to use this Queen’s Speech as an opportunity to rebalance the financial burden in this country. More people will suffer through their lack of action.
As we emerge from this pandemic, people in this country are enduring one of the worst cost of living crises seen in post-war Britain. The simple fact is that it does not have to be like this, and the Government have a duty to alleviate this crisis by making corporations, and those who can, contribute more. This Queen’s Speech was an opportunity to redress the balance, but it was also incumbent on the Government to take action, and they have not. This Queen’s Speech, put forward by this Government, has no substance and shows no willingness to redress the balance of power in this country. Unless they do more, I fear for the people I represent in the Jarrow constituency and for those in the rest of the UK.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne).
There is much to welcome in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, but since I have only four minutes, I will be brief about the Bills in it. The Schools Bill will raise standards and help every child fulfil their potential in this country, and the energy security Bill will tackle the long-term cost of living increases. We have seen the disruption that oil prices can cause, but we can expand on our leadership in offshore wind, build new nuclear and kick-start Britain’s hydrogen economy. The Brexit freedoms Bill will make it easier to amend and repeal outdated EU laws.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will give communities new powers to drive local growth and regeneration. That will build on the success we have already had in Newcastle-under-Lyme from the future high streets fund and the town deal, with more than £50 million of investment brought into our borough by a very well-run council. As I said earlier, it has already paid out to 34,000 residents their £150, whereas so many Labour councils—I mentioned some of them earlier, and I forgot Kirklees, with apologies to my hon. Friends from there—have not paid out their £150. All the words from those on the Opposition Benches about the cost of living squeeze ring very hollow when their councils are not getting that money into people’s bank accounts. No doubt that is why Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council was returned earlier this month with the first Conservative majority in our history. We won seats from Labour in historic Labour places, such as Crackley and Silverdale. I am very proud of the achievements of that council and the leader Simon Tagg.
Turning to support with the cost of living, many colleagues have said that we are right to target growth and investment in the long term. That is the solution to raising standards in the long term, but we need support right now because of the high inflation that has been stoked principally by the oil price and by Putin’s war in Ukraine. I welcome the threshold rise in national insurance, which means that 30 million people will be better off and 70% will be paying less even after the new levy. I noticed that in the Opposition’s literature, they said they would scrap the levy, but now they are rowing back on that. Can we have a spending commitment for the next election that they want to scrap it? That levy is going to support the NHS and social care, so if Labour wants to remove it, it should say so.
We are increasing the warm home discount to £100, and extending eligibility to 3 million people. We are doubling the household support fund to £1 billion and investing £200 million per annum in continuing the holiday activities and food programme. I am also very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on fuel duty. That 5p cut is very helpful in a constituency such as Newcastle-under-Lyme, where so many are reliant on cars.
We may yet need to do more on energy, but that depends on where the oil price goes. If the oil price stays high, I am sure the Chancellor will do more when we come to the next round of the energy price cap. I welcome what he said on the windfall tax. The Opposition amendment is unnecessary. I am clear that windfall taxes are unwelcome, although in certain circumstances they may be the right answer, and I am glad to see the Chancellor not ruling anything out. We need to see proper action from the oil and gas companies in investing. If they do not do that, I will be happy to support him, if that is the direction we take. I realise it is a cyclical industry, but there is a case to be made.
Finally, I press the Chancellor to do more about levelling up through the tax system. I urge him to look again at council tax. That £150 for bands A to D was very well targeted at people. It was not just levelling up for constituencies such as mine, where 92% of people are in those bands, but levelling up for anyone in a house in bands A to D across the country. Council tax rates are based on valuations that are now very out of date. No Government have ever had the appetite for a valuation, but there must be some scope to lower the burden on people in lower bands and to increase or add extra bands I and J on top. I put that to the Chancellor.
Aaron Bell
It is brave—I thank the right hon. Gentleman—but we need to do it to level up the tax system.
More than anything, I am glad to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer leading us through these difficult times. Hon. Members should remember that if Opposition Members had had their way, we would be led by the right hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and we would not be standing up to Putin; we would be excusing him.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is often said that a nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable, but sadly we saw no such measures of greatness in the Gracious Speech. As the Child Poverty Action Group states, it was
“a legislative agenda that risks leaving increased levels of child poverty—currently at almost 4 million and expected to rise further—as its only real legacy.”
What were the Government’s priorities, if not to help those in need? We saw ideological flights of fancy, such as forcing through the privatisation of Channel 4, which does not cost the taxpayer a penny and does not need to be privatised, and the British Bill of Rights, which is understood to be a back-door vehicle to undermine the Human Rights Act.
On workers’ rights, there was no employment rights Bill, despite years of promises from the Government. In its place was the Brexit freedoms Bill, which many fear will cut safety regulations, environmental protections and workers’ rights. People are right to be worried, because despite the Government’s warm fluffy protestations to the contrary, some of the Secretaries of State responsible for drafting the Bill wrote a book arguing that Britain needs to adopt a far-reaching form of free market economics with fewer employment rights.
In the meantime, our communities are suffering through the cost of living crisis and the Government seem blinkered to their despair. They hiked national insurance contributions for working people; cut universal credit and pensions by offering only a 3.1% increase when inflation is predicted to reach 10%; and sat back as oil and gas companies sit on record profits while people struggle to pay their bills.
It is clear to everyone—even the CBI and Sir John Major —that the Government must issue an emergency Budget. That means increasing universal credit, legacy benefits and state pensions in line with actual inflation; scrapping the punitive aspects of the universal credit system, such as the five-week wait, the two-child limit, the benefits cap, and no recourse to public funds; increasing the minimum wage to a real living wage, with a pathway, including business support, towards £15 an hour; and a real-terms public sector pay increase.
We also need an extension of the warm home discount, a street-by-street national home insulation programme and a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies. As Greenpeace suggested, the Government could increase the tax level on oil and gas producer profits to 70% as an absolute minimum, which would simply be in line with the global average and would generate an additional £13.4 billion for the Exchequer that could be used to bring down bills and invest in energy efficiency.
Fundamentally, however, for the longer term, we must recognise that although horrific global events are a significant factor in the cost of living crisis, it is the structural issues in our economy and energy system that have left us most vulnerable to global price fluctuations. Closing our main energy storage facility in 2017 without replacing it was a monumental error, but worse still are the long-term structural failures that the privatisation of our energy market has caused. It is undeniable that public ownership is central to addressing the costs and energy security crisis that we face.
So at the very least our communities deserve an emergency Budget before millions suffer possibly the worst economic crisis that they will ever see in their lifetime. At best, we need to reform our economy and energy system so that they protect people from the crisis that we are seeing today.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in the debate on Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. I wish to cover three topics in my limited time: security, the economy and planning.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Northwood NATO base is in my constituency, which it is a real privilege to host. Through the awful war between Russia and Ukraine, we have seen the importance of global security and I welcome the movements of Sweden and Finland to join that global peace organisation. I strongly associate myself with the commitment, as put forward by this Government, of
“defending democracy and freedom across the world, including continuing to support the people of Ukraine.”
However, as well as military might, we also need to think about energy security and food security. I am pleased to see further progress on cheaper, cleaner and more secure energy here in the UK, building on our hugely successful COP26 presidency. As a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency that is approximately 80% green belt, I am really passionate about supporting British farmers and encouraging consumers throughout our great nation to buy British where possible.
On the economy, our primary focus as the Conservative party should be on growing and strengthening the economy, just as it has always been and just as we always have, but particularly now as a means of easing the cost of living. Our stated aim in the Queen’s Speech, to grow our economy by taking the responsible approach to public finances, supporting people into work, reducing public debt and, most importantly, cutting taxes is the correct way, in my opinion, to manage our economy. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is looking forward to doing all of that before the next general election.
The measures set out in this Queen’s Speech demonstrate our continued commitment to driving forward our economy while tackling the cost of living, protecting British businesses and investing in a modern, cleaner and greener society. Britain has always been a global country, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade will continue to secure further deals to boost our economy and benefit our society now that we have the freedom to do so outside the EU.
Planning is a topic that is very important to my constituents. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill proposed in the Queen’s Speech is a really interesting piece of legislation. I have spoken many times in this place about how beautiful my constituency is. As I have said, approximately 80% of my constituency is green belt, so balancing the preservation of this undoubted natural beauty with the importance of helping families and young people to own their own home is a crucial issue for me. One of the great many pleasures about meeting my constituents is hearing the passion and love they have for their own area and the strong desire they have to protect its character. I know that the proposed Bill will help with that.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
One of the points I think my hon. Friend is making is that it is so important to make sure that we utilise brownfield land to the maximum for housing and so on, but does he agree that it is important that local people have their say on the design of their area and what goes where?
Mr Mohindra
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I feel as though she was looking over my shoulder because that is exactly the next point in my speech.
Introducing a Bill for local growth, giving further powers to local leaders to regenerate their own area and reforming our planning system to give residents greater involvement in local development are all positive steps. However, we must ensure that any local devolution from this House on this issue also comes with accountability, where necessary. Part of my constituency covers the Liberal Democrat-led Three Rivers District Council, and it is disappointing that there have been continual delays in the local plan process. That is unacceptable, especially when the Liberal Democrats continue to blame both the Government and the independent Planning Inspectorate for what I regard as issues that they should primarily be dealing with themselves. Local people absolutely should play a bigger role in deciding how best to improve and expand their local area, and we must be tougher on local councils that seek to play party politics and pass on all the blame for the decisions they are taking.
In closing—I realise I have taken enough time in the Chamber—I welcome the measures introduced in this Queen’s Speech, particularly those affecting security, both of ourselves and of our friends and allies; the economy, which we must continue to grow sustainably and with as little taxation and spending as possible; and planning, which will allow us to give local people more of a voice in protecting their communities.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Since I was first elected in 2015, I have seen things go from bad to worse for struggling people and families under the Tories in this Chamber. I used to say that people should not have to choose between heating and eating; I did not expect the Tories to take away even that option from people. We hear today that people are self-disconnecting from gas and electricity, or storing food outside their refrigerator to save money by switching it off, in dangerous circumstances. This is a dreadful time and people are facing dreadful conditions. They are unable to wash clothes or wash themselves, use cookers, or even switch on the lights. People are struggling. They are seeing energy companies put up their bills, sometimes increasing direct debits by hundreds of pounds per month, even though there is little evidence that that is required.
All this is happening, yet this Government and a complacent Ofgem are doing next to nothing. They should be doing everything in their power, yet their inaction can only lead to the conclusion that they just do not care. They ought to step in to help off-gas grid customers and businesses, because they face an even heavier burden: unregulated liquified petroleum gas and heating oil prices are rocketing, and they face cost rises three to four times greater than everyone else. Businesses off-grid are hammered, as are small and medium-sized businesses in general, who have no cap to protect them. What is the point in having a regulator that will not regulate and a Government lost in their own rhetoric?
At this time my constituents are noting a £20 per week increase in their weekly shop, which is another £80 a month that families can ill afford. Was it lunacy that this Government, knowing that people were facing rising inflation and rocketing energy prices, moved to cut the £20 a week from universal credit, or was it ideological cruelty? I will leave that to others to decide.
In Scotland, the Scottish Government have already been mitigating the imposed costs on families, spending £350 million to nullify the bedroom tax and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), spending four times more per head on insulating houses and properties. When the UK Government took away £20 a week from families, the Scottish Government gave them the Scottish child payment of £20 a week, soon to rise to £25, providing real help through very limited powers.
What does this Chancellor do? He gives a tiny council tax cut and a payday loan. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, the UK Government do have choices. Norway, for example, an independent country similar in size to Scotland in terms of resources, will reimburse households for 80% of all their electricity costs above an affordability level. Why are the UK Government not using their powers, reserved to this place, to take meaningful action? It is because they just do not care.
Scotland is at the moment stuck with the bad choices that this place makes. The people of Scotland can now see even more clearly that when the powers lie in Scotland their Scottish Government will make the choices to protect and support them, in contrast to what happens in this place. There is a hope, however: they can see that the change our people, our families and our communities need is coming. The powers of a normal independent country are needed more than ever, and they are coming soon.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate, and to be the last Member on the Conservative Benches to do so, because it has given me the opportunity to listen to the entire debate, and what an interesting debate it has been.
We have heard that the Liberal Democrats position is to leave all oil and gas in the ground, which makes for an interesting debate on how we will develop our hydrogen-based economy if all the gas is to be left in the ground. We heard the SNP endorse Labour’s plans for a smash-and-grab raid on one of Scotland’s most successful industries—they couched it in ambiguous terms, but the people of Aberdeenshire and the north-east of Scotland heard them loud and clear.
We heard the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), making offensive remarks, frankly, about the oil and gas industry in his opening speech, because he stood at the Dispatch Box and described profits being made by the oil and gas companies as unearned. I ask him to come up to my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and say to the men and women who go off in the North sea for weeks at a time, in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances, to provide the energy that keeps the lights on in this place and around the country that the profits of the companies they work for are unearned.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to former Governments looking favourably on the introduction of a windfall tax. He is right: former Labour and Conservative Governments, Chancellors and Prime Ministers have introduced windfall taxes—but what happened? Every single time, investment in the North sea went down. It is a funny plan: supporting working people by putting the very jobs that they rely on at risk. That is what Labour’s plan would do.
The former Leader of the Opposition also selectively quoted Mr Bernard Looney of BP; Mr Looney said that no current plans to invest would be affected by a windfall tax, but he has also made it clear that future plans may be affected. The former Leader of the Opposition mocked the idea that, over the last eight years, the UK’s oil and gas sector has been struggling. Does he not remember the oil price crash of 2015, when a barrel of oil went from $107 to $44 in just seven months? Is the Labour party so out of touch with Scotland these days that it does not know the effect that had on north-east Scotland’s economy? Probably, because under his leadership his party lost all but one of its Scottish Labour MPs.
Those who have listened to the Labour party’s rhetoric on tax today would suspect that the oil and gas sector was paying no tax whatsoever. In fact, oil and gas companies pay three separate profit-based taxes on oil and gas production: they pay corporation tax and a supplementary charge, and for years have paid a further petroleum tax on top of that. The industry is the most taxed in the country. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the upstream sector will pay £18.5 billion in production taxes between 2021 and 2025 and a total of £23.4 billion through to 2027, which is £13 billion higher than the previous forecast in October 2021.
The Opposition are confusing facts with their own spin. BP did not say that taxation has no effect on its investment. It was clear, as others have been, that further investment would be hampered by higher taxation. They talk about the industry as if it is just BP and Shell. That tells of a total ignorance of the industry, and of all the other companies whose fields are in the North sea, and whose fallow years follow those of the majors. The Opposition forget about the supply chain; the small trade across the north-east that ties us to the continent and to our Nordic friends; the students taught; and the discoveries made through research on oil, which will create the green future that we are all calling for. They forget that we are relying on the industry for answers.
It is good that the Chancellor is keeping all options on the table. Of course, we want investment in green technologies as we move forward, but Labour’s plan is back-of-the-fag-packet stuff. It is high on rhetoric and low on substance. Typical! Same old Labour.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Across the House, we are all acutely aware of the challenges faced by our constituents. The groceries budget puts less in the supermarket basket than it did a year ago; the electricity or gas top-up card does not last as long as it did a year ago; and £20 of diesel does not take a car as far as it did a year ago. Those additional household cost pressures are being felt at a time when many people have just experienced real-terms cuts to their income and/or benefits. Furthermore, not that long ago, the £20 uplift to universal credit was withdrawn by the Government, despite appeals from Opposition Members, and from charities across the length and breadth of the UK.
For the squeezed middle, childcare costs continue to increase and mortgage costs face steep rises. The reality for so many is that wages are failing to keep up with the increase in the cost of living. The national insurance hike and the cumulative impact of all those pressures will result in households’ disposable income shrinking. The bite is being felt.
It ought to be of great concern to the Government that the OBR has warned that UK residents face the biggest living standards drop on record. That is why it is deeply disappointing and distressing for those feeling the squeeze that although we were told that the Government’s priority is to help
“ease the cost of living for families”,
in reality, nothing is being done to deliver on that right now. The Government announced 38 Bills last week. Many of them have great merit, yet there was nothing to address the immediate pressures facing households and families across the United Kingdom. A windfall tax on energy companies enjoying soaring profits was absent. The opportunity to cut taxes or reverse the inexplicable national insurance rise was missed. The Government repeatedly tell us that they are a party of low taxes. Surely now is the time to prove it.
For those in Northern Ireland, the opportunity to give a clear legislative commitment to addressing the issue of the Northern Ireland protocol was also absent. The protocol exacerbates the cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland. The cost of bringing goods into Northern Ireland has increased by around 27%, according to our haulage industry. That cost is being passed on to businesses and consumers. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has argued that the protocol is restricting his ability to help our post-covid recovery and holding back economic growth. He is right.
As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) outlined so eloquently, the new UK-wide VAT cut on renewable energy products cannot be implemented in Northern Ireland because of the terms of the protocol. That is a wholly unacceptable situation that no Prime Minister or Government of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can preside over. The Prime Minister knows what he must do. Today’s statement from the Foreign Secretary is welcome, but we must see action. I regret that thus far the Chancellor has been an absent Chancellor when it comes to visiting Northern Ireland. I again extend an invitation to him to come to Northern Ireland and hear from my constituents and businesses who are feeling the squeeze.
In conclusion, the long-term objectives identified by the Government—higher wages, more highly skilled jobs and a move towards our own supply of cheaper and cleaner energy—are very welcome, but families cannot wait for those objectives to become reality. For many, the pressure is being felt acutely now. They need action now.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
In the time I have, I will focus on two groups who have been in touch with me on the cost of living crisis. Many colleagues have outlined the scale of the problem facing the country. The latest Bank of England forecast is that inflation will peak at 10.2% in the fourth quarter of 2022. Alongside that, domestic gas prices have increased by 28% and electricity prices by 19%. The OBR expects that household incomes will not begin to recover until the second half of 2024. The devastating combination of increases amounts to such a battering on household incomes that the Resolution Foundation estimates an extra 1.3 million people will fall into absolute poverty in 2023, including half a million children.
There is one group in particular who I know have felt particularly vulnerable to the increase in costs: those living with disabilities and families caring for loved ones with disabilities. I want to pay tribute to my constituents Nadia Clarke and her mum Katie, who are both inspirational and tireless campaigners. Nadia had to spend months challenging her care payments when they went up from £15 to £68 per week. Nadia is not alone. Too many are having to make substantial contributions to financing essential care, while also facing price increases across the board. The latest data from Citizens Advice is that 60% of those who contacted them with fuel poverty concerns in 2021 were disabled people. Research undertaken by the charity Scope demonstrated that the extra costs faced by disabled people add up to £583 a month on average. It stated:
“Energy for powering essential equipment, such as hoists, beds, breathing equipment, powered chairs and monitors was already expensive.”
It stressed that
“these are not optional extras that can be cut back. This is vital, often life-saving, equipment.”
In an online video that Nadia shared, she says:
“it is not acceptable for disabled people to be forced to pay care charges and choose between the support they need and food on the table.”
She is absolutely right.
Similarly, last week I was contacted by a gentleman who raised concerns for his sister-in-law, who lives in Halifax. She is on oxygen for 16 hours every day. Her husband is her main carer, but he is also recovering from cancer. Faced with unavoidable additional electricity bills and heating costs, they were feeling desperate about their situation. Thankfully, they have been able to arrive at an arrangement on their electricity bill with the company that supplies the oxygen, but it is just one more example of how the cost of living is proving unbearable for those who have additional needs.
Coming from a policing family, in my time here I have often sought to be an advocate for the men and women on the frontline keeping our communities safe. We hear just how badly the cost of living crisis is impacting even those working in our emergency services and on our frontline. That feels all the more shameful when we consider what we ask of them. In a recent Police Federation survey of its members in my area of West Yorkshire, 43% of respondents reported worrying about their personal finances every day or almost every day, and 12% reported never or almost never having enough money to cover all their essentials. A chief superintendent recently told me that PCs, and new recruits in particular, were increasingly seeking permission to work a second job on their rest days. One new recruit on a starting salary sought permission to work as a carer. It is perhaps no surprise that 94% of respondents said that they do not feel respected by the Government. The Government must do better.
The windfall tax would be a straightforward, fair and appropriate intervention for the Government to make. BP and Shell alone are on course to make a combined profit of almost £40 billion this year, and there is widespread public support for a windfall tax. Even the Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, but we will have to leave it there.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
We are in the grip of multiple crises: a cost of living scandal that is pushing millions of households into fuel and food poverty; a war in Ukraine with disastrous consequences; and the accelerating climate and nature emergencies. In the short time that I have, I want to outline their common roots in our fossil fuel-based energy systems.
The cost of living crisis is the most visible part of a deeply entrenched social crisis that the Government have systematically not only ignored, but actively exacerbated. Even now, we get the ignorance and arrogance of Tory MPs lecturing about value brands and learning to cook “properly”. I sometimes wonder what planet they are on. In the sixth richest country in the world, more than 2 million adults did not eat for a whole day last month, because they could not afford or get access to food. That is not just a crisis; it is a scandal.
The international price of energy and fuel, a global pandemic, the war in Ukraine and disruption to supply chains are all factors in what is happening to inflation and the cost of living, as is Brexit, but make no mistake: the associated social scandal is a direct result of this Government’s political choices, which include cutting universal credit and refusing to uprate benefits in line with inflation.
The choices locking us into fossil fuel reliance and climate catastrophe are equally unforgivable. Companies such as BP and Shell are gambling on Ministers failing to rein in their deadly plans for more oil and gas production. They are deadly because, as the International Energy Agency has warned very clearly, there can be no new fossil fuel exploration and development if we are to keep global heating below the 1.5°C threshold, yet the fossil fuel giants are investing in carbon bombs that will accelerate climate breakdown, and the consequences will be felt heavily by the poorest and most vulnerable. That is nothing less than criminal.
The Government’s choices have consequences for the war in Ukraine, too, and for Putin’s war chest. I welcome the consensus that we must stop financing his war crimes, and need to stop importing Russian oil and gas. However, I cannot welcome the fact that, for years, policies that could have brought us to a place of energy resilience have recklessly been torn up, with UK energy bills nearly £2.5 billion higher as a result; or the fact that the Government are about to deliver an unambitious, under-financed energy strategy that will leave millions in poverty and accelerate the climate crisis while doing nothing to reduce the UK’s dependence on Russian oil and gas.
Here are five policies to help us rise to the challenge. The first is a street-by-street, local authority-led retrofit revolution. That is the cheapest, fastest and most effective way to cut household bills, reduce demand, cut climate emissions, and create thousands of jobs in the process. The second is a transition to the abundant homegrown renewables with which our nations are blessed. Those renewables are already cost-competitive; onshore wind is six times cheaper than gas. The third is a dirty profits windfall tax on the obscene profits of the energy giants, but it should not stop there; instead, it should pave the way for a carbon tax levied on every tonne of CO2 released. That critical lever would help to shift us fairly towards a clean, green economy. The revenue would contribute to free home insulation for those who need it, free public transport and a universal basic income.
Fourthly, there should be no more subsidising of fossil fuels. The UK has one of the most lax regimes in the world for the oil and gas sector. For example, in 2019, companies got away with paying 12.5 times less tax for a barrel of oil produced here than for one produced in Norway. In 2020, Shell effectively paid no tax at all in the UK; it is the only country in which Shell operates where that was the case. Why does the Gracious Speech not include legislative proposals to kick these climate criminals out of Britain for good? Tell Shell that it is not welcome to relocate its headquarters to London. We should introduce laws that would allow us to put on trial not the peaceful protesters who are defending our futures, but the energy bosses who commit crimes against humanity by continuing to plan vast oil and gas projects that would shatter the 1.5°C climate goal.
Finally, there should be no new oil, gas or coal licences. Every penny spent pumping oil from the North sea is making the future less liveable. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is criminal, and it has to stop.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I agreed with much of what she said.
This is a Queen’s Speech from a Government who have the wrong priorities and are running out of ideas. Our constituents are struggling to get by, let alone live well, and the Government’s response has been a parade of out of touch and, frankly, insulting ministerial media appearances. There is a huge gap where there should be a strategy to tackle the cost of living. As many have said—not just in this Chamber, but in business as well —we need an emergency Budget, because we need immediate help for struggling families in Manchester, Withington and across the country. We need the windfall tax on gas an oil profits, and I am looking forward to voting for it tonight. We have heard warm words from a number of Conservative Members—they could join us tonight and make a difference by voting to give real help to people who need it at a time of crisis.
Some important measures were not in the Queen’s Speech. It is disappointing that the fan-led review of football governance has resulted in only draft proposals rather than a Bill. We have been calling for a long time for the acceptance of the recommendations, and especially for the creation of an independent regulator. The Government have, in fairness, said that they will do that, but they have kicked it into the long grass. It is urgent for the future of our national game. Bury has already collapsed, Derby and Oldham have struggled, and we have seen in the media that more clubs across the country could be on the brink. Under the Government’s new timetable, a regulator would not be in place until at least 2024—although I think it could take longer than that—which for many clubs could be too late. We have already had extensive research, consultation and engagement with fans and stakeholders. We need to get on with it. Football clubs are at the heart of our communities, and we need a suitable governance system.
A quarter of mental health beds have been cut. Right now, 1.6 million people are waiting for mental health treatment. We know that the pandemic has made the situation worse: depression has doubled and crisis referrals are up by 15%, including among under-18s. It is welcome that the Queen’s Speech committed to overhauling the Mental Health Act 1983 and to introducing a long-awaited mental health Bill, although again only in draft. That is overdue and I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the recommendations of Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review. Alongside reform of the Mental Health Act, however, we must see real action on early intervention, to reduce the number of people becoming unwell in the first place and ensure that those who are struggling can access help early. We also need a proper workforce plan, as Labour has promised.
After three years and many promises, where is the employment Bill? It is really disappointing. It could have addressed statutory sick pay, flexible working and the rights of people in precarious employment. A number of young people earning the minimum wage in the night-time economy would benefit from a specific measure that the Government have not introduced even though they promised to do so—namely, letting them keep their own tips. Lots of bars and restaurants are great employers, but some keep the discretionary service charge. The Government promised to sort this out, but they have not done so. That should have been part of an employment Bill.
The climate crisis is urgent, but, as we have just heard, the Queen’s Speech sets out very little to address it. The draft energy security Bill will not address the short-term struggles with household bills or help improve energy efficiency, the most cost-effective way to reduce energy bills permanently. While sitting here waiting to speak, I received an email from my energy supplier telling me that my monthly direct debit payment is doubling. On my MP’s salary I can manage that—most people in this Chamber will be able to manage that—but so many of our constituents will not. They need our help, and they need it now.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith).
People across Barnsley East are really worried about the cost of living. The biggest concern for many is the rising cost of energy. A man from Wombwell wrote to me to say that he works two jobs and his wife works another. They live together in a terraced house with their two children, and they can no longer afford to heat it. A local business in Kendray has seen its energy bills rocket from £3,800 to more than £15,000 a year. It compared more than 16 suppliers, and that was the best offer it could find. A retired nurse living in Grimethorpe contacted me in great distress. She lives off her NHS pension of just over £16,000 a year and has seen her fuel bills double from £900 to £2,000. Being just over the qualifying mark for fuel allowance, she has no support, so she simply cannot afford the price rise. Having cared for others all her life, she is now being left uncared for.
When ordinary working people and local businesses cannot afford heating and food, it is not the cost of living but the cost of simply surviving that has become too high. Today this House will vote on whether to introduce a windfall tax. We have a choice between letting gas companies keep the huge profits that they have admitted are more than they know what to do with, and helping hard-working people.
Some of the most worried people are pensioners. Indeed, the basic state pension will be worth hundreds of pounds less in real terms this year, thanks to the Conservative Government’s decision making. The cut will be especially hard for Barnsley’s former miners, who worked in dangerous conditions to keep our country’s lights on only to have 50% of their pension pocketed by the Government. Just as Ministers broke their promise to protect the triple lock, they have failed to review the mineworkers’ pension scheme as recommended by the cross-party Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report, which concluded that the Government
“should not be in the business of profiting from mineworkers’ pensions”.
At the last general election, the Prime Minister committed to action on the issue, yet the Government have taken £4.4 billion of miners’ money to date. The figure is set to rise to £6 billion, while the average miner receives a pension of just £84 a week.
This Queen’s Speech is a missed opportunity to help those who are struggling. How high do prices have to rise, how many more pensioners must freeze and how many children must live in poverty before the Government finally step in?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who made a powerful speech. Her constituents’ accounts sadly chime with those of many in Ceredigion. I also add my voice to those of others who have spoken of the pain that rising energy bills are causing to households the length and breadth of the UK.
Sadly, the impact of the rises is being felt acutely in Wales, where even before the current crisis a third of children and a quarter of working-age adults lived in poverty. I regret to note that reports suggest that as many as 45% of households in Wales could now be in fuel poverty following the latest energy price cap increase. The experience of rural areas underlines the urgent need for action. In addition to the increases arising from a higher energy price cap, rural areas have seen large increases to already high standing charges. For example, the daily rates for households in my constituency of Ceredigion are on average 50% higher than those levied in London.
Compounding the crisis for my constituents is the fact that some 35% of households are not connected to the mains gas grid, so rely on heating oil. On average, they have seen a 150% increase in the cost of their fuel deliveries—that is, when they are able to receive deliveries—as they are not protected by the energy price cap. Rising energy prices not only squeeze household budgets; coupled with higher fuel prices, they threaten the rural economy and risk stoking a wider social crisis. I take no pleasure in noting that Wales is the most car-dependent nation in the UK. We need significant investment in our public transport infrastructure.
We sometimes forget that rising petrol and diesel prices have a severe impact on public services. When those prices increase, maintaining rural bus routes and school transport services becomes harder. Perhaps more worryingly, crucial workers, such as social carers, find it difficult to afford to work. In constituencies such as mine, with a higher-than-average number of retired and elderly people, that is a particular concern. Some short-term relief could be gleaned from the rural fuel duty relief scheme, which I urge the Government to extend to Wales.
The crisis is having a real and immediate impact on people across the UK, and is among the most pressing issues requiring Government action. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fuel poverty, I urge the Government seriously to consider National Energy Action’s proposals for a new social tariff to enhance protection for the most vulnerable customers. Such a proposal should be accompanied by efforts to increase the visibility of, and support offered through, schemes such as the discretionary assistance fund, and by an extension of the warm home discount and winter fuel payment to all low-income households. That would address the short-term pressures emanating from higher energy prices.
A long-term solution would be a significant increase in funding for energy-efficiency measures. In particular, the Government should bring forward ECO4—the energy company obligation—legislation without delay to ensure that insulation measures are installed for the poorest households as soon as possible. Reports, and the discussion this afternoon, suggest that the Chancellor may well be contemplating a one-off windfall tax on energy companies as a means of partly funding such a support package. I want to let him know that he would enjoy the support of many Members on both sides of the House should he decide to do that, because families in my constituency quite simply cannot afford the price of continued inaction.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Queen’s Speech had two challenges. One was to tackle the cost of living crisis and the other was to tackle the climate crisis, but I feel, on behalf of my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, that it does neither. The number of people in energy poverty across the UK has gone up from 4 million last September to more than 6 million today, and it will continue to rise. Pensioners are at the sharp end of the Tory squeeze on finances. They are paying twice as much for energy and facing the biggest real-terms cuts to the state pension in 50 years. On the other hand, energy companies have recorded record profits of £12.4 billion in the first three months of this year alone and petrol retailers are profiting from the cut in petrol and diesel duty, keeping about 2p of the 5p that should be passed on. The Government have not got a grip of these issues. We need a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ profits to bring down bills, and an emergency Budget.
Over the past few days, Conservative MPs and Ministers have been lining up to show how out of touch they are, and it really worries me that this kind of “on yer bike” thinking is still guiding decision making. Increasing poverty is not a failure of budgeting, it is not a failure of cooking skills and it is not a failure of magically being able to get a new job.
Dan lives in Putney and he wrote to me last weekend about his dilemma. He has two young children and his wife stays at home to look after them. They cannot afford childcare. He works 40 hours a week for £9.50 an hour, and he has been offered additional hours. He could take those hours, which would mean he was working 60 hours a week and would not see as children very much. After the resulting cut in universal credit, that would give him only an extra £177 per month, the equivalent of £2.95 an hour. That is not a fair decision for him. He says that
“the system is broken for people like me”.
It is for people like Dan that the Queen’s Speech should have had more policies.
A pensioner has contacted me. She has active Crohn’s disease and she cannot afford to turn on her heating. Steve also wrote to me. He is 77 and self-employed, and his energy bills have gone up from £246 to £890. He has no idea how he will afford that.
They are just three people, but they are examples of so many among all our constituents. Wandsworth food bank says that six out of 10 parents have skipped meals in the last month to put food on the table for their children. People on the lowest incomes are the best at budgeting and the best at knowing how to make meals stretch. They cannot just work extra hours. In fact, half of all referrals to Wandsworth food banks are people in work. Their income just does not cover the essential bills. So where was the employment Bill in the Gracious Speech?
We also need to see the green homes grant return in the energy Bill. We need to see a retrofit revolution really tackling the climate emergency—one that covers all homes and that will be there for 10 years or more. The current boiler upgrade scheme is the absolute least we can do. We should do so much more. On behalf of my constituents, I demand more action on the climate emergency, more action on employment rights and more action to tackle the cost of living crisis. I hope that all MPs will vote for the windfall tax tonight.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
In my constituency and in similarly deprived areas around the country, the Government have been remarkably silent about what they intend to do about the cost of living crisis in their legislative programme for the coming year. While some on the Conservative Benches have advised the poorest in our country to take up cookery lessons or scour the shops for the cheapest brands, the Government have offered little more than scraps from their table. A £200 loan here and a £150 rebate there—such measures give little comfort to people whose housing benefit has been frozen since 2020 while rents have skyrocketed. They offer no long-term solution to those whose benefits and pensions have been cut and pegged back, nor do they help those in work who face soaring prices and falling wages.
Family budgets are at breaking point, and two in five people are now buying less food because of the cost of living crisis. In April, 2 million adults skipped a day’s eating to try to save money. The Resolution Foundation predicts that almost 1.5 million people, including half a million children, will fall into absolute poverty next year. This is what food inflation of 9% and rising means for millions, and it is what energy costs heading for a 54% increase are inflicting on the poorest and most vulnerable people in this country. It is a Sophie’s choice of heat or eat.
The cost of living crisis is a war on the poor, and it is the scourge of countless working families. It is scandalous that the chief executive officer of Tesco has just pocketed a pay packet of almost £5 million for one year’s work. A customer assistant at Tesco would have to work for 267 years to earn the same as the CEO got for 12 months’ work. That should be a badge of shame.
A Government who care about their people should be working towards both short-term and long-term solutions in their plans for the year ahead. Sadly, this Government plan for very little beyond their own self-preservation. In the short term, we can help people by introducing a windfall tax on the profits of the fuel giants. Two big oil companies coined in more than £12 billion in the first three months of this year. Let us tax them to help those who cannot afford to heat their home. Even top directors such as the CEO of Asda are calling for it now. Let us restore the £20 universal credit uplift to prevent the poorest from sliding into irreversible food and fuel poverty, let us immediately provide extra funds to hard-hit pensioners through extra warm home and winter fuel payments, and let us set a real living wage at a level on which people can really live.
In the long term, we need to address the economic problems at the heart of our economy that are the legacy of industrial vandalism by the Conservative party over many years. We need to stimulate inward investment by recasting our economy through a green industrial revolution that can provide hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs and can create industries, including vibrant, publicly owned ones, that meet our energy needs on a clean and green basis, helping to save our planet while overcoming the chronic failings of the current supply chain. We need a progressive wealth tax, and we need to close the loopholes that enable the rich and the corporations to evade the taxes they rightfully owe. Fair taxation can pay for the uplift and reform of the benefits system, which currently punishes the poor. Benefits and pensions must be substantially increased and inflation-proofed.
Finally, where the Government control wages, they must scrap the miserly below-inflation pay limits that are really pay cuts. These cuts took, on average, £845 away from NHS workers last year. We clapped their efforts during lockdown, and then the Government slashed their wages during crackdown.
These are the answers to the cost of living crisis, and they should be in the legislative programme for this year.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I listened with great interest to the Gracious Speech last week and was left bitterly disappointed. It will go down as a speech of missed opportunities, all through the choice of the Prime Minister. Under this Government, we are heading back to a time that was simply about the haves and have nots. People can either afford the basics or they suffer.
Workers are seeing a decline in their living standards not seen since the Victorian era and the Poor Law of 1834. We are seeing a return to that miserable time, when volunteers pulled together to plug so many holes left by the purposeful underfunding of the state. Eighty years ago, Beveridge spoke of the five giant evils that plagued society, and I am afraid that Conservative Members are propping up and presiding over a return to those evils—or they would be if they were here today.
Beveridge spoke of want, and this could have been a Queen’s Speech that addressed the concerns about the cost of living crisis that is currently gripping the nation through an emergency Budget or a Bill to propose a windfall tax on large energy companies. Instead, food banks boom while people make the choice between heating their home and feeding themselves and their children. Imagine a world in 2022 in which one in four parents are skipping meals because they cannot afford it. What solutions have Conservative Members come up with? Learn to cook. Work harder. Work longer. It is absolutely shameful.
Beveridge spoke of disease. This was a Queen’s Speech that showed that there is no plan for our creaking health service and NHS waiting times. There is no plan to deal with access to NHS dentistry. There is no plan to increase the number of GPs. There is no plan to tackle either the stigma or the problem of addiction, which is a matter close to my heart, as Members will know, because no one chooses to be an addict.
Beveridge spoke of ignorance—not the kind of ignorance shown by the Prime Minister and Chancellor while they put their heads in the sand; he was speaking about the education of our children. The attainment gap is widening further still and, yet again, there is no plan in sight. Our children cannot learn properly if they are hungry, and our teachers cannot teach properly if they are not supported, yet nearly 18,000 schools are facing brutal cuts to their funding. These children are the future of our country, yet they are treated like collateral damage by this Government.
Beveridge spoke of squalor. We have people across the country trapped in their own homes, which are covered in flammable cladding, a full five years on from the tragedy of Grenfell. This was a Queen’s Speech where housing and planning policies were not even mentioned once. Social housing waiting lists are spiralling into the decades, yet we had merely rumours of a rehash of right to buy from a Prime Minister totally bereft of ideas and increasingly out of touch. We have properties riddled with damp and mould making people ill, here in the sixth richest economy in the world.
Beveridge spoke of idleness. This could have been a Queen’s Speech where employment rights were boosted and the shocking practice of fire and rehire was finally brought to an end. Instead, the Government issue further flimsy guidelines that allow bosses to ride roughshod over the workers. More than 20 times we were promised an employment Bill, but this was yet another empty promise for the people of this country and another win for rogue employers. This was a Queen’s Speech that will not help those in need as our country lurches from crisis to crisis. It was a Queen’s Speech where this Government are increasingly out of touch with their own people, and I predict that it is one that will unravel before the year is out. I will be voting against the Queen’s Speech for those reasons.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is both a privilege and a disappointment to speak in this debate on tackling the short and long-term cost of living increases, because we are tackling those issues as we are in a crisis on a scale that we have not seen in this country for decades. We are talking about inflation moving up into double figures towards the end of the year, interest rates going up, and a cost of living that takes us back to the 1970s and a difficult time for many of us and for our parents. So we are waiting for the Government to bring forward a paradigm-changing vision of what they are going to do about this crisis—a plan. Instead, all we got today was a lecture about how the Government understand the need for long-term growth and, even more pointlessly, a reminder of what the Labour Government may or may not have done 20 years ago. There was nothing about a plan for the people who are facing a crisis today. There was no empathy for those people and no understanding from the Chancellor of the difficulty they are facing.
There is nothing in the programme in the Queen’s Speech for the families and pensioners in my constituency and across the country who are struggling with the immediate impact of the cost of living crisis—not in the future or the long term, but now, today. I am talking about the rise in their food bills, in the price of clothes for themselves and for their children, in the cost of their petrol to get to and from work or to get their children to school. The frightening prospect, because it is that for many of them, is of a winter coping with ever-higher energy prices. We have the Chancellor’s promises about long-term growth, but unfortunately, we learned a long time ago that promises from this Government are not worth the air into which they are spoken. Pensioners do not have to be told that, because they were promised that the triple lock would continue and now they find that it has been abandoned for the moment, leaving them £500 a year worse off.
There have been too many broken promises, just as there have been too many missed opportunities to make a difference with insulation in our houses and just as there is too much dither and delay now on a windfall tax. The Chancellor has got himself into the situation where he says today that he is considering it. If he does not do it, why has he not done it? If he does now do it, why did he not do it sooner?
What about a cut on VAT to put money back into families’ pockets? Cutting it from 20% to 17% would make a huge difference to families up and down this country. Government Members will want to say, “It will cost how much?” Let me tell them that it will cost £19 billion. However, the Chancellor himself is in for a bit of a windfall, because the increase in prices means he will get £38 billion more than he expected from VAT. Money that families up and down the country who can ill afford it are spending today will go into the Exchequer, but rather than cut VAT and put that money back into the pockets of those families and of pensioners, what is the Chancellor going to do about it? That is what we want and need to know: what is the Chancellor going to do?
Time is running out for families up and down the country and it is running out for this Government. They need to listen to what people are saying. It was clear from the recent election results that people are not happy. They did not get the Government they thought they were getting. It is time that the Government listened, acted and recognised that the crisis is now, not somewhere down the line.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The debate today has been really interesting. We have to realise that this is one of the richest countries on the planet and that we have got finances; it is about how we decide to distribute the wealth of this nation. If we cannot help the poorest and the people who are suffering greatly in this cost of living crisis, we are doing something sadly wrong.
As MPs, we are here to represent individuals in our constituencies. We should not need detailed reports, professors, experts or anyone else to tell us that poverty is rife in the communities and constituencies that we represent. As MPs, we should understand that—unless I am alone. I see it in my constituency. I see that people are malnourished. There are people, including kids, in this wonderful country of ours who are suffering from malnutrition. We have record levels of kids now with rickets. Howay—this is the UK, one of the richest countries on the planet. As has been said, we have people missing meals to feed their kids and 2.5 million people are now using food banks. For heaven’s sake!
I will tell you what is new in my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker: there has been a rise in crime and shoplifting. People who are desperate to keep their kids clean are stealing sanitary products and soap powder. It is an absolute outrage—and it is not good enough to say that the support is there, mind. It is not good enough for the Government to abdicate their responsibility, say, “We’ve done this and that”, and talk about a £150 pay-as-you-go loan for electricity. They are abdicating their responsibility for the people who are most in need.
This fella Bernard Looney, the chief executive of one of the richest companies on the planet, has basically done everything but take barrowloads of money to the Treasury and tip it into the hall. He is saying he is happy to have a windfall tax. Can Members imagine what a difference that could make to the people we are talking about today?
By the way, it is no good telling me, “It’s okay—you can make a meal for 30p so you should be all right.” It is no good telling me that the way for people to get over the cost of living crisis is to find a new job somewhere, like the people who have been fired and rehired. It is no good telling me that people should be working two or three jobs so that things will be okay.
We have to start addressing the situation. The Tories—the Conservative Government—cannot continue to turn a blind eye. They cannot continue to walk by on the other side while people are suffering greatly. We need to level up and we need to be truthful. We need to level up with the truth and to be compassionate, honest and decent as politicians. We should be acting to support the millions out there who need absolutely every single ha’penny this Government can provide.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Queen’s Speech contained 38 pieces of legislation, but nothing to address the biggest challenge facing families up and down the country: the cost of living crisis, which will only get worse in the months ahead. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of the need for a long-term strategy—of course that is needed—but that is of little comfort to the people who are suffering now. We need short-term support mechanisms to help families manage their budgets, many of whom are concerned about stretching their pay packets until the end of next week. Pensioners face the agonising choice of either heating their home or eating some food.
The cost of living crisis is here, it is now, it is today, and people cannot be left in the dire circumstances that they are in now. We need a windfall tax to reduce energy bills, and an increase in pensions and other benefits to keep up with inflation. This money will not sit in people’s banks; it will be spent in the local economy—in local shops and markets.
I wish to tell the stories of a few of my constituents to make sure that we all know exactly what we are talking about. The story about Violet, who is over 80, is important. She suffers from motor neurone disease. She does not cook and instead receives meals on wheels. She was astonished to find that her energy bill had gone up by £500. She is extremely worried and stressed about how she will manage.
Isobel, who suffered a stroke last week, tells me that she has turned off her heating. She says that she will manage but, again, is extremely worried. Emma, a single mum, is in work and not on benefits, but, after paying rent, gas, electric and water, she has none of her wages left for the bare essentials. Then there is the local firm that was brought to the brink of closure by rocketing energy costs. Why are the Government not ready to exhaust all options to support these people? Why have they not caught on to the urgency of the moment? Why are Government Ministers poking fun at the idea of an emergency Budget to support people?
The Queen’s Speech was a major opportunity to support those most affected by rising costs and the Government did not take it. They had the opportunity to change course but they refused to do so. I have serious concerns that Conservative Members have totally missed the point. They just do not know what it feels like to worry about whether to pay rent or to buy food for the children. That is clearly shown by the statements that have been made recently. I am pleased that everybody recognises just how ridiculous some of those statements were.
Residents of left-behind areas such as Blackburn will be hit the hardest by rising costs. Average earnings in Blackburn are £25,000, compared with the UK average of £38,000. We cannot let these financial burdens be borne by those who have already been hit the hardest. Today is the opportunity for this Government to do the right thing. They should show that they understand and, dare I say it, that they care about the millions of people in this country struggling through no fault of their own, by supporting a windfall tax to help ease the burden on families.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We might manage to get everybody in, but I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes after the next speaker.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
All speeches, especially those outlining a programme for government, take place within a context and against a backdrop. I am talking about not just the rising cost of living, but the utter perversity of Scotland having a land that is energy rich while so many Scots are fuel-poor. Oil and gas, which in 2014 were said to be literally valueless and would soon be gone, are now worth a fortune and the UK sees them being exploited for decades to come. However, it extends beyond that, because we have renewables: we have not simply been blessed with hydro and with onshore wind, but we now have offshore wind coming—we are the Saudi Arabia of wind, with 25% of Europe’s resource being in Scotland.
Where are the benefits to our community? Where is our version of the oil fund that Norway has, which we can only look at and lament? Where is the benefit from offshore wind, when the jobs are going abroad and the revenue is going south? There is a perversity in my constituency: people can see the energy wealth, yet they are unable to heat their own homes.
This is not all the fault of Ukraine; of course it is a factor, but there are many more, including the profits being made. That is why I support a windfall tax, because there has certainly been a windfall for many of the corporate executives, while we suffer the absurdity and indignity of one third, and rising, of Scots now facing fuel poverty—it is more than half in the islands and in areas of deprivation.
Let us be clear that we are not talking about the invidious choice between heating and eating, or the appalling euphemism “self-disconnection”. It is not self-disconnection; it is disconnection forced by political decision making and political choice. Those people have no alternative. It is not an accident, but a political decision.
Let us also remember that it is not just a choice between heating and eating, because it goes beyond that. It is the person who wants to charge up and power their phone—we need a phone to live these days—because they want to be contactable for employment. It is the mother who wants to wash the clothes so her kids can go smart to school, even if the clothes had to be bought in a charity shop. It is the child who has been given an iPad because he comes from a deprived area and they want to try to level up, and his mum cannot put the power on. It is the person on dialysis who is sitting having to keep themselves alive and making the choice, if they keep their power on, about what they will not spend upon instead.
That is the situation. Yes, there are things that have to be done that cost money, but there are other things that are remarkably cheap. What about unregulated fuel? We have seen the costs of electricity and gas rise, but what about liquefied petroleum gas, heating oil and biomass? Some 7% of Scots are on unregulated fuel. Why can that not be regulated and at least capped when a cap is imposed? Everybody knows the costs of heating oil have gone up far more than the costs of electricity and gas, and those people have been left behind.
What about prepay meters? We have the ignominy in our country that those who have the least pay the most. Those who are dependent upon prepay meters are not simply those who are there by choice; many of them have no alternative because their private landlord insists upon it. Yet they pay a higher tariff and higher standing charges, and there is no reason for that. That is not a technical decision forced by the complexity of metering. It comes about because the Government will not direct Ofgem to enforce a change. The companies could change it.
Equally, as my friend the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) said, it is time now for a social tariff and a disability tariff. Other countries do that—Belgium does it, and Portugal and Spain have actions so that those who have least are protected. That means that those who have more, such as myself and other Members here, might have to pay a slightly higher rate, but indeed that can be done, as well as having money coming in from a windfall tax. This is not a situation we find ourselves in by accident. It is a political decision and it has to change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now have a time limit of three minutes. I call Wendy Chamberlain.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be back after Prorogation and the local elections, but less of a pleasure to be debating the Government’s legislative agenda as laid out in the Queen’s Speech.
The cost of living crisis is not just biting under this Government’s leadership, but gnawing away to the bone. What my constituents need is an emergency Budget. Conservative Members were crowing earlier about the low unemployment rate, but they failed to mention that we now see economically inactive data of more than 21%. How do we expect to see productivity grow when one fifth of the country is not working?
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned Lloyd George, and it would be remiss of me as a Liberal not to do the same. The right hon. Gentleman said that as a proportion of earnings, benefits are now lower than when Lloyd George introduced unemployment benefit in 1911. Based on my calculation of unemployment benefits of seven shillings a week and median earnings then of about 30 shillings, that makes it about 22.5% of earnings. Currently, universal credit is £334 per month for a single person over 25, and median earnings are £2,061 per month. That equates to 16%. The Government’s choice not to uplift benefits in line with inflation has only exacerbated that divide.
Perhaps it is timely that the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks, which I co-chair, launched a new inquiry last week. We kicked off with a visit to a food bank in Hackney, and I can tell the Minister with certainty that telling families to take more shifts is not a viable or appropriate policy solution.
In my constituency, families are turning to charities such as Fife Gingerbread, which provides a tea-time club so that ovens and microwaves do not have to be put on, and help in the school holidays so that parents can work or just avoid extra energy costs. This year, a new fundraising campaign is helping to provide families with a day out over the summer holidays, because all children deserve to learn, to play and to laugh.
This goes from the very young right up to the elderly. Others have mentioned the WASPI women. Why are the Government still refusing to follow expert advice on the LEAP—legal entitlements and administrative practices—state pension exercise and continuing to exclude divorced women? Why do they think that the DWP made continued errors over several decades in relation to married and widowed women but do not think that it did so for divorced women? I urge the Government to look at that.
Increasingly, older people are being left to rely on the voluntary sector for support. Cosy Kingdom in North East Fife provides home assessments and advice on energy savings, a handyman service for those who would otherwise struggle with jobs such as installing draught protection, and help in dealing with benefits and debts—and, increasingly, with priority creditors such as energy providers. All these issues are exacerbated for people who live in rural constituencies such as mine. The Government are yet again falling far short on their commitments.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Two million British people cannot afford to eat every day, over 7 million people are considered to be food insecure, and over 2.5 million children say that they cut down on the amount they eat or do not eat when they are feeling hungry. But this is not just about data or statistics; it is about real people. I will share just some of the messages I have received from constituents in Hull West and Hessle.
One person tells me that they are paying over £320 more on their standing charges before they even use energy. They are trying to budget but they cannot. They feel victimised for being a low energy user. Another tells me that they have worked out that they will have £100 a month left after the cost of everything goes up. They are a single person of over 24 on universal credit who has diabetes and other health conditions. Another lady, Lynda, who worked full-time until she was 74, and is now 77 and living on the state pension, says:
“Because I tried to be sensible and save some money I am penalised and only get Pensions Savings Credit not guaranteed pension credit.”
She is worried about the future. The cases go and on.
We are facing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, but we would not know it having listened to the Government’s Queen’s Speech. The shameful slurs on struggling families about their failure to budget or cook should be utterly disregarded and ignored, and show how out of touch the Government are.
What can we do about this? I thank all the charities, faith groups and businesspeople in Hull West and Hessle for the work they are doing. In particular, I want to mention a local businessman, Gerard Toplass, who has made an offer across all his businesses to increase take-home money for staff who earn less than £50,000 a year. He says:
“We believe this is both an acknowledgment that we understand the pressures people are under and a practical demonstration of how important we believe our people are.”
He is giving all his workers an extra £60 a month. That is an example that I hope other businesses across the country will look at following.
The Government could increase universal credit payments, cancel the national insurance increase, cut VAT on fuel and, of course, bring in a windfall tax. But there is one more thing that I hope they will jump at the chance to implement, because it is cost-free measure that I am going to give them as an option to take the way: addressing the poverty premium. As we have heard, this is about poorer people having to pay more for things like financial services, energy and insurance. Through their financial services and markets Bill, the Government could instruct the Financial Services and Markets Authority and give it a clear remit on financial inclusion by including an aspect called “must have regard”. That would be a cost-free way to make a difference to some of the families struggling the most. I hope the Government will take this opportunity. If they do, I can guarantee my support.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
After 12 years of a Conservative Government, taxes are at their highest level in 70 years and we are seeing the biggest drop in living standards since the 1950s, with food prices increasing, heating bills going up, wages stagnating, and the Bank of England forecasting growth to go negative next year. The Conservatives claim to be the party of economic responsibility, but this is their record in government.
At my local food bank, Bromley Living Well, demand is soaring. In March last year it gave out food for just over 600 people; this March it gave out food for well over 1,000 people. One of those was a young single mother in work who had to visit the food bank because buying a school uniform for her son’s new school left her without any money for food. She was in tears because she never thought she would have to use a food bank, and only wanted to take the bare minimum. One of Living Well’s regular users has started requesting food that does not require cooking because they do not have the money for the fuel to cook food. While rising food and energy prices are hitting us, the Government have decided to hit working people with a tax rise. No other major economy is doing that in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
One of my constituents, a full-time carer for those with learning disabilities, wrote to me about their situation. Their rent, energy bills, council tax and travel come to £1,400 a month, and their take-home pay comes to £1,600, leaving £200 a month for food and clothes for their children—and that was before the national insurance increase. To get by, my constituent has to take 14-hour shifts at the weekends and goes to bed hungry at night. She says that as things stand, she will be left either homeless or in huge debt. It is frankly shameful that the message to her from those on the Government Benches is: work more hours or get a better-paid job.
Those cases are not unique to my constituency. Across the country, millions of people are feeling the crunch from the cost of living crisis. That is why Labour is calling for an emergency Budget. We would use it to scrap the national insurance hike, and bring in a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers to cut household energy bills. How can it be right that while my constituents worry about turning the radiators on, the boss of BP has doubled his salary to £4.5 million a year?
The Queen’s Speech was an opportunity for the Government to show that they are in touch with reality and on the side of working families. It was an opportunity to show that they understand the challenges people are facing, but they failed. Tonight, those on the Conservative Benches have an opportunity to show that they understand the very real impact of the cost of living crisis by voting for Labour’s amendment calling for a windfall tax. For the sake of my constituents and theirs, I hope that they are finally listening and will do the right thing.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Most people watching this debate on TV tonight will be intrigued by the fact that we refer to the Gracious Speech. The overwhelming message from my constituency of Glasgow East is that this was an inadequate Queen’s Speech, because a number of things were missing from it that we would have liked to have seen, such as an employment Bill, as many other Members have said. The cat was rather let out of the bag by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who is no longer in his place. He spoke about the importance of deregulation; many of us have for some time had the concern that, for the Government, Brexit was about deregulation and attacking workers’ rights.
I accept that, ideologically, the Government and I are absolutely opposed on many issues, but I ask them to reflect on the fact that every year, 100,000 babies are born premature or sick. There is cross-party agreement in this House on neonatal leave and pay. The Government have committed to it, and this will be yet another year when that does not come into force. I understand that aspects of an employment Bill will be controversial, but I ask the Government to look favourably on the idea of bringing forward stand-alone legislation on issues on which we agree.
I want to talk about the comments, typical of the UK Government, from the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). I gave her advance notice of the fact that I planned to mention her. The irony of somebody on £106,000 a year telling clerical assistants in Easterhouse, refuse collectors in Carmyle and people who work in the retail sector in Shettleston that they have to work more, or get a better job! It shows how completely disconnected from reality this Government are.
I also praise the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who visited his local food bank. In the House of Commons this week, he has rightly said to the Government that they need to uprate benefits. That shows that when Members on the Government Benches interact with their constituents and connect with reality, they see that far too often this Government fall far short of giving the support that is required.
I absolutely support a windfall tax on energy companies. I would like it to go further; it should apply to the Amazons of this world. We should be serious about understanding the changes to retail and how our high streets operate. The reality is that Amazon is the big beneficiary of that, so let us look at a windfall tax on it. There are other things we could do, such as reduce VAT on energy bills and reinstate the £20 to universal credit.
My local newspaper, the Glasgow Times, is running a campaign to “Beat the Squeeze”. That is entirely commendable—I commend the Glasgow Times to all hon. Members—but it should not fall to a local newspaper to tell people how to get through the cost of living crisis. We should look at taxing companies such as Shell, not hiking up national insurance for people from Shettleston.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
For months on end, we have listened to Conservative Members trot out excuse after excuse as to why the pandemic was solely to blame for the cost of living crisis that people are experiencing. These four nations are in complete freefall. People out there are living through the crisis in desperate situations, while the Government do nothing to mitigate it. This is no ordinary cost of living crisis; it is a Tory cost of living crisis.
Every country on the planet experienced the pandemic in some way, shape or form, but it is UK citizens who seem to be suffering most now. There are sky-high energy bills, but there is no action from the Government. Key workers such as nurses are reliant on food banks to feed their families, but there is no action from the Government. Some 2.5 million people are using food banks, but there is no action from the Government. There is a political food price crisis, but no action from the Government. A Tory Brexit is costing more than £400 million pounds every single week; it is driving the cost of living crisis.
What solutions have the Government brought forward? There are 38 new laws in the Queen’s Speech but zero solutions for right now, and zero relief for struggling families and individuals. There is no benefit uplift, no subsided electricity or gas payments, and not even a food voucher for our most vulnerable citizens—nothing from a Prime Minister bereft of ideas and a largely AWOL Chancellor who hides behind IT issues.
Not a day goes by, however, without a pearl of wisdom from out-of-touch, morally-redundant Tory Back Benchers. They have suggested utterly contemptable methods of dealing with a crisis that has been inflicted by them, made worse by them, and reinforced by them daily in this place. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) is not in his place, but I gave him notice that I would mention him. He talked about meals for 30p on condition of a cooking lesson. I suppose he will be back next week to tell us how people should cook them when they cannot afford to put a fiver on their electricity meter. It is reprehensible that people who earn the money that we MPs earn are lecturing desolate people on budgeting.
The reality is that workers’ rights have been decimated and zero-hours contracts are commonplace. Vacancies may well be at an all-time high, but fire and rehire has not been banned. Companies can sack workers over Zoom and manhandle them off their sites, and the Government do nothing about it. Scotland does not accept that, but has to endure it. With every passing day that the UK Government fail to use their reserved powers to tackle the cost of living crisis, they demonstrate to us and the people of Scotland that independence is the only way for Scotland to boost our incomes and build the fair society that we all want.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
This morning, it was reported that a poll carried out on behalf of the Royal College of Physicians found that more than half of people surveyed had seen their health deteriorate as a result of the cost of living crisis. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has said that more than a quarter of a million households will slide into destitution next year, taking the total number in extreme poverty to around 1.2 million unless the Government act to help the poorest families.
The Government should never have cut universal credit by £20 a week and taken away support from the people who need it most. They could have used the Queen’s Speech to come forward with greater support for people facing rising bills—support funded by a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Why did they not? They say that helping people into work is the best approach in the long term to managing the cost of living, but the long-promised employment Bill is nowhere to be seen, and there is no ban on fire and rehire, which leaves people vulnerable to poverty and exploitation through insecure work.
The Government say that they want to
“Spread opportunities and improve public services”,
but how can such a claim be taken seriously when they have inflicted devastating cuts on local authorities such as Wirral Council since 2010? People in Wirral West know exactly what Conservative Government policies lead to: the closure of vital services. The future of Woodchurch leisure centre and the libraries in Hoylake, Irby, Pensby and Woodchurch hang in the balance; they are dependent on local people taking over their running. If the Government were serious about levelling up, they would fund local councils properly.
If the Government are to spread opportunity, they must take action to address the crisis in adult literacy. The National Literacy Trust estimates that there are more than 7 million adults in England with very poor literacy skills. People who struggle to read and write can face great hardship in life. They can experience difficulty in securing housing, dealing with utility companies and managing financial affairs, and they can struggle to find secure, well-paid work. The Government cannot say they are levelling up the UK without addressing this crisis.
The Government had the opportunity in the Queen’s Speech to commit to banning conversion therapy, but they have fallen short by not providing for forthcoming legislation to apply to trans people. The British Medical Association has described conversion therapy as an
“unethical and damaging practice that preys on victims of homophobia, transphobia, discrimination, and bullying.”
It should be banned.
Finally, I turn to the environment and climate emergency. The Government should be taking decisive action against dirty fossil fuels, and it is extremely disappointing that they have not brought forward measures to ban fracking and underground coal gasification. These risky technologies are detrimental to our fight against climate change. They should be banned.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
In this Queen’s Speech, the Government are faced with the twin challenges of the cost of living crisis and a climate crisis, in a period when we are emerging from the greatest pandemic in 100 years. The times call for a big, brave response—a game-changing policy that makes energy secure, ensures rapid decarbonisation and weans us off gas. At the same time, with rising prices and stagnant wages, people need relief, especially on the most essential bills, including energy, water, housing and transport.
Given the measures brought forward over the last few months and in this Queen’s Speech, it feels as though the Government abandoned COP26 as soon as the doors of the Scottish Event Campus were closed. It is not just individuals and families who face this crisis, but businesses, which have the highest cost pressures and the highest tax burden in 50 years. The Conservative party thinks it is the party of business, but the pandemic taught us that that is only the case if your chums own the business. The millions working in small and medium-sized enterprises who were not fortunate enough to go to school with a Cabinet Minister, or to run a Cabinet Minister’s local pub, get no help at all. It is the chumocracy response to a crisis.
This Queen’s Speech provides not an ounce of relief for those struggling with costs and in dire need of a pay rise. To meet the challenge, we need an energy security Bill that takes a quantum leap in ambition, compared with what the Government have provided so far. I would expect, as a minimum, to see in the Bill a retrofit revolution, not a repeat of failed previous schemes such as the green homes grant. We need a serious delivery body to deliver adequate insulation for every building in Britain; serious funding for the sector; a mass apprenticeship programme; a stellar leap in decarbonisation, involving district heat and power, heat pumps and hydrogen; and an annual target for a reduction in household energy bills and real-terms carbon emission reductions. The future system operator needs to have real teeth to be able create a two-way smart grid that takes advantage of battery storage and home electricity generation.
We must deliver the much-needed windfall tax on energy that nearly everybody, particularly Opposition Members, have called for, but we should go further. We need real measures on the energy price cap that offer real protection. The current cap does not balance excessive energy producer profits against costs. Why is there not a mechanism in the Bill to smooth profits against the costs to consumers in the long term? Why are the Government not lifting their ban on onshore wind? Polling shows that it is popular if community-owned, and it is one of the cheapest renewable technologies. If we doubled capacity, we could power 10 million homes, weaning them off gas. Why did the Government cut the solar feed-in tariff? That has decimated the domestic solar market, and stopped people, particularly those in social housing, getting solar. As a minimum, the Government should introduce a social feed-in tariff.
Finally, we have heard a lot about food banks during debate on this Queen’s Speech. Food banks are a stain on our society, as they expose the poverty the Government have allowed people to fall into. No one looks forward to using a food bank, and no one is proud of using a food bank. Let us see the £20 of universal credit returned to people. This Government are not just lacking in ambition; they are failing big time.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Chronic Tory under-investment in our public services and our communities means that we have barely begun to recover from the last recession, and we are standing on the brink of another. With inflation now predicted to exceed 10%, the combination of soaring food and fuel prices, inflation and low pay is driving millions into poverty, hardship and hunger. For my constituents in Liverpool, Riverside and across the country, the Queen’s Speech provides little hope or comfort, especially for those experiencing extreme poverty: pensioners forced to spend the day on buses just to keep warm; children going to school hungry; and private renters terrified they are not going to be able to keep a roof over their heads. Household finances are at breaking point, with bad bosses driving down wages and working conditions, driving in-work poverty through the roof.
Meanwhile the richest 1%, the wealthy individuals, corporations and the energy giants are reporting eye-watering record profits. The boss of Shell received a £1.1 million pay rise, while the Governor of the Bank of England is telling workers not to ask their employers for a pay rise; this is the height of hypocrisy. No matter what pathetic and insulting excuses this Government give for the last 12 years of failures to support struggling families—telling poor people to take cooking lessons, get a better-paid job, or shop for bargain brands—this poverty is a political choice. This Government have chosen not to support those most in need, forcing working people into food banks and into an impossible choice between heating and eating, while the profits of the wealthiest go through the roof.
The stark reality is that this is a class war. Nowhere is that more devastating than in the soaring rates of child poverty. In Liverpool, Riverside, the equivalent of 10 children in a class of 30 are already living in poverty, and a record-breaking two thirds of them are living in working families. That is why I have tabled an amendment to the Queen’s Speech that includes measures to address sky-rocketing levels of child poverty. These are clear, simple actions that prove the cost of living crisis is not inevitable; it is a political choice. We need action, and we need it now, with the introduction of a windfall tax, the minimum wage being set at £15 an hour, and by reinstating and extending the £20 uplift to universal credit and all benefits.
Instead of levelling up, the Tories are doing what they do best: levelling down. The worst of the cost of living crisis is yet to come, which is why I urge all across the House to support the amendment.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I take part in this important debate on behalf of the many families in Newport West who have written to me, called me and messaged me with their stories, their experiences and their fears for the months and years ahead.
One resident in Newport West wrote to me recently:
“We are in a position right now where we’re not coping. Our energy bills have risen 54% and I am afraid that myself and many others will not be able to provide for our families.
My husband’s parents are on a state pension of £82.45 a week, we are concerned for their welfare as they cannot afford to heat their home nor pay for food if these energy prices continue.”
She goes on:
“Many of my friends are concerned for their own families too, we are all struggling, and instead of living, we’re surviving day to day.”
Another woman from Newport West wrote to me to say:
“I have one daughter, 12 years old. I am in full time employment and on benefits. I have cancer. Even before the surge in energy prices many people like me have been struggling to afford the essentials. The cost of weekly food shopping has risen, so has the cost of energy. My rent also increased recently. I have had to make cutbacks on most things.”
The people of Newport West are, as I have said before, looking for help, but there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to help people with heating their homes, filling their cars with fuel or feeding their families. That is why Labour wants to introduce a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producer profits, so that we can bring down bills, and bring them down now. I hope Conservative Members will finally join the British people in calling for this windfall tax, or properly explain why they continue to oppose measures that would ease the cost of living crisis and make peoples’ lives better.
Last year, I spoke in this House about the many thousands of people in Newport West whose universal credit had been cut. Since then I have seen the devastating impact that that decision had on families in Newport West and across Wales, and we will not let Tory Ministers forget it.
It is not just those on universal credit who are affected: older people and pensioners are at the sharp end of the Tory cost of living crisis, and they urgently need the Government to act now. Pensioners spend twice as much on their energy bills as those under 30 and face spiralling inflation, with the price of petrol, food and energy all soaring. And we must not forget that almost one in five pensioners now lives in poverty. Our young people are facing the fierce winds of this crisis, too: low wages, rising rents, and their cost of living going through the roof.
I will continue to call this Government out and to stand up for the people of Newport West, who need change and need it now.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Living standards in the UK are plummeting under the Conservative Government. Working-class people are suffering. My constituents in the Cynon Valley are suffering, and I want the Government to know what they think. I recently completed a cost of living survey in my constituency. Within a couple of days, we had in excess of 650 responses. The survey’s preliminary findings are shocking and harrowing, to put it mildly. Ninety per cent of respondents said that they felt worse than they did this time last year and 80% reported that financial difficulties were affecting their mental health.
I want to give hon. Members a flavour of what people are enduring. Gwenno, a single parent who is self-employed, says:
“These price increases are making me feel ill and depressed and are giving me sleepless nights due to worrying. I feel like a failure for having to ask my children to limit the heating, eating less, not eating things they enjoy and not having days out or treats.”
Another constituent, Harri, is retired. He commented:
“I am desperately worried about paying my increased utility bills. I am retired on a fixed income. I will have to stop using the central heating, and I can’t think what else to do.”
I will publish the report in the next couple of weeks and will ensure that the Government get a copy.
I am incensed that the Queen’s Speech has ignored the action needed to help people with the cost of living crisis. Instead, it proposes a series of Bills that will fail to level up communities or incomes and fail to deal with regional and national inequality. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill should deal with inequality, but it will not. The Procurement Bill should deal with outsourcing waste, but it will not. The Government are pursuing draconian attacks on civil liberties through the Public Order Bill, the Bill of Rights, the boycotts Bill and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill that allow them to deal with dissent. They have left out the promised employment Bill, and they continue to treat the sackings at P&O as a joke through their inadequate harbours Bill.
What we need, as has been said, is an emergency Budget to announce measures to deal with the cost of living crisis, a windfall tax on gas and oil giants and a wealth tax. We should also boost incomes, increase social security in line with inflation and ensure that the Government respect the devolution agreement. It is clear to me that the Government’s inaction is uncaring and leading to misery for millions of people. The empty Government Benches say all that we need to know about how much they care about people—
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Queen’s Speech totally missed the cost of living crisis facing my constituents in Falkirk. As our communities emerge from two years dominated by the pandemic and all the personal loss, pain and anxiety that came with it, they now face a brutal financial crisis. Price rises are hitting families from every side. Energy bills are soaring, the price of basic foodstuffs is up, fuel is more expensive and inflation has reached a 30-year high and is going north.
Millions of people who have already cut back are having to choose between heating their homes and feeding their children. They cannot cut back any more. The WASPI women, pensioners and many personal friends who I grew up with are living in fear of opening their bills and putting fuel in their cars. They have had to stop giving to local charities. What a state of affairs to be going through at their age.
Age Scotland states that the 3.1% rise in the state pension falls far short of what is needed by our pensioners. As the OECD highlighted, the UK has one of the lowest public pensions in the developed world. The UK also has the highest percentage among neighbouring countries of retirees over 65 at risk of poverty, which is pitiful. To add insult to injury, the UK state pension provides retirees with an income of about 20% of the average national wage, compared with almost 40% across the OECD. That is a disgrace and an insult, treating people and pensioners with disdain.
An independent Scotland will have full powers to protect and improve both state and occupational pensions. I believe the cost of living crisis has been created by the Conservatives and Brexit has only made matters worse. The SNP repeatedly warned that Brexit would be damaging to business and trade, and that it would put food prices up, yet the Tory Government remain dangerously out of touch. They could have reversed their cuts to universal credit, but they did not. They could cut VAT on fuel bills. They could reduce VAT on the high street. They could tax companies—not only energy companies—on excess profits. They could increase benefits, but they have not.
As for the Tory MPs who demonstrated an utter lack of humanity with their recent views that struggling families should buy cheaper food and manage money better, and that people who use food banks cannot cook properly, let me tell them this: there are Tory Members here and in the Lords who can hardly peel a potato and have never brought a dinner plate to their table never mind make a meal, such is their sense of entitlement. The message from the Tory Government is very clear: “You live in your world and I’ll live comfortably in mine.” It is poverty versus privilege.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The cost of living crisis is impacting people across Pontypridd and Taff Ely, but it does not have to be this way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) rightly and powerfully set out, there are many urgent short-term measures to help families through the cost of living crisis that the Government have simply neglected to implement.
What people across the country need are long-term solutions. That is why I am both furious and frustrated that the Government have backtracked once again on their promises to bring forward an employment Bill. Central to tackling the cost of living crisis is ensuring that workers across the board are fairly protected. An issue particularly personal for me is that we were told that the Bill would finally—finally—introduce proper neonatal leave and pay for new parents. The Minister stood at the Dispatch Box only a few months ago and told the House that the Government “remain very… committed” to introducing neonatal leave and pay via the employment Bill. However, because of the Government’s decision to abandon the Bill, thousands of new parents will have no choice but to continue to balance precarious work and family commitments. Proper neonatal leave and pay could have brought so much desperately needed relief to new families as they struggle through the cost of living crisis. They were struggling even before the cost of living crisis took hold, which is why it is even more insulting that they have been abandoned yet again by this Tory Government. In fact, the TUC has tallied it up: Ministers promised an employment Bill on nearly 20 occasions. Now that the promise has been abandoned, is it any wonder that public trust in this Government is so low?
Unsurprisingly, neonatal pay is not the only crushing disappointment of this half-hearted Gracious Speech. My constituents in Pontypridd and Taff Ely desperately needed it to engage with the cost of living crisis genuinely. We need bold proposals via an emergency Budget. We need a new windfall tax on North sea oil and gas companies. We need an urgent nationwide insulation programme to prevent energy loss and reduce families’ energy bills. What did we get instead? We got a Bill promising to further crack down on the fundamental right to protest, a vague levelling-up Bill promising to let residents decide street names, and a Bill promising to flog Channel 4 to the highest bidder.
This Government have run out of road. When Ministers try to defend their Government, all they do is insult the British public further. We have food poverty, fuel poverty and now hygiene poverty. The fact that they even exist in modern Britain should shame every single Member—there is a lack of Conservative Members on the Government Benches at the moment. It is a devastating economic truth that households having less to spend means sectors such as entertainment and hospitality losing out. Our economy shrinks and we are all poorer for it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I could go on and on and on, but as you see I am angry and my constituents are angry. I will continue to do everything I can to get the people of Rhondda Cynon Taff the help they need, but this Queen’s Speech is an insult to the thousands of households in Wales and across the UK who need real immediate solutions to help with the cost of living crisis. I urge the Government to act and to act now.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Last week should have been an extremely sobering moment in this House. The Food Foundation figures widely quoted in this Chamber should chill the souls of every Member who serves here, with millions going hungry in our communities. A few days before the Queen’s Speech was delivered, I spoke to a disabled constituent who explained to me how the cost of living and the huge increase in energy bills had left him choosing between heating his home or powering his electric wheelchair. The fifth richest country in the world! There was nothing in the Queen’s Speech to make sure he does not have to face that unjust situation a day longer.
Instead of sober reflection on how we fix the crisis, we had grotesque suggestions from those on the Tory Benches on cookery classes—maybe an hour with Mary Berry would fix the problem of millions of going hungry. We had the Government suggesting that it is the fault of the person in poverty and that they just need to pack in their zero-hour minimum wage contract job and maybe become the CEO of Apple. We need to hear less condescending rhetoric that lays the blame on people facing hardship and poverty from commentators and politicians who have got about as much experience of poverty as I have of attending the annual reunion of the Bullingdon club.
Let us be clear that the blame for this crisis lies with this failing Government, who could make the political decisions that are needed if they wanted to. The Government could decide to put a right to food into legislation. They could ban fire and rehire, ban zero-hours contracts and raise the level of universal credit, legacy benefits and the minimum wage. They could protect pensioners and deliver justice for the 9,000 women in Liverpool, West Derby who have been impacted by the change to the women’s state pension age.
Hunger is a political choice. Fuel poverty is a political choice. Those choices are currently being made by this Government. This is an emergency—life and death for many—that demands serious solutions, not tinkering with a system that is utterly broken for millions. That is why we need to legislate for the right to food. We need enforceable food rights so that the Government of the day are accountable for making sure that nobody goes hungry. They must be prevented from making decisions that lead to people being unable to afford to put a meal on the table or to put the heating on.
That is why I have tabled an amendment to the Queen’s Speech to enshrine a right to food in UK law. I thank every Member from right across the House who has supported it, and I urge all others to do so.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I probably should not be that surprised that the Queen’s Speech does nothing to tackle the Tories’ cost of living crisis, because they have done virtually nothing over recent years on the underlying causes. Many of my constituents fall into the groups that are hardest hit—the poorest, the elderly and those in remote parts of the country. They are being hammered by soaring inflation, fuel prices and energy prices, yet the Government have continually dragged their feet over the energy crisis. They have had to be forced to debate fuel poverty and energy price caps, but sadly without any effective outcomes.
The publication of the energy strategy and the announcement of the energy Bill offer nothing either to help with the cost of living crisis or to improve energy efficiency, which would permanently help to reduce people’s bills. The rise in energy prices impacts hardest on the poorest families in our society. The poorest single adult households are now spending 54% of income, after housing costs, on energy. That is simply not sustainable.
The Queen’s Speech is yet another example of missed opportunities. It fails to fix known problems with universal credit, such as the five-week wait, the benefit cap and the two-child limit, pushing more families further into hardship. It does nothing about the appalling state of pensions in the UK. We have the worst pensions in Europe; they are equivalent to 20% of average earnings, compared with the OECD average of 40%. That is utterly appalling, and many of our pensioners now face the stark choice between heating and eating. The abandonment of the triple lock on pensions takes hundreds of pounds out of their pockets at the very time when energy bills are soaring through the roof and they face serious issues over food security and prices.
We should not forget either that, even before the current turbocharging of this crisis, malnutrition in the UK has tripled—I state that again: it has tripled—since the Tories came to power in 2010. One in 20 people in the UK are affected by malnutrition and this Government’s inaction will only make that situation worse.
This week, Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, said:
“It is a very, very difficult place for us to be. To forecast 10% inflation and then say…‘There’s not a lot we can do about 80% of it’”.
I will tell the House what I would do about it: we need an emergency Budget; we need to slash VAT on fuel prices; and we need to impose a windfall tax on the companies that have benefited both through the pandemic and in the current crisis. I say to my constituents in Scotland: if you want joined-up policy making from Government and to tackle these issues, you need to get independence, because we will not get the action here.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Zarah Sultana.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The annual profits of oil giant Shell were £12 billion. BP’s profits were £9.5 billion. The company’s boss said that his pay had more than doubled to just under £5 million, and then the company complained that it is
“getting more cash than we know what to do with”.
In the next year, the combined profits of those two companies are expected to double to £40 billion.
It is not just oil giants; bankers’ bonuses are booming, too. They are higher than at any time since the 2008 financial crisis. Posh bars in the City say that they have had a run on their most expensive champagne. While the vast majority are struggling like never before, the wealthy few are raking it in. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the booming incomes of the top 1% are driving rising inequality. It is a crisis for the majority, but a bonanza for the few.
This is not inevitable. This crisis was made in Downing Street. It is the result of political choices made by this Tory Government. Last year, they let Shell pay zero tax on North sea oil and gas production, with the Treasury actually paying Shell £92 million. Earlier this year, the Tories voted to give bankers a tax cut worth £1 billion a year, and just a week later they voted to slash social security payments in real terms and to cut pensions by about 4%, once inflation is factored in. A couple of months earlier, they implemented the biggest overnight cut in the history of the welfare state, scrapping the £20 a week universal credit uplift, and then they let energy bills soar by a whopping 54%. Their choices are why my constituents and millions of people across the country are struggling while the super-rich line their pockets.
We could choose to do things differently, and that is what amendment (f), tabled in my name, would do. It would use a windfall tax on oil giants to slash energy bills and bring energy companies into public ownership. It would give millions of workers a real pay rise, making the minimum wage a genuine living wage, and implement a real-terms public sector pay rise. It would rebuild the social security safety net, with a real-terms increase in social security and pensions, including restoring the £20 a week universal credit uplift. It would pay for that by raising taxes on the richest, not on ordinary workers, including an end to the tax-dodging loopholes that Conservative Members are so fond of, including the non-dom status. Instead of the political choice to squeeze the livelihoods of working people, we could squeeze the profits of the rich. That is what my amendment would do, and I urge Members to back it.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a debate about the 250,000 households that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research predicts will be forced into destitution next year. This is a debate about the 1.3 million people, including 500,000 children, who will be pushed into absolute poverty. This is a debate about the 2 million—and rising—pensioners in poverty. This is a debate about the 2 million adults who did not eat for a whole day last year. This is a debate about our constituents who are working all hours God sends and still need to queue at food banks to feed their families.
In his speech earlier, the Chancellor—I do not know where he is, by the way—boasted of an employment miracle, but is it not the truth, as the Office for National Statistics has shown today, that pay is being outpaced by inflation, with real wages falling by 1.2%? That is the largest monthly fall in real regular wages in a decade, yet at the same time, pay-as-you-earn data shows that the wages of the very top earners are increasing rapidly. Labour market inequalities are widening, and workers deserve a fair pay rise.
If we drill down into the employment figures, we see that it is also the truth—and this has come up today—that they are lower than they were pre-pandemic. Indeed, 1.5 million have left the labour market, including more and more over-50s who are drawing down their defined-contribution pensions. The sickness levels of those out of work are at their highest level for 20 years—[Interruption.] Ah, here he is—come on in, Chancellor! Instead of providing help, the Gracious Speech had no employment Bill—it was ditched—while Jobcentre Plus and Department for Work and Pensions offices will be closed and staff laid off, and job scheme funding is being cut or underspent. This is a Government failing on employment.
Our constituents face a cost of living crisis, but instead of action we had a complacent speech from the Chancellor, who said that he may act on a windfall tax “soon”—but people need action today. Does he really think that the parents who are making choices between feeding meters and feeding their children, the families who are cutting off their meters and the people who are scared of the final demand from their energy companies can say to those energy companies, “Don’t worry, we’ll pay you soon”? Of course not—the mañana Chancellor needs to act today to help people.
A theme across the House not just today but throughout the week has been the failure of the Chancellor and the Government to help people with the cost of living crisis. I cannot mention all of the many speeches we have heard today, so I will mention only a few. The hon. Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made sympathetic noises towards a windfall tax. In fact, they were so sympathetic, I thought they had got hold of the parliamentary Labour party’s briefing pack for the debate.
Jonathan Ashworth
We are pushed for time, so I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon—but he can have a word with me when he is voting with us in the Lobby later.
Look at the realities facing our constituents: the cost of pasta is up 10%; milk, cheese and eggs, up 8.6%; butter, up 9.6%; cooking oils and fats, up 18%. And the message from Ministers? “Just purchase supermarket own brand.” “Buy value beans”—the new three-word slogan from the Tory party.
Another quotation of which the Chancellor may be aware is from Milton Friedman; I know the Chancellor is a big fan. Milton Friedman said:
“Inflation is taxation without legislation”.
But the Chancellor has legislated. Instead of helping people on universal credit, he legislated to cut universal credit in real terms—a loss of around £500. Instead of helping pensioners with the triple lock, the Government legislated to impose the biggest real-terms cut to the pension for 50 years, meaning a cut of more than £420 for the typical retiree.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is about to embark on a programme of cutting the incomes of some of the most vulnerable people on legacy benefits as they migrate to universal credit. But it does not have to be like this, because—as the Chairs of the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, many charities and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said—one could bring forward a proportion of the benefit increase pencilled in for 2023 today. Indeed, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said a few weeks ago at the Dispatch Box that the 2023 increase in benefits and the pension will take account of inflation. The Government are promising to increase benefits and the pension in line with inflation in 2023, but in the meantime are sending the very poorest on a rollercoaster. Some 500,000 children will be pushed into absolute poverty.
To be fair to the Chancellor, he said, “We looked at this, but the IT system said no”. As many Members have said, it is a shame that his computer didn’t say no when he was cutting universal credit by £20. But I have been given a briefing note by Oracle, which I understand provides the IT systems for the Department for Work and Pensions, entitled: “How DWP transformed the backbone of the UK benefits system”. The note says that the changes that made to the computer system
“has built automation into…management—this allows DWP to make changes every week, rather than having to plan six months in advance”.
Mr Mark Bell, who is the deputy director at the Department for Work and Pensions, said:
“This has been widely recognised as one of the best technical achievements delivered by DWP Digital for many years…It also enabled us to make further digital enhancements to benefit millions of UK citizens.”
Technical lead Mr Nick Cutting says that this has brought “flexibility” and that it led to the Department being able to do things it
“never could have done, or that would have taken significant time at a significant cost”
if it was still running on legacy infrastructure. You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth is that it is not the mainframe that is preventing the Government from acting; it is their frame of mind.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman used to be a political adviser to the previous Government, but they did not have universal credit. What he is describing is universal credit, a system that the Labour party has consistently opposed. That is why we are able to make the changes; it is true and accurate, as he has just read out to the House, that it is the legacy systems that are the problem. That is why we cannot simply change the rates of all benefits as he wants us to do. The point is that we cannot do that, and he has read out the reasons to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth
The right hon. Lady has just confirmed that she is refusing to increase universal credit, with the consequence that 500,000 extra children will be pushed into poverty—[Interruption.] I am not misleading the House. I remember meeting her for negotiations over the pandemic legislation. We met in the offices of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. We said that we needed more support on universal credit and we came to an arrangement. She also gave a lump sum to those on working tax credit, which is a legacy payment. So if there is a will, the Government can do it, but the truth is that they do not want to do it.
The reality is that if the Government wanted to lift children out of poverty, they could do it. If they wanted to lift pensioners out of poverty, they could do it. If they wanted to prevent 250,000 families from being pushed into destitution, they could do that too. The fact that they will vote against the amendment in the Lobby tonight tells us everything we need to know about this Tory party. For them, rising child poverty is a price well worth paying.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is an honour to conclude this debate on the Gracious Speech. Understandably, a lot of people have contributed today. I want to take this opportunity to join right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to Her Majesty in her platinum jubilee year. This is a Queen’s Speech that will deliver for the British people: safer streets, stronger schools, a secure supply of energy, speedier access to social security for those people near the end of their lives, streamlined financial services unlocking investment, stripping out unwanted EU regulation, and legislation to help level up across the United Kingdom. All these measures will help to grow the economy, which will help to address the cost of living challenge that families are facing.
We should remember that this is a global challenge. Countries around the world are having to deal with inflation, and the covid aftershocks are still ripping through the world’s supply chains. On top of that, Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated spiking energy prices. On this side of the House, we are the champions of freedom and democracy around the world and it is right that we do all we can to end Putin’s onslaught, but sanctions are not cost-free for us here at home. They come on top of the impact from covid. These are global inflationary forces, and it would be wrong to pretend that we can protect everyone from their impact.
Thanks to our strong recovery from the pandemic and having got the big calls right over the last two years—such as our plan for jobs—we have helped families across the country. We can see that in the labour market statistics published today. Our unemployment rate today is below the low level we saw before the pandemic. Not only that, it is the lowest since 1974. The number of people on payrolls is at a record high, and over half a million more people are now benefiting from a regular pay packet than in February 2020.
I am also delighted to say that we have met our 2017 commitment to get 1 million more disabled people into employment in 10 years. In fact, we announced today that we have hit 1.3 million more people. That is good news for people with disabilities and it is good news for the economy too. The level of youth unemployment is now at a record low. This means greater security, more financial resilience and better prospects for people.
David Linden
The Secretary of State talks about employment, but when I go to my local food banks, one of the things that people tell me on a regular basis is that the number of people using the food banks as a result of in-work poverty is up. What does her local food bank tell her?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that food banks are present and providing support in many communities, especially where people are trying to work out the best way to spend their resources. He mentions in-work poverty, and it is why we have a plan for in-work progression, why we have been investing in skills, why we are investing in our jobcentres and why, through the plan for jobs, we are doing more to help people not only to get back into work but to get on in work too. That is what we are doing.
On top of the activity we have been undertaking, there are things we can do and are doing to cushion families from the worst effects of inflation and to ease the squeeze on household budgets. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out, £22 billion has already been committed to support the hardest hit this year. The £150 of support for households in bands A to D is landing in people’s bank accounts, with a further £144 million discretionary fund available to councils. From October, the £200 reduction in energy bills will help families spread this year’s increased costs over the next few years.
We initiated the household support fund, through which we invested £500 million across the UK to help with the cost of household essentials. We are increasing that to £1 billion every year. For the second phase of the grant we have put a particular focus on people on fixed incomes, which is why a third is ringfenced for pensioners. That is on top of existing targeted support such as the warm home discount, cold weather payments and winter fuel payments. We are stepping in at this challenging time, and we are ready to do more to help.
We are discussing an Opposition amendment, and I make it clear that we will reject all Opposition amendments to the Queen’s Speech as a matter of precedent. The Queen’s Speech sets out the Government’s legislative programme for the year, and it is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to introduce fiscal measures, and he will make all future decisions on tax in the usual way. I reiterate that he told the House today that no option is off the table.
We know that the best way to raise living standards over the long term is to grow the economy, to invest in skills and to get people moving into and progressing in decent jobs. The latest statistics cut through the Opposition’s charge that poverty has increased since the Conservatives came into power. There are 1.2 million fewer people, including 200,000 fewer children and half a million fewer working-age adults, in absolute poverty, before housing costs, than in 2010. In March we published statistics that, for the first time, combine absolute low income and material deprivation among working-age people. Those statistics show a fall of three percentage points, from 3.1 million when we came into power to 2.2 million in 2019-20.
Alan Brown
Will the Secretary of State remind the House of how much money the Treasury puts towards the warm home discount?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever, as he knows the answer is that it is a redistribution within the energy policy. [Interruption.] Would he rather not have it? Would he rather be with his fellow SNP people who voted against any rise in benefits at all? That is what several of his colleagues did. They did not vote for a lift in benefits.
After a decade of rising employment, we are building on our track record. We are ensuring that people have stronger incentives to work and can keep more of what they earn. Some 1.7 million working people on universal credit are, on average, £1,000 a year better off following our cut to the taper rate. Last month’s 6.6% rise in the national living wage has provided the lowest paid with an increase of £1,000 a year in their income, and in July the increase in the national insurance threshold will benefit 30 million working people, with a typical employee saving over £330 a year.
Stephen Timms
The Secretary of State mentioned today’s labour market statistics. Will she confirm that they show there are now half a million fewer people in employment than before the pandemic?
Dr Coffey
In my discussions with the chief statistician, he has said that more people are on the payroll than ever before. That is good news. I am conscious that there are people who are economically inactive, and the Government will set out how to challenge that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my main priority is those people to whom we pay benefits to look for work and making sure they get into work, but of course we will be extending our activity to try to get people back into the marketplace who have dropped out since the covid pandemic.
As I pointed out, 30 million working people will benefit from the rise in the national insurance threshold in July. With a record number of vacancies in the economy, we want more people to have the benefits that work brings. That is why we are focused on getting more people into and progressing in jobs, where they can boost their pay, prospects and prosperity. Building on our plan for jobs, our Way to Work scheme is getting people into jobs even more quickly, with the aim of getting half a million claimants into work by June. We can see a kind of magic in our jobcentres, as people really want to break free from that unemployment poverty trap. By the end of April we were more than halfway to our goal, and we know there is more to do. But our Way to Work scheme is helping people move into any job now, to get a better job tomorrow and to build a longer-term career. To help people lift off at work when they land a job, we are rolling out extra support for claimants to build the skills they need to progress in work.
All of this is underpinned by our programme to deliver on what Parliament voted for in 2012: to replace all the legacy benefits with universal credit, because people will always be better off working than not working, unless they cannot work. That is the magic of UC, unlike the cliff edges of tax credits, which stop people progressing the amount of time and skills they get in work. So we are getting on with it, having resumed the process to complete the move to UC by 2024. Given that we estimate that two thirds of people on tax credits would receive a higher entitlement on UC, this will be important in helping to increase incomes.
All of this stands in contrast to what is put forward by those on the Opposition Benches. I believe the Leader of the Opposition would scrap UC—it was certainly in his pledges when seeking to be elected as Leader of the Opposition. They would undo a decade a progress, leave people further from the labour market and penalise the taxpayer by failing to realise the benefits of a modern system.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister summed up our focus in his speech last Tuesday at the start of our debates on the Gracious Speech: “Jobs, jobs, jobs!”. We are talking about high-skill and high-wage jobs. These are clearly challenging times, but we will continue to provide the leadership needed to rise to those times, continuing to drive up the skills our economy needs and employment prospects across the country, and putting more pounds in people’s pockets. This Queen’s Speech will grow the economy, level up our country, spread opportunity, and strengthen security and prosperity for all the British people, through the covid aftershocks and for decades to come. We therefore continue to commend the Loyal Address, unamended, to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Thursday the Minister responsible—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove)—assured us that the Passport Office service would be set up in Portcullis House so that Members of Parliament and their staff could get quick and easy access to deal with urgent passport cases. That service has been set up, but I wish to raise the issue of the number of people staffing that service. Today, there was a very long queue of people waiting to access the service, and some people were having to wait for over two hours before they could get their questions dealt with by the officials there.
The issue is compounded by the fact that the Passport Office nationally is still failing to deal with telephone inquiries in a timely fashion. I have a constituent who has written to me today saying that they have spent 25 hours of their life on hold trying to get through to the Passport Office. They wish to get a passport to enable them to go to a family funeral overseas. The only reason they need a new passport is that their old one was cancelled by the Passport Office in error because it incorrectly transposed information from somebody saying they wished to cancel their passport and the information of my constituent, so unfortunately the other applicant’s passport was not cancelled but my constituent’s was. This is intolerable—what can be done about it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Sadly, it is not a matter for the Chair. I say “sadly” because we are all aware of how difficult it is to do any business with the Passport Office. We all have large numbers of constituents who are waiting for passports and have been waiting for far too long.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. Mr Speaker would be very concerned that undertakings had been given here in this House and then not followed up. All I can do is facilitate the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, explain that it is not a matter for the Chair, and express my earnest hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard what he has said and will take the necessary action soon.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 to 8 together.
Ordered,
Environmental Audit Committee
That Valerie Vaz be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Anna McMorrin be added.
Joint Committee on National Security Strategy
That Sir Edward Leigh be discharged from the Committee on National Security Strategy and Stephen McPartland be added.
Justice Committee
That Andy Slaughter be discharged from the Justice Committee and Karl Turner be added.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
That Rachel Hopkins be discharged from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Beth Winter be added.
Science and Technology Committee
That Mark Logan be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Tracey Crouch be added.
Transport Committee
That Navendu Mishra be discharged from the Transport Committee and Christian Wakeford be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Child Maintenance Arrears
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I am grateful to have this opportunity to talk about this incredibly important issue. While the topic is very broad, my speech is very focused.
I am seeking to encourage the Government to move forward rapidly and robustly with proposals for home detention for people who do not pay child maintenance—something I have concentrated on campaigning for in my short time in the House. When discussing this issue, we are talking about the most important building block in our society: the need for parents take responsibility for their own children. The overwhelming majority of parents do exactly that. Whether together or separated, they take care of their financial responsibilities. My parents are divorced, and that had no bearing whatsoever on both of them continuing to look after me and my siblings. But sadly, not every parent does.
As a Conservative, I am of course wary of the state’s unnecessary involvement in family life. It is disheartening that the Government have to be involved in this issue at all, and whatever failings I might go on to talk about, the people who most deserve our frustration, unlike campaigners who put all their effort and energy into blaming the Government for everything, are the people not living up to their responsibilities. Unsurprisingly, that sort of campaign does not get brand endorsements and social media favour.
One thing we all agree on in this place is that part of the role of the state is to penalise the worst kinds of behaviour when that behaviour is beyond the pale. We do that most commonly in criminal law, but we also have civil law. In both, we right wrongs and punish people who behave in a way that the rest of society has decided we will not accept. Let me be clear: people who do not contribute to the upkeep of their own children when they could are the lowest of the low, but there is absolutely no system of punishment for that. Do we really think that, as unacceptable as it is, graffitiing a wall or vandalising a park bench is a graver offence than having children and refusing to contribute to their upkeep? I think the latter is one of the most deplorable things someone can do, but absolutely nothing is done to punish people for it—nothing. We fine people who do not send their children to school. We punish that, but not failing to support them.
In a completely perverse contrast, if someone has the much more onerous responsibility of having primary custody of their children and they neglect them, they are punished. What kind of contrast is that? What kind of message does that send?
For all the tough talk about sanctions, which I expect the Minister will cover, all they are aimed at is recovering moneys owed to children. How is that narrow approach working? Certainly there has been some improvement, as described by a recent National Audit Office report. The Department collected a record £54 million in the quarter ending September 2021. The percentage of paying parents contributing more than 90% of ongoing maintenance due in a quarter increased from under one third in March 2016 to around half in September 2021.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. Child maintenance arrears are a massive issue in my constituency, as they are in his. Does he not agree that with the cost of living crisis, single-parent families are under more pressure? There are 20,000 children in Northern Ireland alone whose cases are with the Child Maintenance Service’s advisers, and they deserve an up-to-date, functional service to ensure that payments are adequate, correct and timely.
Dr Mullan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. My focus today is on the need to change regulations, but I accept the wider concern about the functioning and efficiency of the agency. I will go on to talk about his point about the cost of living crisis. Figures suggest that 16% of children who are not in receipt of maintenance payments would be lifted out of poverty if they were, and that shows the level of concern we are trying to address.
We have seen some improvements. The NAO found that the internal processes for moving towards enforcing compliance were better, but the bigger picture is not positive. Of separated families who have a Government-mediated arrangement in place, the NAO found that only one in three see it paid in full, so two in three are not getting the payments in full to which they are entitled. Sometimes, the sums people are expected to pay are incredibly small. At the end of September 2021, total cumulative arrears under the current child maintenance scheme were £436 million. That amount is increasing at roughly £1 million a week, and the total will hit £1 billion by 2031. That is a huge amount of money that is not being paid by non-residential parents, and we have a responsibility to hold to account and punish individuals who behave in this deplorable manner.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the children who suffer most? The way that the Child Maintenance Service is writing off arrears means that these children will be permanently disadvantaged, with no more holidays and no more of the things that most children would take for granted.
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member pre-empts the exact point I was going to go on to make, which is that between December 2018 and March 2021, the predecessor agency wrote off about £2.6 billion of owed maintenance. That is the Government stepping in and legally excusing a parent of their responsibilities to their child. Whether or not it is realistic to recover it, morally I am not sure the Government should be doing that in a child and parent relationship. That is not a success in my book.
As of September 2021, 38,000 paying parents with an ongoing arrangement had not paid any maintenance for more than three months, and 22,000 had not paid for more than six months. That is tens of thousands of individuals happy to let other people pick up their most fundamental responsibility of providing for their child. All too often, it is strangers picking up the pieces through the tax system. In theory, the Department has some tough powers, including imprisonment, but the figures I have quoted clearly show that they are not working. Imprisoning someone, although perhaps morally warranted, stops them being able to earn and is not a practical solution to use at the scale needed to tackle the tens of thousands of non-payers. Those delinquent individuals have learned that if they just start paying a bit again, the whole system resets.
The Department’s civil enforcements are restricted to the collection of arrears at the time when a liability order is granted and cannot be used to enforce ongoing maintenance, which is another reason why an element of punishment would serve a wider purpose. It is not surprising that the evidence shows that overall, maintenance arrears continue to build up, even when the Department begins enforcement action. The NAO found that on average, parents had arrears of £2,200 before the enforcement action began and £2,600 afterwards. As if it were not bad enough that taxpayers have to top up the income of less well-off families when one parent is not contributing, we have to put time, money and effort into chasing up payments with no consequences for those who are not paying.
Taking stronger steps is broadly supported. According to a survey by Mumsnet and Gingerbread, 93% of parents believe that those who regularly avoid paying child maintenance should face more serious penalties. Not only would punishment be morally warranted, but I expect that it would have a powerful effect on compliance and put people off not paying in the first place. As I said, tougher restrictions to ensure that people are paying their child maintenance could lift 60% of children not in receipt of payments out of poverty. With the cost of living crisis, there is no better time to tackle the issue.
A change needs to be made to the system to ensure that the continuous rise in non-payments is tackled, and that is where home curfew can play a role. When the Government originally introduced enforcement measures, they crafted the legal framework to introduce home curfew measures but the powers were never enacted. I am not clear why, but I have campaigned for some time for those powers to be put to use, so I was delighted that, earlier this year, the Secretary of State announced plans to do exactly that. I hope that today’s debate helps to encourage the Government to make progress towards that commitment.
I would welcome the opportunity for my constituents to contribute to a consultation; perhaps the Minister could meet me and some of them as plans are developed. It will be no surprise to him that I think it is important that we use this power not just as a mechanism to encourage payments but to punish. If we could meet ahead of the consultation so that we can ensure that that is part of the proposals, it would be appreciated.
Home curfew could remain in place for the designated period regardless of whether a parent started to pay—for example, for three months. I imagine that spending three months at home every night, pondering their responsibilities, would be a powerful reality check. People need to understand that we as a society do not find non-payment acceptable and that they will be punished for not paying for the upkeep of their children.
On a related note, not earning any money should be accepted as an excuse for not paying maintenance only when there has been a genuine attempt to find work, which should be determined in the same way that the Department assesses that as part of the wider work of the welfare state. If someone has responsibility for children, they should be out there doing everything they can to find a job. If they are not doing that, they should not be out socialising of an evening.
Importantly, unlike imprisonment, home curfew can be used in a way that does not prevent a person from looking for a job and earning, as it can be tailored to their circumstances. It would typically be an evening and overnight curfew to allow people to find and take work during the day, but it could be switched around for people who find night work.
I sound a note of caution. As constituency MPs, we have all had cases of people for whom the administration of maintenance by CMS has gone wrong. Of course, if we are seeking powers to restrict someone’s liberty, we need to ensure that the cases are watertight, but we know that tens of thousands of people are not paying and would be fair targets of this policy.
I understand that home detention equipment is available, so we can make the change work. I would welcome people who are not paying having to explain why they have an ankle tag and cannot go to the pub in the evening. I have no doubt that many would say that they are guilty of a minor crime before admitting that they do not pay for their own kids, which tells us all we need to know about how badly we have got it wrong.
I acknowledge that there are many loving parents who would and do contribute to the care of their children but who are prevented from seeing them by the parent who has primary custody. When I first raised the issue of home detention for non-payers, many such parents contacted me and were clearly distressed. I make it clear that I am in no way minimising that and I fully support every parent in exercising their clear legal right to secure access to their children. Of course, it is abhorrent for any parent not to act in good faith when it comes to access, but two wrongs do not make a right and, as with every MP, I have to choose what I campaign on.
I am clear that every child deserves parents who step up and look after them and that no taxpayer should be left filling the void when they do not. On behalf of a society that I believe wants to see tougher action, the Government need to proceed at speed to secure it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
What an honour and a privilege it is to speak in this very important debate, which relates to every single constituency in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) should be congratulated on raising a really important issue that has great relevance up and down the land, and every constituency Member will benefit from the fact that he has brought forward this issue in an Adjournment debate. I congratulate him doubly because, as I understand it, this is his first ever Adjournment debate. Obviously, no Member can have an Adjournment debate, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, without being blessed by an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I know has supporters in the Gallery and, frankly, across the House of Commons.
Guy Opperman
It is not, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is an honour for my hon. Friend to be blessed by such an intervention.
My hon. Friend knows, because we have discussed this before, that I am not the Minister with direct responsibility for this issue in the Department for Work and Pensions; that is the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott. I have already informed the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who has a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, that another Minister will be responding to that debate. As she knows, I have long booked that day off—I have a birthday—so the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), will be responding to her debate on Thursday.
I want to deal with a number of key points at the outset. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich asks whether there can be a meeting very shortly between him and the Minister concerned. I have spoken to the noble Baroness tonight, and she has assured me that on Monday or Tuesday, subject to the demands of his diary and hers, they will meet either in the House of Lords or in the Department for Work and Pensions to take this matter forward.
We should not forget that the purpose of the Child Maintenance Service is to facilitate the payment of child maintenance from one separated parent to another when the parents are unable to reach agreement on how to care for their children following separation, but the interests of the child are at the heart of this policy. The key issue my hon. Friend raises today—this is a perfectly legitimate point that any Member would genuinely want to grasp—is the desire to get the best outcome for the child, namely the payment of the sums to support the child. There is also a desire, as he rightly outlined, to punish the parent who is not participating in the payment. However, the public policy point that always has to be grappled with is that it is very important that the punishment of the offending parent does not impact on their ability to make the payment for the child, because the most important thing is that the child is supported. There are balances to be struck, and that is the really difficult issue that the Child Maintenance Service has to grapple with at every single stage.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is absolutely right about the importance of the child, but the system sometimes falls down, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) mentioned. One of the ways it falls down is in consistency in the officers who look after each case; they often change. Is there any way that that could be looked at, so that each case is looked after by one officer, rather than three, four, five or six?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman has forestalled one of the issues that I was going to raise. I remember the debate secured by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on 21 January 2021, in which there was discussion of how the CMS was managing during covid. It was a struggle, to be perfectly blunt; all such services were struggling to provide assistance during the pandemic, and there were complications. I would like to think that all colleagues accept that the Child Maintenance Service has improved as covid has disappeared, as people have been able to return to work, and as consistency has returned because people are no longer getting ill, having to shield and having all the problems that follow.
The hon. Member for Strangford raised the issue of numbers. There are approximately 4,000 staff working for the Child Maintenance Service in the United Kingdom. That is a lot of people who are addressing this problem on an ongoing basis. I take the criticism, and the constructive criticism, about consistency in dealing with a case. In every MP’s office up and down the country—whether on this issue, on passports, on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or on any public services—there are desires and hopes for consistency, so that people can build up a relationship with a particular individual. Clearly individuals working in the public sector are free to move on to other things, but the criticism is legitimately made, and I take it on board; I am certain that the noble Baroness does, too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about collections in his outstanding speech. Collections are increasing. The criticism can be made that they are not increasing enough, but despite the difficulties of the pandemic, CMS collections have continued to increase; they rose by 8% between 2018 to 2021, and in 2021 some 71% of paying parents who used the collect and pay service were complaint.
In the quarter ending December 2021, a total of £46.6 million was paid through the collect and pay service; in addition, £210 million was due to be paid through direct pay arrangements. As a result of child maintenance payments, between 2018-19 and 2020-21—the most recent period for which there are statistics—the households of some 140,000 children were taken out of the category of low-income households. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford and emphasises the desperate importance of this issue. It is particularly relevant in a cost of living crisis. Those payments are made both through family-based arrangements and the CMS.
The main point of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich was about enforcement, and I turn to that now. When a parent fails to support their child and fails to fulfil their financial responsibilities, a number of options cut in. If arrears have begun to accrue, the CMS aims to take immediate action to re-establish compliance. For example, £3 million was collected between October and December 2021 through CMS civil enforcement action.
There are other enforcement powers, too. If a non-compliant paying parent is employed, the service will first attempt to deduct the maintenance and any arrears directly from their earnings. That is done by a deductions from earnings order or request; employers are obliged by law to take that action. This represents a quick and efficient way of going directly to the source of income to obtain the money. We learn these lessons from those who are the best at this: the taxman, who basically goes to earnings directly and ensures that they get immediate recovery.
Marion Fellows
That works in the civilian world, but not always with certain military people. There are real issues with chasing them for child payments.
Guy Opperman
I will reveal the product of a conversation I had earlier with the hon. Lady. I take note of her point, and if she gives me details of specific examples, particularly if there are regiments where this is a problem, I and the Department will be most interested to know about them. Of course, it would be best if we could respond to them before her important Westminster Hall debate on Thursday.
Where earnings cannot be accessed directly and there is a solely-held bank account—an absent father or mother has a bank account in their name—deductions can be taken directly from that account, and administrative methods can then be used to take control of goods, passports and other things on an ongoing basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about sanctions. We clearly use them only as a last resort, but a paying parent found guilty in court of wilful refusal to pay, or of culpable neglect in relation to payment of arrears, may be prevented from holding or obtaining a driving licence for up to two years, or alternatively may be committed to prison. As I indicated, we have also got the power to disqualify non-compliant parents from having a passport. Those are pretty serious penalties, but I take the point that that is not a direct penalty for the offending behaviour.
Dr Mullan
The important point is that those powers tend to be at the end of an extensive, long-winded process, but people get very good at dropping in and out of it and, as a result, are no worse off. They can play the game all the way to the end and then say, “Okay, fine. I’ve got some money that I’ll give you.” They give money for a couple of months and then drop back out. They are no worse off as a result—they have not paid an extra penny in maintenance or served any punishment. It is about tackling that wider behaviour. That is not to say that the powers are not used effectively on occasion—as the Minister said, the deduction orders work well for some people—but a contingent of people are playing the system and not getting punished for it.
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend makes a totally fair point. As always, a way forward is to take up specific examples with the CMS and Ministers directly, and I urge him to go to the Minister next week with those specific examples so that she and the director of the Child Maintenance Service can be challenged on why a particular individual is not being pursued in a particular way. Although there is the public policy thing, I keep coming back to how, ultimately, one is trying to encourage payments to be made. That is the difficult bit that one must address.
I want to touch briefly on sanctions, because these are pretty major powers. Between January 2020 and December 2021, the CMS initiated almost 6,000 sanctions against paying parents, so there are not one or two examples but thousands. While the majority of those do not involve the courts as compliance is achieved, between 2020 and 2021, £3.5 million of child maintenance was collected from paying parents undergoing sanctions actions. The trigger of a sanction producing payment does work, albeit I accept that in individual examples there are not sufficient amounts. I mentioned prison sentences, and in that period there were 249 prison sentences and a multitude of driving licence suspensions.
I come finally to curfews. My hon. Friend raised a number of points in respect of the curfew policy, and it is very much the case that we are proceeding with that. He was right to raise it with the Secretary of State, and she agrees with it. We are required by law to consult on it, and I want to give him the specific dates and how he, his constituents and fellow colleagues in the House can get involved. First, he—and his constituents through him—can feed into the consultation process prior to it happening. A public consultation on the power is intended to run from 13 June to 22 July, with the aim of its being published on 12 October. The order will then be commenced, subject to the approval of Parliament—it must pass through this place. He therefore has two windows: the first to influence the consultation before 13 June; and, secondly, he, his constituents and other colleagues can feed into the consultation in the normal way. [Interruption.] I need to face the front of the House. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant no discourtesy to you—I was attempting not to be discourteous to my hon. Friend—and I accept the implied criticism.
It is very important that representations are made in that way, and that there is the opportunity for my hon. Friend’s constituents to ensure that the extra power is a strong enforcement power and that there are more options, so that they can use the right lever to obtain compliance. The existing sanctions clearly disrupt a paying person’s earnings and that is the key conflict with the desire to get money to the children. The benefit of the power is that it is likely to disrupt a paying person’s lifestyle, rather than their earning capacity. Given that curfew orders will not affect employment or the ability to earn, we feel that that is the right way forward.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I hope that I have addressed some of the points he considers important. I want to finish on one key outside point. We are in very difficult times with the pandemic having ended, but more particularly with international breakdown and the war in Ukraine. The Government’s priorities are: growing the economy to address the cost of living; making streets safer; funding the NHS; and providing the leadership we need in challenging times. One of those bits of leadership, unquestionably, is ensuring that the Child Maintenance Service, particularly in challenging times, is genuinely performing to the best of its possible ability, getting the best outcomes for individual children and the constituents who we all serve. This reform and the work we are taking forward, I hope, will get that outcome.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT ALTERNATIVE FINANCE (INCOME TAX, CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND CORPORATION TAX) ORDER 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Alternative Finance (Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax) Order 2022.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward? The draft order before the Committee widens the scope of the alternative finance arrangements provisions so that certain alternative finance arrangements can receive equal tax treatment to conventional arrangements of the same kind. The United Kingdom has established itself as a leading centre for Islamic finance, and the Government took steps to further build on this last year when we issued our second sukuk, the Islamic equivalent of a bond, at more than double the size of the first. The development of Islamic finance products in the United Kingdom is a welcome sign and demonstrates our position as a world leader in this regard.
It is important that our tax rules are reviewed and updated to reflect market developments and ensure a level playing field for alternative and conventional finance products. We already have alternative finance tax provisions that set out rules on the tax treatment of Sharia-compliant financial arrangements, which allow finance to be provided without payment of interest. The provisions allow for returns made by the finance provider to be treated as if they were interest for tax purposes when certain conditions have been met. However, home purchase plans provided by firms that do not fall within the existing statutory definition of a financial institution, and alternative finance arrangements facilitated by peer-to-peer platforms, are not currently within scope of the provisions. Home purchase plans are a Sharia-compliant method of obtaining property finance in a way that ensures no interest is charged. Currently, Financial Conduct Authority-regulated providers of such products are not defined as financial institutions, and their customers are not able to access the alternative finance rules. They therefore face less favourable tax treatment for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax than providers that are already defined as financial institutions.
Lenders and borrowers entering certain finance arrangements through Sharia-compliant peer-to-peer platforms also face less favourable tax treatment, which means that home purchase plans provided by FCA-regulated providers, and certain alternative finance arrangements facilitated by an FCA-regulated peer-to-peer platform, are on an unequal tax footing with similar products provided by financial institutions and conventional peer-to-peer lending. The changes made by the draft order will allow both of those types of firms to access the alternative finance arrangements provisions for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax.
Amending the rules to allow home purchase plans from FCA-regulated providers to fall within the alternative finance provisions will bring parity between conventional financial institutions and non-bank providers, and bringing Sharia-compliant peer-to-peer arrangements within the scope of the rules will encourage investors and operators to enter the Islamic finance market, allowing the Islamic community, especially small businesses, to benefit. It will also contribute towards offering a level playing field for Islamic finance and conventional finance.
When consulting on the draft order, further issues arising from the developing market have been brought to the attention of the Government. They relate to stamp duty land tax rules for Sharia-compliant peer-to-peer lending, and to the individual savings account regulations that may exclude certain arrangements from innovative finance ISAs. I am always grateful to those who bring such matters to the Government’s attention, and those points are being assessed.
These changes reflect developments within the Sharia-compliant market and will allow the industry to continue to thrive and grow, maintaining the UK’s position as a global hub for Islamic finance. I hope colleagues will join me in supporting this order, and I commend it to the Committee.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Edward. The Labour party is completely committed to ensuring that every religious community in the UK is able to benefit from the opportunities that access to finance can offer—whether that is taking out a student loan to attend one of our world-leading universities, setting up a new business or getting a mortgage to buy a house and start a family. For a significant number of British Muslims, having to take an interest-bearing loan would exclude them and their families from higher education or home ownership. Interest is prohibited in Islam, as it was in Christianity until the middle ages. Thousands of Muslims living in the UK today adhere to the core concepts of Islamic economics, of which the description of riba, the Arabic word for interest, is perhaps the most significant. That is why the role of the UK’s Islamic finance sector is so important; it currently supports more than 100,000 retail customers across the UK by offering alternatives to interest-based products.
The City of London is one of the leading centres for Islamic finance in the western world, and the Opposition want to see this vibrant sector continue to thrive and grow. The Minister will be pleased to know that we therefore wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s draft regulations today, which will help provide a more level playing field for the providers of conventional and Islamic financial products.
By providing for the equal treatment for tax purposes of Sharia-compliant home purchase plan providers and regulated peer-to-peer platforms with traditional mortgage and loan providers, the regulations are also an important step forward for financial inclusion. I am sure the Minister will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and Lord Sheikh of Cornhill have done some fantastic work in highlighting the role that Islamic finance plays in tackling financial exclusion in the Muslim community. They are co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Islamic finance and have long campaigned for the changes introduced today, which will provide many Muslims with a greater choice of financial products.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I have a series of questions for him. Although the Government have taken a welcome step today, will he explain why no such progress has been made on perhaps the other greatest barrier to financial inclusion in the Muslim community—the introduction of Sharia-compliant student loans? For nine years, successive Prime Ministers have pledged to address the shameful situation in which many young British Muslims, faced only with the option of an interest-bearing student loan, have not been able to attend university.
An October 2021 survey by Muslim Census, an organisation that gathers data on Muslims living in the UK—
The Chair
Order. Student loans are not part of the proceedings. You can refer to them briefly, but please do not give a long speech on student loans. They are not part of what we are talking about.
Tulip Siddiq
With all due respect, I think they are connected, but I will listen to the Chair’s comments. I would like the Minister to tell us why, despite the Government identifying the solution to this problem six years ago, they continue to stand by as thousands of Muslim students are giving up on university education. I hope the Minister can answer that point.
I want to raise the concerns of the APPG on Islamic finance regarding stamp duty land tax. The APPG has warned that the draft regulations fail to address the fact that Islamic fintech companies, which are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, are unable to benefit from the alternative finance rules that relate to stamp duty land tax, because of how a financial institution has been defined in the regulations, which do not recognise Islamic fintech companies as equivalent to banks or building societies. Although the UK may be the leading hub of Islamic finance outside of the Muslim world today, growth in the sector is increasingly driven by fintech. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy for Islamic fintech, the UK is at risk of falling behind its global competitors in Islamic finance. Has the Treasury considered the impact on the UK’s Islamic finance sector of the omission of Islamic fintech companies from the extension of the financial institution definitions for the purposes of SDLT?
We welcome and fully support the draft regulations, but why was there no progress over nine years on the introduction of Islamic student finance, and what reassurance can the Minister provide that his Government will support and champion the interests of the Islamic fintech sector?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the Minister for his opening comments. I commend the comments of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, with which I would almost entirely associate myself.
I have a few brief comments. I support the proposal, which moves in the right direction. There may be some other steps that could have been taken, as has been referred to. One thing that still grates with me a wee bit is that we talk about conventional and alternative finance. I think, if I was a Muslim, I would not think this was alternative finance—it would be entirely conventional. It may be different from the way we have traditionally done things in Britain, but it is becoming part of a different convention. I do not like terminology that appears to imply that one way of doing things is better and more intrinsically valuable than another.
Whether it is an individual or someone operating as a business, the fact that somebody follows the Muslim faith should never be a barrier to their being able to live their life to the full. There are a number of businesses in my constituency run by devout Muslims that make a significant contribution to the local economy and community. It is only right and proper that if they need to raise finance to expand their business or get over cash-flow difficulties, they should be able to do that in a way that is compliant with their deeply held religious beliefs and that does not put them at a disadvantage for taxation, consumer protection or regulatory purposes, compared with somebody who chooses a different method of financing. This order is another step in that direction, but there are still areas where Muslims and others who choose to follow Sharia law find themselves at a disadvantage. If there is no justification for that, we should legislate the disadvantages out of the system as soon as possible.
For that reason, I hope the Minister can tell us when similar steps will be taken in relation to stamp duty land tax and innovative finance individual savings accounts—ISAs. I am a great fan of ISAs—I have had them for almost as long as they have existed—but I did not realised until today that if I had been a Muslim, I probably would not have been allowed to do that because of the way they are set up. If they are deemed to be paying interest, it is prohibitive for somebody who is a Muslim. If there are other ways that ISAs can be set up to allow Muslims and other followers of Sharia law to participate in them, I do not see why we cannot change the law to allow that to happen.
If there were significant objections—if changes to the legislation would undermine the intention behind it—that would be a different matter, but I have not heard any. I have not heard any suggestion that carrying out our proposed reforms to SDLT would in any way go against the purpose of the legislation. If it allows the legislation to achieve its stated purpose while making it fairer for everybody, we should get on and take those steps.
I look forward to seeing further draft orders in the near future to address the issues I have raised, and which were picked up in the consultation responses to this order. I am happy to support this order, and I look forward to more on a similar theme before too long.
John Glen
I very much welcome the support of the hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn and for Glenrothes. They raised three issues: the treatment of ISAs, student loans—notwithstanding your injunction not to address that point too explicitly, Sir Edward, I will refer to it briefly—and stamp duty land tax with respect to fintech.
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bradford West, who engaged with the consultation as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Islamic finance. She was very supportive of this order and the changes. There were respondents to the consultation who requested an extension to the stamp duty land tax exemptions for regulated entities in the Islamic fintech industry, such as peer-to-peer platforms. Officials did not consider it feasible to implement those changes in this statutory instrument, and they and I are exploring the issue further through alternative means.
The Government want to ensure that higher education remains accessible to those with the desire and ability to benefit from it. We are currently considering whether alternative student finance could be delivered as we take forward the lifelong loan entitlement. The consultation on the detail and scope of the LLE closed on Friday 6 May, and the Government are currently considering the responses. A further update on alternative student finance will be provided when the Government issue their response to the LLE consultation.
I think that I have mentioned the non-inclusion of the stamp duty land tax. The issue of ISAs, which was raised by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, has also been brought to the attention of my officials. It is likely that the ISA regulations will require some minor amendments to ensure that alternative finance arrangements can qualify for inclusion in innovative finance ISAs. The changes required will be included in the forthcoming technical changes to the ISA regulations. I think that deals with the substantive points that have been raised. As I said, I welcome Opposition Members’ support.
This alternative finance order will enable home purchase plans provided by regulated firms that do not fall within the existing statutory definition of that financial institution, and alternative finance arrangements facilitated by regulated peer-to-peer platforms, to receive equal tax treatment for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax. I sincerely believe that this order will help to level the playing field for those products and will aid the Islamic finance industry to move forward in the UK, and continue to develop, to cement our reputation as global leaders in this area. I hope that the Committee has found this afternoon’s session informative and will now be able to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Contingent Liability: Energy Supply Company Special Administration Regime
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
Today I will lay before Parliament a departmental minute describing a contingent liability arising from the issuance of a letter of credit for the energy administrators acting in the special administration regime for Bulb Energy Ltd (“Bulb”). This letter of credit replaces a previous one originally provided in December, which was extended in February and March, and which has now expired.
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.
I regret that, as a result of continued negotiations with the counterparty and the reduced parliamentary sitting period, I have not followed the usual notification timelines to allow the full 14-day consideration period of these issues in advance of issuing the letter of credit.
Bulb entered the energy supply company special administration regime on 24 November 2021. Energy administrators were appointed by court to achieve the statutory objective of continuing energy supplies at the lowest reasonable practicable cost until such time as it becomes unnecessary for the special administration to remain in force for that purpose.
My Department has agreed to provide a facility to the energy administrators, with a letter of credit issued, with my approval, to guarantee such contract, code, licence, or other document obligations of the company consistent with the special administration’s statutory objective. I will update the House if any letters of credit are drawn against.
The legal basis for a letter of credit is section 165 of the Energy Act 2004, as applied and modified by section 96 of the Energy Act 2011.
HM Treasury has approved the arrangements in principle.
[HCWS33]
Ending BEIS ODA Spending in China
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
As one of the world’s fastest growing economies, China plays a critical role in addressing many of the world’s most urgent challenges such as tackling climate change and preventing antimicrobial resistance. It is important that we continue to work with China in these areas, and BEIS will build on our collaboration to date with China to address those key global challenges together, as set out in the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy.
However, BEIS is bringing its bilateral official development assistance (ODA) funding in China to an end.
BEIS will not be using ODA funding to support research and innovation partnerships with China as we have previously done through ODA vehicles, such as the Newton fund and global challenges research fund. Existing ODA-funded activity with China through these will finish by the end of financial year 2022-23. The technical assistance we have provided through our UK partnering for accelerated climate transitions programme (UK PACT) is also no longer from our ODA from the end of financial year 2021-22 and, instead, technical assistance to China on climate change issues will be smaller in scale and use non-ODA sources.
[HCWS32]
Public Consultation: Extraction of Information from Electronic Devices Code of Practice
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Following the successful passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, I am pleased to announce that today I am launching a public consultation on the draft code of practice for the extraction of information from electronic devices.
It is vital that victims feel confident in coming forward to report crime, but we know that fear of intrusive demands for information can deter victims from reporting offences or from continuing to support investigations. The powers in chapter 3 of part 2 of the Act therefore strengthen the law to ensure that there is a consistent approach to requesting information from phones and other electronic devices which puts respect for an individual’s privacy at the centre of every investigation.
This code of practice will be a vital tool in ensuring that all use of these powers is lawful and that the powers are used only where it is necessary and proportionate. The draft code makes it clear that the powers must be used only as a last resort. This will ensure that all those who are asked to voluntarily provide their devices and give agreement to the extraction of information, are given all the necessary information to enable them to make the decision that is right for them.
All authorised persons have a duty to have regard to the code when exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, the power. The code will also be admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings and failure to act in accordance with it may be taken into account by the court.
Those who have an interest in the use of these powers and the protection of privacy for complainants are strongly encouraged to respond to the consultation, and I welcome the views of all colleagues on this important guidance.
I will arrange for a copy of the consultation and draft code to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS31]
Istanbul Convention: Ratification
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Tackling violence against women and girls—VAWG—is a Government priority and these crimes have no place in our society. Last July, we published our new cross-Government “Tackling violence against women and girls strategy” to help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere—at home, online and on the streets. We are committed to radically changing how we end VAWG with a whole-system approach focusing on prioritising prevention, supporting survivors and pursuing perpetrators. And in March we published the first ever dedicated and complementary “Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan”, which seeks to transform the whole of society’s response to domestic abuse.
The Council of Europe convention on combating violence against women and domestic violence, commonly known as the Istanbul convention, is a gold-standard international charter for the protection of women and girls. This Government were proud to sign it in 2012, to signal our strong commitment to tackling VAWG. The Government have always remained committed to ratifying the convention and since signing it we have worked to significantly strengthen our legislative framework and have introduced a wide range of tools to protect victims better. Our measures to protect women and girls from violence are some of the most robust in the world, and in some respects we go further than the convention requires.
The Government are now satisfied that they have the legislative framework and other necessary measures in place to meet the requirements of the convention. I am therefore now pleased to confirm, as required by section 1(3)(a) of the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017, that the UK is compliant with the Istanbul convention and in a position to seek Parliament’s approval to ratify it. Ratification will send a strong message to women and girls in this country that the Government are committed to ensuring their safety and to ending VAWG. It will also send an equally strong message to our partners internationally which confirms that the UK remains at the forefront of tackling VAWG across the globe.
I am pleased also to confirm that the Government are today laying the text of the Istanbul convention in the form of a Command Paper in both Houses, alongside an explanatory memorandum. If no objections are raised to ratification of the convention in either House within the next 21 joint sitting days, the Government will arrange to deposit their instrument of ratification. In line with the requirement under section 1(3)(b) of the 2017 Act, I can therefore confirm that I would expect the UK to have ratified the convention by 31 July 2022.
Article 78(2) of the convention allows countries to make a reservation on certain provisions of the convention. This means that the country will not be bound by that particular provision. The Government have decided to make reservations on two of those provisions. We will be applying a reservation on part of article 44, which relates to the prosecution of UK residents for committing acts in another country which are crimes in UK law but not under the law of that other country, and which reflects the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We will also be applying a reservation on article 59, which relates to migrant victims, to enable us to ratify the convention before the evaluation of the Support for Migrant Victims scheme concludes, at which point we will consider the policy issues involved substantively, and whether that reservation should continue. Further detail on the reservations is contained within the explanatory memorandum published today.
I know that ratifying this convention will send a strong message about the UK’s commitment to tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, and will help us to continue to lead the way in tackling these terrible crimes.
[HCWS34]
Motoring Agencies: Business Plans 2022-23
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton), has made the following ministerial statement:
I am pleased to announce the publication of the 2022-23 business plans for the Department for Transport’s Motoring Agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).
The business plans set out:
the key business priorities that each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make to their services, and;
the key performance indicators, by which their performance will be assessed.
These plans allow service users and members of the public to understand the agencies’ plans for delivering their key services, progressing their transformation programmes, and managing their finances.
The business plans will be available electronically on www.gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS30]
Grand Committee
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
This instrument delivers changes for a reformed and more accountable Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board that will play an important role in supporting farmers through a time of significant transition. While it marks an end to the AHDB’s levy work in horticulture and potatoes, it also marks an important new beginning for how the AHDB engages with and delivers for other sectors, including cereals, oilseeds, beef, sheep, pork and dairy. It respects the outcome of the ballots in the horticulture and potato sectors to end the AHDB statutory levy in their sectors; it is clear from the ballots and industry feedback that the statutory levy mechanism does not meet the very diverse needs of horticulture and potato businesses and that a different approach is needed going forward.
However, we must recognise that, while the overall result of the horticulture ballot supports an end to the statutory levy—with 61% voting against it continuing—there are a diverse range of views, with some subsectors such as soft fruit, tree fruit and mushrooms voting to keep a levy. I recognise the concerns of those subsectors at losing levy investment in important research and crop protection activities that the AHDB has traditionally funded and delivered. Therefore, while this instrument respects the ballot by repealing the statutory levy provisions, it also ensures that the horticulture and potato sectors can remain in scope of the AHDB order. This means that any parts of the industry that want to continue to work with the AHDB can do so on a voluntary levy or commercial basis in future. This will also enable the AHDB to continue to deliver legacy research and plant protection services to these sectors during a transition period.
I can also assure noble Lords that the Government continue to engage proactively with the horticulture industry to develop alternative industry-led funding models, such as syndicate funding for specific crop research and voluntary levies, that will better suit the diverse needs of the sector going forward.
I also highlight that this instrument marks the beginning of a new direction for the AHDB—an AHDB that is more accountable to levy payers in other sectors, including beef, sheep, pork, dairy, cereals and oilseeds. It delivers a new duty on the AHDB giving levy payers a regular vote on sector priorities. This will ensure that levy payers have more influence over the AHDB’s sector programmes, how much levy will be raised and what it is spent on in future.
The AHDB has been working hard to deliver this already through its “Shape the Future” campaign, where levy payers have recently voted on the priorities they want to see the AHDB deliver over the coming months and years. This could be such things as the work the AHDB does to open new export markets, its consumer marketing campaigns to promote UK produce and defend the industry’s reputation, or the market intelligence it delivers to inform farmers’ decisions. This is a momentous step forward for the organisation and marks a turning point in putting levy payers right at the heart of everything it does.
I also draw your Lordships’ attention to a technical drafting point. As a consequence of removing the horticulture levy provisions, this instrument will broaden the definition of the horticulture industry in the AHDB order. The definition will now include the growing of a wider range of horticulture products by way of business. This will deliver more flexibility in future, as it will enable more businesses in the horticulture sector to work with the AHDB on a voluntary levy or commercial basis if they wish to.
To support this flexibility, this instrument also includes provisions to clarify that the AHDB can charge to cover the costs of any services it may deliver in future to any agriculture or horticulture business in scope of the AHDB order. It also ensures that, where a sector is paying a levy, any additional charges can only be made for the cost of services not already covered by the levy.
In conclusion, these legislative changes sit alongside significant governance and cultural changes which the AHDB has already put in place to deliver a more inclusive, democratic organisation that is in a stronger position to meet the needs of farmers. I hope I have assured noble Lords on the need for this instrument, which establishes a reformed AHDB that will help farmers improve their productivity, reduce carbon emissions, engage in environmental land management and access new markets at home and internationally. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time—and that of his officials—in providing a briefing for this afternoon’s statutory instruments. It is important that those engaged in both the horticulture and potato industries know when the levy that they pay is to be removed, in order that they can plan. I assume that the consultation carried out has provided some indication of timetables.
The levy was first implemented in 2008 under powers in the NERC Act. In January and February, the potato growers triggered a call for a ballot. Only 5% of the membership is required to call a ballot, which seems a very low threshold. In the horticultural sector, there was a 69% turnout and, as the Minister has said, of those who voted, 61% voted to abandon the levy. In the potato sector, there was a 64% turnout, with 66% voting no to continuing with the levy—overwhelming figures. As a result, the Government have abandoned the levy for future years.
However, there is still the issue of how the money accumulated in the past and in future will be spent. A five-yearly vote on how the money is spent seems a long gap between decisions on spending priorities. Are the results of the vote on spending plans monitored against sector planned priorities? Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that levy payers have a say in how the levy is spent. Can the Minister say whether this happens in practice?
With the abolition of the levy, there is a fear that the research and development work of the AHDB will be restricted. However, as the Minister has said, there is an opportunity for the AHDB to charge for services provided. I could not find any reference in the EM or in the statutory instrument itself to the scale of the charges. Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The impact on the public sector is the loss of levy funding for AHDB horticulture and potato services.”
Does this mean that the AHDB will be financially unviable for these sectors, or will the charges they can impose cover the loss of the levy?
There are 10 other sectors covered by this SI within the overarching definition of the horticulture industry—from protected vegetables grown in glasshouses and indoors to trees and saplings in tree and forest nurseries. It is important that research and development continue to provide protection for all categories, especially as many diseases are airborne and difficult to control.
The current levy produces an income of £5.6 million from the potato industry and £5.7 million from horticulture. This is a large sum to be replaced by charges, which appear to be ad hoc but I hope have some rational basis. All other sectors, including pork, beef, dairy and sheep, produce an income of £70 million. At this time of uncertainty in both the EU and other trading markets, it is vital that R&D capacity is not weakened across any sector. There is ongoing consultation with sheep producers on the levy. I look forward to the results of this consultation.
I am encouraged that the Government are listening to industry growers in abolishing the levy for potatoes and horticulture, but I am concerned about the effect on R&D. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance but generally welcome this SI as a step forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing beforehand. I should declare an interest through my involvement at the Rothamsted agricultural institute. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we will not oppose this SI. The issue seems to be straightforward, particularly given the democratic ballots that have taken place in the horticulture and potato sectors. However, the fact that these changes have been felt to be necessary raises some wider questions, which I hope the Minister will feel able to address.
First, can the Minister explain when Defra and the AHDB became aware that there was such disillusionment among those sectors under the previous levy regime, and why was no action taken to change the levy system at that time? It seems rather extreme, if I may say so, that the two sectors had to organise themselves to demand a ballot when, had there been ongoing consultations, there might have been a bit more sensitivity to their disillusionment. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about what happened in the run-up to the two groups organising a ballot.
Can the Minister also say something more about the underlying concerns that the sectors had about the levy? Was it just about the cost, or did they feel that they were not getting value for money in a broader sense from the payments that were being made? For example, was there a problem with the quality of the research and advice that they were getting for their money? If so, are we confident that that is now being addressed? And, if that is the case, why were those concerns not addressed at the time that we first became aware of them?
Secondly, as the Minister has explained, arrangements are now being made for the other sectors covered by the levy to have regular ballots, which is to be welcomed. Is he confident that those new consultations will prevent the other sectors from triggering unilateral ballots, now that they have seen the success of the potato and horticultural action? Is he confident that those arrangements are now settled and that people are now happy with the new proposals?
In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the devolved nations also considered a
“proposal to extend the scope of the Order to other agricultural industries on a UK-wide basis”.
Can the Minister explain what is happening with the devolved nations? Are they all doing the same thing at the same time now—in other words, will the AHDB equivalents in the devolved nations all have these regular ballots? Is that what the proposal is? And how does that fit with the proposals before us today?
Thirdly, and most importantly—this echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—what will be the impact of the loss of the levy on the work of the AHDB? Is there a danger that vital research capacity will be lost, which might have a wider impact on future disease control and climate mitigation techniques, for example, as well as investment in better techniques for cultivation in the future? Are there wider implications that the Government should have a concern about rather than just greater productivity? Are we sure that that ongoing research will still be addressed when the levy is no longer here?
Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum also makes mention of delivering
“legacy research and plant protection services”
on a transitional basis. That is great, but what will happen when that research comes to an end? Presumably, it was felt to be necessary in the past, so what will be the future of that research and plant protection services? Are we confident that it will still be covered? Otherwise, given the UK’s ambitions for the agriculture sector, we might find that we are losing out if we do not have the research base in the future.
Fourthly and lastly, the EM makes it clear that, as the Minister said, sectors can continue to work with the AHDB on a voluntary or a commercial basis if they wish to. Can the Minister say something more about how that cost basis will be different to the old levy structure? Is there a danger that only the larger producers will pay the levy in the future? In other words, are we in danger of having a two-tier system where the big producers have the money to invest with the AHDB but the smaller producers do not and therefore fall further behind, when we would want to make sure that smaller producers have the research capacity as well? I am just a bit worried about how that cost basis will work.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the views expressed on the order. I believe we all recognise the importance of respecting the outcome of the democratic ballots to end levies in the horticulture and potato sectors and the need for the AHDB to be more accountable to levy payers in future. I will try to respond as best I can to the questions that have been put on such an informed basis—I am grateful for them.
On the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, I recognise the concerns at the loss of £14 million of annual levy funding for the future of horticulture research and about retaining skills and research capabilities in these sectors. However, I can assure the noble Baronesses that we are working proactively with representatives from across the horticulture and potato sectors to agree new industry-led funding models for research and crop protection activities that can meet the needs of this diverse sector more effectively than the statutory levy has done in the past. Discussions with industry on these options are ongoing, with the aim of agreeing new industry-led funding models over the coming months.
It is clear that the current one-size-fits-all levy was not meeting the diverse research and support needs of these two sectors. Therefore, it is more appropriate in future for subsectors or groups of growers to come together to formulate plans for the delivery and funding of priority research activities tailored to their specific business needs. This could be through a voluntary levy or a statutory subsector levy if industry supports that approach. As a next step, we will engage in discussions with industry-led groups and trade bodies to explore in more detail the design of industry-led funding options.
I understand the point that the noble Baroness made about five years between seeking the opinions of sectors as to whether they want to continue with the levy. However, a body with 471 employees and a turnover of many millions of pounds needs a period of stability to produce research, to do the work it does on innovation and then to take it forward with the sectors concerned so that they can then make an informed decision about whether this suits them. We considered the views very carefully but concluded that we do not currently have the details necessary to make legislative amendments to deliver a subsector levy. For example, there are detailed questions that need exploring, such as who would pay the levy, how it would be applied and calculated and whether there should be any exemptions. We are engaging in discussions with industry to explore industry-led funding options, including syndicate grower-led funding for specific research projects and the potential for a voluntary levy to fund a co-ordinated approach to crop protection activities. We also remain open to exploring new subsectors of statutory levies if there is widespread support for this from the businesses that would be eligible to pay for it.
A point was made about the consultation response saying that the public funding will not pay for research or other actions that were funded through levy investment. The inferred question was: does that mean that horticultural and potato research bodies or businesses cannot apply for funding from Defra’s future farming schemes? Research organisations and businesses in these sectors can continue to apply for existing future farming schemes in England, all of which have a policy focus, such as the farming innovation programme, for which they definitely are eligible. These schemes are subject to open competition, with applications judged on their merits. It is important that industry provides leadership in formulating new industry-led funding models that will enable cross-industry collaboration for the delivery of priority research development and other activities to support their businesses in future.
If I got her point right, I think the noble Baroness also asked what would happen if it cost the AHDB more than estimated to wind up its horticulture and potato operations and would another year of levy be charged. The AHDB has built a small contingency into the wind-up budget to cover any such eventuality, and it is tightly managing the wind-down process to ensure that it is completed within budget. We are clear that the statutory levies on the horticulture and potato sectors are ending from April 2022, and the AHDB will not seek any additional levy after 2021-22, even if additional costs or liabilities arise out of that wind-up process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about issues relating to Scotland and the devolved Administrations. I shall just give some background to this. The organisation employs around 470 staff. The noble Baroness made a very good point about governance, and it is governed by a main board, with several sector councils representing each of the levy-paying sectors. In response to industry feedback, the AHDB has been delivering organisational change to modernise its governance, reduce central costs and bureaucracy and increase levy payer engagement to deliver improved value for money to levy payers. That is very much part of the process that she asked about.
The AHDB embarked on a major change programme to ensure that it is an effective and efficient organisation, fit to meet evolving levy payer needs in future. However, before those changes were fully delivered, a number of dissatisfied levy payers in this sector, as I have already described, utilised the provisions in the order to trigger a ballot. As has been said, a ballot can be triggered if requests are received from at least 5% of levy payers in the sector over a rolling three-month period. The horticulture ballot closed on 10 February 2021; 69% of horticulture levy payers turned out to vote, as has been said, and 61% of those voted no to the levy continuing.
To respond to the outcome of the ballots and implement reforms resulting from the earlier request for views, the UK Government and devolved Administrations ran a public consultation between November 2021 and January 2022 to deliver an end to the horticulture and potato levies and improve the accountability of the AHDB to other levy-paying sectors in future. This SI now implements those changes. A joint UK Government and devolved Governments public consultation delivered that answer. Some 1,196 levy payers voted, which, as the noble Baroness said, is a fairly decisive number.
A question asked was why we were not implementing proposals to expand the scope of the AHDB to other agricultural sectors. Having considered the range of views on this proposal, and some of the difficulties between respondents from different countries, we have decided not to deliver this legislative change now. However, as a next step, we will take forward discussions between the UK and devolved Governments to explore in more detail the benefits and safeguards needed to provide a broader scope for the AHDB to work in practice, with a view to implementing the legislative change in future, subject to the outcome of these further discussions.
It was asked whether there will be any further Defra funding to help fill the gap left behind by the levy. It is not appropriate for public funding to replace levy-funded activity, but we are keen to work with industry leaders on their proposals for new models to fund collaborative research and development and other activities to support their businesses in future, whether through a voluntary levy, commercial arrangements or a new statutory levy where there is widespread support for that. However, research organisations and businesses in these sectors can continue to apply for existing future farming schemes, as I have already said, including the farm innovation programme and the farm investment fund, for which they are eligible. These schemes are subject to open competition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked what will happen to the horticulture and potato research and knowledge generated from levy funds since 2008, and whether it will still be accessible. AHDB horticulture and potato work will be archived and made accessible online via the AHDB website to levy payers by the end of March 2022, to ensure that the industry can continue to benefit longer-term from its investment. She is entirely right to raise this, as all data and research must be available.
We live in a fast-moving time for agriculture. We need to introduce new innovation and measures to support different sectors, and I hope that this will provide a meaningful future for this very important organisation. I hope I have addressed the concerns raised by noble Lords and that they will approve this instrument for a reformed and accountable AHDB that will deliver value for money, supporting farmers for years to come—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but it seems a bit odd to me that we are effectively cancelling—or running down via a transition—the research that has been taking place without a new model to replace it. The noble Lord has explained that discussions are going on, but in my limited experience an awful lot of agricultural research has to be ongoing—you cannot just stop it and expect to pick it up two years later. They may not be researching potato blight, but things such as that happen in field trials season by season, rather than stopping and starting again. We are where we are, and I do not suppose that anything will change, but it seems odd that we have stopped one scheme without having the follow-up replacement oven-ready to be there in future.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness will be a much greater expert than me on scientific research and support for agriculture, but she will also know that this is across a very wide spectrum of provision—all kinds of academic organisations, government-linked bodies and organisations funded through industry. We want all different sectors to be able to access the research they need to build on the very long datasets which have been built up over the years; 2008 to 2022 is a microscopic moment in time in terms of the development of understanding and knowledge about crops and animals and how to make them more productive and how to make our systems reflect the desire for good animal welfare and environmental standards.
I am sure the noble Baroness will continue to keep the Government’s feet to the fire on this. I will be very keen to share with her and others all the different avenues we are going down to make sure that there is adequate support for these sectors in future. I cannot be more specific than that, but we live in a broad-spectrum world of innovation and we must not be narrow in our approach but accept that the answers may exist in the minds of people yet to enter into academia and research —and also those abroad. We will take her point into account and I will keep noble Lords informed. If there are no more points, I beg to move.
Import of Animals and Animal Products and Approved Countries (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Import of Animals and Animal Products and Approved Countries (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2021-22 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 30 March 2022. Their purpose is to protect domestic food safety and biosecurity and to support trade by bringing the process for amending country-specific import conditions for non-EU trading partners in line with those already in place for EU and European Free Trade Association states.
The instrument makes technical and operable amendments to several pieces of retained EU law relating to GB food safety and biosecurity in order to remedy operational deficiencies arising from EU exit. It does not constitute a change in policy. These amendments will enable the Secretary of State—with the consent of Scottish and Welsh Ministers—rapidly to change country-specific import conditions in response to biosecurity or food safety risks in trading partners who have already been approved by this Parliament to export animals and animal products to Great Britain.
The amendments made by this instrument are necessary for two significant reasons. First, trading partners must comply with country-specific import conditions found in retained EU law. Regular changes to these conditions are required to respond to changes in risk. Amendments to retained EU law are currently made by statutory instrument. This means that, even when a negative procedure is used and the 21-day rule is breached, there is a significant gap between the identification of risk and the legal implementation of import controls. Both trade bodies and trading partners have raised concerns about the lack of responsiveness of the current legislative mechanism. By facilitating a move towards amendment by administrative procedure, this instrument will enable changes to be made much more quickly, thereby reducing the risk of exotic disease incursions into the UK.
Secondly, the instrument will also ensure that the United Kingdom meets its international obligations and treats all trading partners equally. The current situation allows country-specific import conditions for EU and EFTA states to be managed administratively but requires legislative amendments for all other trading partners. This discrepancy leaves us at risk of challenge at the World Trade Organization. Similarly, as timely amendments to country-specific import conditions are also necessary to meet trade agreement obligations, our current inability to make rapid changes for non-EU trading partners leaves us at risk of both legal challenge and of retaliatory action against exports from Great Britain by affected trading partners. This instrument will reduce these risks by establishing a uniform approach for all trading partners. It will also help to facilitate trade and agreement on future trade deals by assuring trading partners that we are capable of applying and lifting restrictions effectively and without undue delay.
Having outlined why this instrument is necessary, I want to address the concerns that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised in regard to the loss of parliamentary scrutiny for changes to import conditions. I appreciate and fully understand such concerns. However, I emphasise that this instrument has been drafted in such a way as to ensure that as much parliamentary oversight as possible is retained. Its amendments remove a specific and very limited number of import conditions from legislation. Other import information, including that relating to country and commodity approvals, is unaffected by this instrument. Crucially, the approval and/or delisting of countries and commodities will continue to require secondary legislation in the form of a statutory instrument. It will, therefore, remain subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In other words, this instrument cannot be used to approve the import of, for example, chlorinated chicken or hormone treated beef, nor to lower food safety or animal health import standards in any other way.
The powers delegated in this instrument will instead be used to apply, lift and change country-specific import conditions in response to changes in risk in approved trading partners. The instrument stipulates that all such decisions must be informed by assessments of risk, taking into account specified animal and public health criteria and other relevant matters, requirements that have been retained directly from EU law. Assessments will be carried out or co-ordinated by veterinary experts in Defra and will be subject to approval from the animal disease policy group—a senior government body that brings together experts from across government. Furthermore, the legal implementation of any changes by the Defra Secretary of State will be, as it is now, subject to agreement by the Welsh and Scottish Governments, thereby providing a further layer of scrutiny.
To conclude, I state that the instrument covers England, Scotland and Wales, and that the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales have both formally consented to it. I beg to move.
Lord Trees (CB)
I very much thank the Minister for his explanation of this SI and thank his team for the helpful Explanatory Memorandum, which, I must admit, I particularly appreciated—I have to say that the instrument itself is hardly riveting bedside reading. I also noted the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
I need hardly tell this audience that the risks to the biosecurity of the UK animal population are ever present; we are in the midst of a huge avian influenza epidemic at the moment. That infection is particularly difficult to control because migrating birds and in particular wildfowl bring it to the UK. However, pigs do not fly, and what would be more serious would be an incursion of, for example, African swine fever. In recent years that has devastated the pig population of China, has been spreading westwards in continental Europe slowly but irrevocably and has in fact reached Belgium. Apart from causing serious disease in domestic pigs, it infects wild boar; when there is a wild animal host, it makes the eradication of such an infection doubly difficult. Worse still, of course, is foot and mouth disease, which we suffered from greatly in 2001, and I regret to say that our ability to deal with such major livestock outbreaks since 2001 has been seriously eroded by the shortage of veterinarians we now have, particularly those with livestock experience. For these reasons, it is extremely important that we maintain high levels of biosecurity, and regulation and inspection of imported animals and animal products is a key and important tool to maintain that biosecurity.
I therefore strongly support the principal objectives of this SI, which will enable, following expert advice from the animal disease policy group, a rapid administrative response to threats to animal and indeed public health by restricting imports from third countries instead of what could have been a dangerously delayed legislative process. It is relevant to note, as the Minister emphasised, that these changes simply bring into effect a process for third-country importations which will align with the current processes for imports from EU and EFTA countries.
However, as context to this particular instrument, it is a matter of great concern that, for the fourth time, recently the Government have delayed the implementation, for example, of checks on food imports from the EU to Great Britain. The failure to introduce such checks, apart from disadvantaging commercially our own farmers, may provide a short-term financial gain but risks a long-term extremely serious financial pain—remember that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak cost the UK an estimated £8 billion in 2001.
With regard to this particular SI, my one concern, on which I seek reassurance from the Minister, is that I note that, as well as providing the administrative power to enhance our biosecurity in the face of assessed threats, it also provides for the reverse: the converse administrative mechanism to reduce inspection controls or remove or lift restrictions without parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister assure us that this instrument will not be a vehicle to enable the calls by some members of Her Majesty’s Government to unduly delay, reduce or in some way compromise important checks in future and potentially risk our animal health biosecurity?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee debated this SI and asked several questions of Defra, which were raised by Friends of the Earth. I understand that, as a result of the avian flu outbreaks in 2020 and 2021 in Ukraine, a ban on the imports of birds covered the whole of that country, whereas the outbreaks were, in reality, confined to certain areas. Therefore, it seems sensible to restrict the import of affected animals and animal products to those specific areas, rather than the whole country. However, this could have consequences.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has eloquently referred to numerous animal diseases that could affect our domestic flocks and herds. Surveillance and vaccination are essential to provide protection. Might it be possible for an area of a third country to have an outbreak but not declare it in order to be able to continue to trade? Can the Minister say whether that might be likely to happen?
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was assured by Defra that the power in the SI would be used very rarely and only in extreme and emergency cases. However, there is already legislation in place to enable emergency action to be taken where needed. Therefore, is it necessary to introduce new, stringent legislation, which is not scrutinised by Parliament? Parliament is being cut out of the process, and the decision rests solely with the Secretary of State, after consideration with the devolved Administrations.
The Explanatory Memorandum states, at paragraph 11, that guidance for trading partners and border control posts will be issued
“prior to the instrument coming into force.”
If I understand the process correctly, we debate this SI today, and probably tomorrow or Thursday the SI will be approved in the Chamber and will come into force immediately. This SI could have a devastating effect on our farmers and markets if disease outbreaks are not dealt with effectively and efficiently. Can the Minister say where the all-important guidance is currently in the legislative sausage machine, and when it will be published? Time is of the essence.
Paragraph 6.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to allowing restrictions to be imposed immediately when a disease outbreak is notified, and states that restrictions can be removed quickly where risks are diminished. Can the Secretary of State be sure that the risk is diminished? Instead of rushing to release an area from risk, would not it be better to wait and be sure that it is completely disease free?
The new powers are primarily to be used for imposing import restrictions, lifting import restrictions and imposing and amending additional conditions that need to be met for trade to continue. All this rests with the Secretary of State at his or her discretion, with no reference to parliamentary scrutiny.
The animal disease policy group will recommend whether new countries can be added to the third-country list and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister reassure us that the processes and safeguards carried out by the animal disease policy group are sufficient to ensure the UK’s biodiversity? Will the Secretary of State use the same criteria in each case? I would like clarity on just what discretion the Secretary of State has. Is it likely that a country the Government are keen to admit to the list of third countries and begin trading with might not get the same rigorous assessment as others? Are some likely to get special treatment?
It is extremely worrying that Parliament is being bypassed on an issue which would be of considerable concern to the public if they were aware of it. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on this subject that all angles have been covered.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I apologise to my noble friend for speaking after her, but I used to chair—until it was abolished—the EU Environment Sub-Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Trees, was an excellent member. One of the things we were really concerned about was that, when we moved out of the EU, we no longer had access to TRACES, which, as the Minister will know, is the main system for controlling biological security in animal and food products. Exactly as the noble Lord pointed out, we have put off these import controls I think three times. Can the Minister clarify how we are substituting the information we had from TRACES and how that now works? Are the Government satisfied with it, and where will we go with it in future while we wait for those biosecurity controls to come in in respect of the EU?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing he organised beforehand. I begin by very much echoing the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, about the Government once again delaying checks on food imports from the EU, and the biosecurity and consumer protection implications of all that. I also very much welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on TRACES; we have discussed the issue many times and were always assured that there would be alternatives for TRACES in place, so it would be useful to hear from the Minister whether that is now the case or not.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing these proposals to the attention of the Committee and their implications for the loss of parliamentary oversight. The Explanatory Memorandum has set out the changes made by previous EU exit SIs and provides an explanation as to why these provisions are not considered sufficient to deal with urgent cases. We are acutely aware of the ongoing and changing threats to our animal and plant biosecurity, as well as to human health, and the need to have robust measures in place to act swiftly when new threats arise, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said. As such, we are sympathetic to the case being made and do not intend to vote against these regulations.
However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has quite rightly pointed out that, once again, we face the loss of parliamentary oversight on the imposition of these urgent measures. It specifically proposes that the Minister be asked to give an assurance that the regulations will be used only on the rarest of occasions, so I ask on its behalf: can the Minister give an assurance that the powers will be used only on the rarest of occasions?
Following on from this, I have some detailed points which I would like the Minister to answer. First, if our response times because of parliamentary delays have led us to be vulnerable to biosecurity and food safety risks, why has it taken Defra until May 2022 to address this concern? What has been happening in the meantime? Have we left traders and consumers exposed to extra risk because of our inaction? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why nothing has been done before now.
Secondly, in correspondence with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about the capacity of the animal disease policy group, Defra responded:
“The expertise, capacity and processes required to exercise the powers in this instrument appropriately are well established within government, and have already been used to effectively control a range of SPS … risks since January 2021.”
If we already have the means to control these risks effectively, does that not rather undermine the need to give the Executive these extra powers? Could the Minister give some examples of the effectiveness of the current control regime to provide some context to this debate? What are the effective control measures? Where were they lacking? Why do we need to give Ministers extra powers? Friends of the Earth has also written in, asking about the independence of the bodies making these decisions. It would be helpful if the Minister could shed some further light on the independence of the bodies carrying out these risk assessments and making recommendations to Ministers.
Thirdly, the correspondence from Defra makes it clear that the new powers will be used to impose import restrictions not just where there was a new biosecurity risk but also to lift existing import restrictions if, for example, a country had successfully controlled an animal disease outbreak. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Can the Minister explain why existing parliamentary oversight cannot be maintained for the lifting of import restrictions? This does not seem to be as urgent as when a new biosecurity threat emerges—where action may be needed in days or, at most, weeks. There would very much seem a role for Parliament in overseeing the lifting of import restrictions and in making sure that the country of import had taken all the necessary action.
Finally, paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum outlines some of the risks of delayed action. It talks about the threat of retaliatory action against exports from Great Britain. It also mentions the threat of intervention by the WTO. The Minister referred to this in his introduction. Can he expand on this concern? I am struggling to understand what these threats are. Can he give a scenario as to how serious this risk of WTO intervention is? From what he said about retaliatory action, are we developing a reputation for responding slowly to biosecurity risks? Is this a real concern about which we should be aware? I am just trying to understand what our competitor or trading nations feel our biosecurity level is and what the threat of retaliatory action is. It would be helpful if the Minister could shed some light on this. I look forward to his response.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their interest in this issue and for their contributions. I will open by reiterating that the amendments in this instrument do not constitute a change in policy. The instrument seeks to establish a process through which we are able rapidly to implement country-specific import controls where significant risks to animal and public health have been identified from non-EU trading partners which are approved to import live animals and animal products into Great Britain, ensuring a consistency of approach across EU, EFTA and non-EU trading partners. The instrument cannot be used to approve or delist countries and commodities, nor to lower import standards in any way.
Furthermore, while I appreciate that the shift to an administrative procedure raises sensitive issues about parliamentary oversight, I have outlined why I believe that it succeeds in striking a balance between the requirement for appropriate scrutiny and the need for effective biosecurity and safety controls. It is also worth noting that noble Lords and Members of Parliament in the other place will, of course, continue to be able to hold me, other Defra Ministers and the department to account, through all the usual means, for the ways in which the powers in this instrument have been exercised.
Let me just for a second address some of the points on an apparent loss of parliamentary scrutiny. Of course, when we were in the EU, these matters were decided by tertiary legislation, so they were effectively agreed with people such as national Governments’ Chief Veterinary Officers and other officials, then at an official level within the Commission it was decided, and none of us within the two Houses would really have much say after that, unless something went badly wrong. What has happened since is that it has become a secondary legislation matter.
Noble Lords are right to ask why, and why now. I can give a scenario, which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. When we wanted to relist Ukraine last year, when an avian influenza outbreak had diminished, it took two months to get it through the necessary processes here. That is an impairment to free trade—and that addresses some of the points of concern to international organisations. It is right to say that what we are seeking here is more ability for executive action. There are still a lot of ways, within and without the statutory instrument, to hold Ministers to account for the decisions that the department takes. But we are a long way more responsive to noble Lords than we were able to be in the European Parliament.
Let me just address people’s concerns about border controls. This instrument cannot be used to remove border controls for any country, either in the EU or outside it. So it is really important that we are confident that we have the capacity and capability to undertake assurance functions previously carried out at EU level. The department has put the resources in place and drawn on additional expertise in its agencies and across government, in particular the Food Standards Agency.
I shall endeavour to answer other points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, wanted clear assurances that, if the Secretary of State is given the power to lift import restrictions via an administrative procedure, it will be done in a way that does not endanger biosecurity and food safety. That is an entirely valid point to make. Defra will not lift restrictions on imports of animals and animal products unless it is confident that it is safe to do so. We are committed not only to maintaining our high import standards but to continually improve on the processes in place to protect UK biosecurity and food safety. The UK Chief Veterinary Officer leads this work, following the repatriation of functions from the EU agency, DG SANTE F, in January 2021. To deliver this, Defra’s team of veterinary and technical experts oversee a detailed assessment and audit programme to ensure that any decision to change UK import authorisations are risk and science based. This includes: surveillance of emerging overseas disease and food safety risk; ongoing monitoring of trading partners’ regulatory regimes; and assessing non- compliance at GB border control posts. Where concerns are identified, we are able to undertake an emergency in-country inspection to verify that those imports are safe.
The noble Lord was entirely right to raise the impending risk of African swine fever. I chair a monthly biosecurity meeting, and I am brought up to date on a more regular basis on the progress across Europe of diseases like that, which are alarming. The noble Lord is right to say that it is running rife in some countries in their wild boar populations, and we are very careful about that. We recently exercised how we would cope with an outbreak of African swine fever. The whole purpose of what we do is, first, to prevent the disease coming here but, secondly, to be able to deal with it, contain it and ensure that it does not go through our domestic farm pig industry, which would be a very serious situation.
I hope I have also answered the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, made about, if you like, a fraudulent regime that might seek to suppress information. Of course, that happened, or could have happened, under the regime which we are asking the House to approve we move away from. It happened when we were in the EU and it can be prevented only by good intelligence and good security, by working with our posts abroad and by continuing to work with our EU neighbours, making sure that the professional contacts at Chief Veterinary Officer level and other biosecurity official levels are maintained.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, wants to intervene, but I would like a bit more clarification. Is the alternative to TRACES up and running or not? The Minister talks about it still being developed—is it there? Is it functioning?
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for intervening. It sounded rather like work in progress to the extreme; I thought we would be rather further ahead than that.
Lord Benyon (Con)
It will always be a work in progress, because we are developing new intelligence and data on what is going on. We have a formal system with the EU in our relationship as a third country and with other countries outside. As the noble Lord knows, we are no longer part of the TRACES scheme, but we have access to the information we need to keep us safe.
With this statutory instrument, traders will continue to move their goods from the EU to Great Britain as they do now. Since 1 January last year, the UK has put in place strict biosecurity controls on the highest-risk imports of animals, animal products, plants and plant products from the EU. These controls will remain in place and we will still be able to respond to changes in biosecurity risk. If there is a delay to our rolling out of border control posts, there is no saving, as I think was hinted by someone. We have recruited people and are using them in an intelligent way to make sure that we are controlling the interim and will then build up the capacity of border control posts over the next 18 months to be fully functioning.
We are also able to use safeguarding measures to protect our biosecurity where we have particular concerns and evidence about pest or disease risk. Given that we have close alignment with and strong knowledge of the EU rules, we continue to have a high degree of confidence in biosecurity associated with those imports. We will have powers to check and seize non-compliant products and deal with any pest or disease risk identified.
I have spoken already about the animal disease policy group. I hope that has reassured noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether measures like those in this instrument, which will remove parliamentary oversight by conferring additional powers on the Secretary of State, will be used only on the rarest of occasions. It is a very good question, and I hope I can reassure her. I am aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated in its report that noble Lords may wish to obtain assurance from me that instruments such as this, which remove parliamentary scrutiny, will be introduced only on the rarest of occasions. This is a valid concern that I am more than happy to address. Noble Lords can rest assured that instruments such as this will be laid only in instances where they are absolutely necessary, as I hope they know.
In this case, as I outlined in my opening remarks, the shift from a legislative to an administrative procedure is vital to ensure that we can respond quickly and effectively to changes in risk in approved trading partners, thereby protecting animal and public health and supporting trade. The powers granted in this instrument will not, however, be used “on the rarest of occasions”. Indeed, it is precisely because regular changes need to be made to import conditions—lifting or imposing restrictions in response to constantly evolving levels of risk in approved trading partners—that the shift to an administrative process is so vital.
I am seeking inspiration on other questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness also raised points from Friends of the Earth in its submission on this. In our response, we made it clear that the expertise, capacity and processes required to exercise the powers in this instrument appropriately are well established within government and have already been used effectively to control a range of import risks since January 2022.
While the required risk-based and evidence-led decision-making processes are in place, there is currently no quick and effective mechanism for such decisions to be implemented in law for non-EU trading partners. In other words, we currently have the ability to arrive at informed decisions, based on appropriate assessments of risk, but we lack the ability to implement them quickly in law. This instrument is therefore needed to establish a process for ensuring that decisions can be rapidly implemented in law to protect biosecurity and the safety of this country.
The final point that the noble Baroness raised was why this has taken so long. We left the European Union at the end of 2019; why are we doing this now? We have been aware of the deficiencies in retained EU law and how, in practice, these deficiencies prevent us from amending country-specific import conditions sufficiently quickly. While recognising these deficiencies, Defra took the view that correcting them was not essential on day 1 of EU exit. As other pieces of legislation have been prioritised, including that which enables import conditions for EU and EFTA states to be managed administratively, it has not been possible to draft and present this instrument until now. The matter was brought forward by the case relating to Ukraine, which I quoted, which showed the necessity for this instrument. I hope that I have addressed the concerns of noble Lords. I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2021–22
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 31 March 2022.
The recent British Energy Security Strategy spoke of ensuring a new lease of life for the North Sea in low-carbon technologies such as carbon capture. The Net Zero Strategy set out the Government’s ambition to have a carbon capture and storage sector with an operational capability of capturing 20 megatonnes to 30 megatonnes of carbon dioxide per year by 2030. In its Sixth Carbon Budget, the Climate Change Committee re-emphasises the crucial role that carbon capture and storage—CCS—will play in reducing emissions from industrial processes, combustion, electricity generation and hydrogen production. The energy White Paper 2020, set out the Government’s view of how to achieve a low-cost, low-carbon electricity system.
While we cannot predict today exactly what the generating mix will look like in 2050, we can be confident that renewables will play a key role. However, in order to decarbonise while maintaining security of supply and keeping costs low, we will need to balance renewable variability against demand. To do this, we will need system flexibility, energy storage, and non-weather dependent low-carbon generation. We consider that thermal power with carbon capture and storage is one technology that can provide this at scale. In the subsequent Net Zero Strategy, the Government committed to using consumer subsidies to support construction of at least one power CCS plant to be operational by the mid-2020s.
In the round, these strategies illustrate the critical importance of carbon capture and storage technologies. To enable this, we have developed the dispatchable power agreement. This is a carbon capture and storage subsidy for gas-fired projects connected to a full carbon capture and storage system that are intended to provide low-carbon flexible power generation. The dispatchable power agreement contract is a bespoke contract based on the standard terms of the contracts for difference used in the allocation rounds; it has been amended in consideration of specific amendments to ensure suitability for power carbon capture and storage. The dispatchable power agreement will be a key tool used to encourage low-carbon electricity generation by bringing forward investment in power carbon capture and storage plants and to incentivise such facilities to operate in a manner which benefits the UK energy market. It is commonly referred to as a business model and is intended to implement this commitment.
The regulations were laid before the House on 31 March. The amendments in this instrument are needed to ensure that existing regulations under the Energy Act 2013 can be used to award dispatchable power agreements. These regulations are used to award contracts for difference currently. The proposed amendments are not intended to impact the standard contract for difference for the current allocation round or future allocation processes of the standard contract for difference.
This statutory instrument introduces three changes to the existing regulations, which are: the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014, which we shall refer to, for the purposes of ease, as the “allocation regulations”; and the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014, which we shall refer to, for the purposes of ease, as the “eligible generator regulations”.
This statutory instrument, first, amends the eligible generator regulations, specifically the definition of an eligible generator. Currently, generating stations connected to a complete carbon capture storage system are eligible generators. The change allows for retrofitted carbon capture storage projects to constitute an eligible generator. It does this by widening the criteria for carrying out a generating activity to include altering an existing generating station into a generating station connected to a complete carbon capture storage system. By making this change, retrofitted power carbon capture storage plants can be eligible for the dispatchable power agreement.
This statutory instrument, secondly, amends the allocation regulations. Currently, the allocation regulations include a specific reference to contracts granted pursuant to Section 10 of the Energy Act 2013. The regulations refer to such contracts and suggest that they will include a “strike price” and “reference price” within their payment mechanism. The amendment retains the references to a strike price and a reference price, but by amending the language to state that a strike price and reference price “may be included”. An alternative payment mechanism which does not use these terms could also be used. This ensures that contracts which do not specify a strike price and a reference price can therefore be contemplated. This means there will not be a requirement for these specific terms to be used in a dispatchable power agreement and the alternative payment mechanism can be used, which will allow for the alternative payment mechanism under the dispatchable power agreement. Further details of this payment mechanism have been set out in the recent dispatchable power agreement publication.
The third change that this statutory instrument makes is to amend the eligible generator regulations. Currently, an eligible generator is defined as connected to a “complete CCS system”, which means
“a system of plant and facilities for … (a) capturing some or all of the carbon dioxide (or any substance consisting primarily of carbon dioxide) that is produced by, or in connection with, the generation of electricity by a generating station; … (b) transporting the carbon dioxide (or substance) captured; and … (c) disposing of it by way of permanent storage”.
The amendment proposes to add into sub-paragraph (b), after “transporting”, the words
“including by way of non-pipeline transport methods”,
to contemplate potential alternative transport methods. The consultation responses noted that it would be helpful to clarify that transport could be carried out by way of non-pipeline method. The proposed amendments in this statutory instrument intend to facilitate non-pipeline transport generally in the regulations, as has been set out. The proposed changes to the eligible generator regulations aim to be neutral regarding the different possible configurations of non-pipeline transport and will not exclude any particular form of non-pipeline transport.
In accordance with the Energy Act 2013, a consultation was carried out from July to September 2021, and the response was provided by the Government in March of this year on GOV.UK. We received 16 responses to the consultation from businesses and organisations, some directly involved in power CCS, and from trade associations, non-governmental organisations and other interested parties. The responses were largely positive in favour of the proposed changes but respondents requested some clarifications, which we have responded to in the published government response. These proposals will enable the award of the dispatchable power agreement, but they do not create any new commitment to offer support.
In conclusion, the measures introduced by the SI are aligned with the Government’s carbon budget and net-zero targets and help to enable power carbon capture and storage projects. I commend these regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate him on presenting the regulations to us this afternoon. He will be aware that there were great hopes, particularly off the Yorkshire and Humber coast, that facilities had been identified which would be appropriate for exactly the type of venture that is set out in the regulations before us today. So I welcome the regulations, but is my noble friend able to confirm that he believes that the take-up on the proposals for carbon capture and storage will increase and multiply because of the content of the regulations before us this afternoon?
Separately—he might think I am going off-piste here, and I probably am—can my noble friend explain something? If I understood it correctly, one of the difficulties we have with wholesale gas prices impacting the UK as they have—though perhaps not as badly as in other European countries, which rely heavily on Russia—is that we have gas storage of only 60 days, which is about two months. That strikes me as being terribly low. I do not suppose that that would benefit from these proposals, but I would like to understand why, historically, we seem to have a lower storage capacity than other European countries. Is that something that the Government might be minded to look at that?
The only other point I wish to make, which I am sure my noble friend is very familiar with, is the point raised in the 37th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I find myself in some sympathy with. Even though I am a lawyer by training and spent about nine months of my training going through all the scientific evidence—produced mostly by scientists rather than lawyers—on whether fluoride was a carcinogen, I find that even these small regulations before us this afternoon are full of jargon. There is a request in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the 37th report that the Explanatory Memorandum perhaps be revised to enable us humble Members of the House to understand better its contents. Can my noble friend simply confirm that that is the case? If that could happen in advance next time so that, when we see the Explanatory Memorandum we are better able to follow it, it would be very welcome indeed.
I thank my noble friend and his department for all they are doing at this particularly difficult time, and I give a warm welcome to the regulations this afternoon.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in fact we should congratulate the Minister, because the officials have rewritten the Explanatory Memorandum. There are two versions of it on the website, and one of them explains all the acronyms in a footnote. Strangely enough, I knew all the ones they listed, but I was unclear about a couple in the rest of the report. It is not there—it is on the website.
First, although the Climate Change Committee and the Government are right that carbon capture and storage technology is needed, exactly as the Minister said, we also need a slightly cautionary note about it. In a way, certainly in terms of power generation, it is a far less efficient way of producing power; it takes energy to produce it, as we are all aware. An opportunity to produce power without CCS is obviously better, although I entirely understand that industrial processes are different.
The other thing I am always cautious about—I know that most of the basis is putting it back under the sea or wherever—is the element of putting pollution back under the carpet to a degree. I am not saying that it is unsafe or anything, but it is always better if we can avoid that.
On the propositions here, having read the Explanatory Memorandum, I understand that the fact that this can include retrofitted power stations is unclear. Clearly, it is much better in all sorts of ways to have retrofitted ones than have to build new ones, although I suspect whether that is economically possible or right depends on whether the particular gas facility—I presume it would be gas; I suppose it could technically be coal—has been future-proofed in terms of utilisation. That is good.
What really concerns me is that the SI says you do not have to use a pipeline. The amount of carbon dioxide coming out of a power generation station of any size will be quite substantial; the thought of trucks in urban areas moving carbon dioxide, maybe over many miles, across the surface outside a pipeline seems quite a challenge in terms of noise, congestion and carbon footprint—depending on how that transport works. I would be very interested to understand the logic behind that from the Minister. As I understand it, this will primarily be in clusters, which it seems to me will always need to be pipeline-based to get the carbon dioxide out to a storage facility, whether it is undersea or wherever. I would be very interested in the Government’s view of why this is necessary, what they expect and whether there will be any limits on how this transportation takes place. Clearly, pipelines must be absolutely right for this rather than some sort of other surface transport.
The SI also goes through the payment mechanisms. I am interested in the Explanatory Memorandum here, particularly on the availability payment. Paragraph 7.13 says that this is a payment for availability to dispatch electricity, and performance. I thought we had a thing called the capacity market to do that. Why do we need this? Does it not compete with the capacity market? I do not understand what the difference is or why we are inventing another load of systems for this. On the variable payment, again, would a strike price not work better? I understand that those options are still available, despite these amendments.
Then we come to the merit order, which says “We will compensate the price to make sure that we have non-carbon intensive gas stations producing electricity ahead of conventional ones”, which is clearly absolutely right for decarbonisation, but it has a cost. The economic analysis in the paper says there is no cost to the private sector, which I guess is right, but I would like to understand what the size of the cost to the taxpayer of all this is expected to be.
Lastly, I would be interested in the government estimate of the extra cost of producing CCS electricity through a gas station compared to conventional generation. The department must have done this to work out roughly what the public expenditure requirements might be.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, although it is a little tangential, I declare my interest as set out in the register as a commissioner on the UK Hydrogen Policy Commission, which is within the same field though not directly relevant to this SI.
First, as other noble Lords have done, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the Committee. As we have heard, they make a few minor but important amendments to two previous sets of regulations—the eligible generator regulations and the allocation regulations. Before I dive into those, I reiterate our support for the continuation of contracts for difference as a method of securing energy capacity while ensuring that developers, government and customers can be confident in the security of long-term, high-cost and high-investment projects.
Regulation 2 in the draft regulations ensures that non-pipeline transport methods are included within the definition of complete CCS systems. My reading of the 2014 eligible generator regulations, and that of many who responded to the consultation, certainly did not appear to exclude this system. I am not convinced how necessary it is. I agree that non-pipeline transport of carbon dioxide is essential to decarbonised projects outside the clusters. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, we would hope that transport around and inside the clusters would be by pipeline.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, presumed that this would be on trucks. My presumption was that it would be on rails. Again, it would be interesting if the Minister had any information from the department about how non-pipeline transport would take place, as there is an environmental difference between rail and road transport.
Regulation 2 also widens the criteria for carrying out generating activity to include alterations of existing generation stations to connect them to a CCS system. As other noble Lords have said, this makes perfect sense. I agree that it is an important step to help retrofit a station to give access to the benefits of contracts for difference.
That change is appropriately repeated, in Regulation 3, for the allocation regulations, but the main thrust of Regulation 3 is to allow contemplation of contracts that do not specify a strike price and reference price, in line with the new payment method under the DPA business model. Instead, the DPA business model will implement an availability payment for low-carbon generation capacity and a variable payment, which links the new power CCS plants—again, there is a long time lead-in here, since we are hoping they will be in operation by 2030, so perhaps the Minister can confirm the dates for the completion of the CCS plants—with an unabated reference plant. This is said to incentivise availability and enable more flexible operation. Of course, it is right to ensure that the regulations are updated correctly, to allow for these new developments to take place, but perhaps the Minister could elaborate somewhat on how these changes will incentivise availability and when we can expect to reap the benefits from the new power CCS plants.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has already picked up on—and I am sure that the Minister has read with excitement—the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 37th report. In paragraphs 21 to 23, as has been stated, the committee was critical. To be fair, all our interventions have been quite detailed. In the produced documentation, I have been able to understand clearly that it is of importance. We have already had from the department an Explanatory Memorandum on that. I hope that, before all future debates, these points raised on page 9 of the committee’s report will be taken into consideration.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord McNicol, for their constructive points and comments. Let me start by emphasising that the changes contained in these regulations are essential to enable the award of power carbon capture and storage contracts. The Government are committed to reaching net zero and, of course, to decarbonising our electricity system. All noble Lords will be aware that the Climate Change Committee has described CCS as a necessity and not an option to help us on the road and transition to net zero. Therefore, CCUS will be essential to meeting the UK’s 2050 net-zero target—I think that all three speakers agreed with that point.
Decarbonising the power sector has so far led the UK’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty years ago, fossil fuels provided nearly 80% of the UK’s electricity supply. In 1990, electricity generation accounted for about 25% of total UK emissions, but by 2018 that was down to only 15% of total UK emissions. Today, I am pleased to say that the country gets over half of its power from low-carbon technologies, and the majority of those are renewable.
We can be confident that renewables will continue to play a key and increasing role in our generation mix on the overall journey to net zero, to decarbonise while maintaining security of supply, and keeping costs low. But for when the wind is not blowing and when the sun is not shining—something that applies particularly to the homeland of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol—we will need to balance renewable variable against demand. To do that, of course, we need system flexibility and energy storage, and we need non-weather dependent low-carbon power generation. That is why we consider that thermal power with carbon capture and storage is one technology that can provide that at scale. Therefore, carbon capture storage technologies will be important for the trajectory to achieving our 2050 net-zero target, and they will play a vital role in levelling up the economy, supporting the low-carbon economic transformation in our industrial regions and helping to create new high-value jobs.
On the specific points that were raised, starting with my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I am pleased to say that these regulations will indeed facilitate the rollout of the Government’s CCUS programme but of course will not bring projects forward in themselves. However, I am pleased to say that we have also seen significant interest in the programme, particularly from the east-coast cluster that my noble friend mentioned. We will seek to bring forward at least one power CCUS plant in the mid-2020s. This will be achieved through the CCUS cluster sequencing process and is subject to the outcome of that process, including, as always, value for money and affordability considerations. I am sure that my noble friend would agree with that.
Around half of our demand for gas is met through domestic supplies, but in meeting net zero by 2050 we may still use a quarter of the gas that we use now. So, to help to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we have to fully utilise the great North Sea reserve: we have to use the empty caverns that we have created for CO2 storage, and we must bring through hydrogen to use as an alternative to natural gas and help to use our offshore expertise to support our offshore wind sector. As a result of those plans, the North Sea will still be a foundation of our energy security, but of course we will have reduced our gas consumption by over 40% by 2030.
As clarified by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who was doing my job for me, the Explanatory Memorandum was revised on 5 May with in-depth footnotes to explain the acronyms and technical terms. I apologise if it was not clear; obviously, it is a complicated subject.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we consider that the capacity for T&S networks to be able to accept CO2 from dispersed sites and from international sources, transported by ship, road or rail—which would be non-pipeline transportation—may be important for our long-term objectives of achieving our carbon budgets and net zero, so we do not want to exclude power CCS projects that can transport and store CO2 by non-pipeline transport. We will need significant volumes of new-build, low-carbon capacity to meet growing electricity demand and to take the place of retiring capacity. To complement expanding intermittent renewables, it is important that some of this capacity is flexible and can operate for extended periods when renewable output is lower.
Our existing gas generation capacity is ageing. Most of it was built in the 1990s, during the so-called dash for gas. Advances in gas turbine technology mean that a purpose-built, modern, new-build gas-fired power station with CCUS would be more efficient than an older design retrofitted with CCUS technology. However, utilising existing assets can of course improve value for money in some cases, and to decarbonise our electricity system in line with the targets of the fifth and sixth carbon budgets, we consider that we will have to use existing generation as well as new-build capacity, both of which of course would need to be abated.
On the capacity market, CCUS requires more support for capacity given the co-ordination problem with infrastructure yet to be built, and the DPA incentivises investment to bring forward low-carbon generation capacity. The availability payment also acts as a way to incentivise those power CCUS projects and helps to maintain high capture rates throughout the DPA. I will come back to the noble Lord in writing on his question regarding the “payback” from CfDs for departments, but I think the answer will revolve around the fact that the money goes into Ofgem and is therefore used to offset other CfD payments. I certainly do not think that any of it appears either in the BEIS or Treasury budgets, but I will come back to the noble Lord and confirm the details of that.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, we wanted to ensure that non-pipeline transport was explicitly and unambiguously included in these regulations, and there is certainly no presumption in favour of road transport. Indeed, rail or shipping may also be covered and are probably more likely forms of transport. To take one pertinent example, at the moment Norway is currently shipping CO2. I hope that clarifies the point for the noble Lord.
To close, I underline once more that these regulations are a vital part of the UK’s efforts to reach net zero and to decarbonise our electricity system. With that, I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
Kashmir: Human Rights
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hussain
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the human rights situation in Indian-administered Kashmir.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that there are human rights concerns in both Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The United Kingdom Government encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Indeed, any allegation of human rights abuse is deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. I assure the noble Lord that we raise concerns with the Governments of both India and Pakistan.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, many Kashmiris believe that in the past, fake charges have been brought in the courts against prominent leaders such as Maqbool Bhat and Afzal Guru that resulted in their execution. Now, another very prominent Kashmiri leader, who has a huge following in the UK as well, is on trial this week. Kashmiris suspect that the Indian Government want to get rid of him too; his life is in real danger. Will the Government use their good offices to protect Mr Yasin Malik’s life? His release would be widely welcomed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are monitoring the trial of Mr Yasin Malik very closely. We note that he has been charged under Indian law; as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, we cannot directly intervene in the independent judicial process of India. However, in all our engagements we urge all countries to always respect and uphold their own international obligations regarding the treatment of any detainees.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, famously declared that the care of minorities was not simply a duty but a “sacred trust”. It is a trust that successive Indian Governments have betrayed, first against Sikhs, and then with the present Minister of Home Affairs referring to Muslims as “termites”. Does the Minister agree that our criticism of human rights abuse in Kashmir and elsewhere should not be muted because India is a member of the Commonwealth?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I can declare an interest as someone who is Muslim by faith, has Indian heritage and is the Minister responsible for both human rights and our relationship with India. All those things considered, I assure the noble Lord that, as he will know, I raise directly a wide range of issues, including human rights, in a constructive way with the Government of India. As I said earlier, where we have concerns, we are able to do so in a very candid way because of the nature and strength of our relationship.
Lord Ranger (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, knows, two Sikh traders in Peshawar were murdered last week because of their religion. In 1947, the British created two countries: one to promote people on the basis of their religion and the other to promote people regardless of their religion. You can see the two different countries now. People in Pakistan—Ahmadis, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus—are prosecuted and forcibly converted, and Shia mosques are attacked. This must stop on the other side as well. Who is supplying arms to the terrorists in Kashmir? Who is training them and who is encouraging them to create disruption in a paradise? In Kashmir, people of different faiths lived in harmony until 1947. We must not allow people to devalue fellow Kashmiris on the basis of their religion.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I should also declare that the other half of my family comes from Pakistan, including Lady Ahmad of Wimbledon. Certainly, our relationship demonstrates that there can be no conflict—I say that on the record—and you can lead a life and build a life together in a mutually understanding and loving way. That said, on the importance of the issue in Pakistan, again, we have a very important and constructive relationship with the Government of Pakistan. My noble friend raised issues relating to minorities, including Sikhs. Being of the Ahmadi Muslim community myself, I assure the noble Lord that I am acutely aware of the challenges faced by minority communities in Pakistan, and we raise these in a constructive way. It is important, when it comes to issues—including those of Kashmir—for both countries to move forward, mutually and together, and agree that there is a bright future for both countries, which share so much in terms of culture, language and, one hopes, a common, shared future of prosperity for the wider region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, one of the Minister’s many responsibilities is the United Nations. Of course, the conflict in Kashmir is one of the longest unresolved conflicts on the agenda of the United Nations. If we are to find a lasting settlement to end this ongoing conflict, that can be achieved only by India and Pakistan working together. Therefore, as Minister for the United Nations, what is he doing to ensure that the UN focuses on bringing the two sides together to seek a long-lasting settlement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of India and Pakistan talking to resolve all issues. It is a long-standing position of the Governments of both sides. We seek a resolution for all disputes, including that of Kashmir, and the best way to do so is for both countries to find their solutions together.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, do the Government share the concern of some that, in Indian-administrated Kashmir, the Modi Administration are redistricting in a way that has been turned into gerrymandering, in order to deliberately diminish the opportunity for representation of the Muslim community there? When our Prime Minister met Prime Minister Modi, did he raise any human rights concerns about Indian Kashmir?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first question, of course the Indians, with their own internal processes and programmes, have initiated a programme of economic development within Indian-administered Kashmir. That is something that we look at very closely. I am looking forward to a visit to India in the near future, where we will be having discussions on a wide range of issues, specifically including the issue of human rights, which we always do. Yes, the Prime Minister did engage on the broad range of issues, including those of human rights, during his recent visit.
Food Security: Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss on food security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, in 2021 Defra published the United Kingdom Food Security Report, which examined the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss. We have received the Climate Change Committee’s latest assessments of climate risks to the UK, which will inform the third national adaptation programme, due in 2023. Improving water security and soil health is crucial to food security and closely linked to the significant action we are taking to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for his Answer. While the immediate situation in Ukraine is, as we all know, putting incredible pressure on the world’s food security and this will undoubtedly get more acute, we must not be lulled into thinking that this is the only driving factor. As the Minister said, droughts, fires, floods, desertification and deforestation are the drivers and causes of climate change and biodiversity loss, and indeed of food insecurity. Will the Minister give us a clear assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Government will not use any legislation from this Session to reduce the high environmental standards that have already been set, in the pursuit of getting more cheap food into the system?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness has long experience in this area, and I assure her that the Government take this area of our responsibilities really seriously, not just domestically but internationally, where I believe we are a leader in trying to get the world community to come together to address global food security risks. The Pentagon, in a paper it published, called climate change the “risk escalator”, and it is. It will lead to further pressures on populations right across the world, and it is an absolute priority for this Government to help resolve it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, given the escalation in food prices and the difficulty in world food supplies, does my noble friend agree that we should be very careful not to allow policies of rewilding or other environment-related schemes to diminish our ability to produce foodstuffs domestically?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is our intention that farmers across these islands will continue to be incentivised to produce good-quality food. We have remained remarkably consistent in our food security over the last two decades, and we want to see that continue and improve. Through our farming reforms, we are incentivising farmers to continue to produce good-quality food.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I was reassured that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, mentioned world food security; that is absolutely critical. Can I pursue with the Minister that the Government will not forget that many of the poorer countries in the world can produce only a very limited type of food, upon which their own societies depend?
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is precisely those people who will be the greatest victims of climate change. In the short term we are working with the World Bank to lever the largest ever financial commitment, $170 billion, to support countries faced with economic hardship, both in the short term as a result of insecurity and the war in Ukraine and in the long term, working with international bodies to address these very problems for the most vulnerable people in our society.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, we are a trading nation and always have been. It is essential to ensure that harmful practices are not offshored, as environmentally degrading practices are making the biodiversity crisis we face worse. In turn, this makes growing crops on much of the planet harder. Can the Minister assure the House that the new trade Bill will not allow the import of goods produced to lower standards than ours? In the long run it would be utterly pointless and self-defeating for us and our allies to do so.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have to make sure that we are not, through our environmental policies, just pushing carbon emissions and biodiversity practices that we do not allow here to other countries. We are part of a global community. Our food supply chains are very complex and we want to manage them with our international relations and make sure that we are protecting our environment at home, continuing to produce good food and playing our part abroad as well.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in paying tribute to our farmers, not just for putting food on our plates but for creating and protecting biodiversity? Will he ensure that food security is embraced as a public good and that tenant farmers will continue to benefit from farm payments?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We want the entire spectrum of British agriculture to benefit from the changes. We recognise that this is a difficult time for farming; it would be even if we were not going through the changes we are with commodity price spikes and the like. We are working closely with them and the food sector to make sure that we are supporting our British farmers and that they continue to produce food at the highest welfare and environmental standards now and in the future.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Last year’s report from the Committee on Climate Change said:
“Defra still lacks a strategy to ensure the agricultural sector remains productive as the climate changes.”
It went on to say that the focus of the ELMS reforms was on flood risk rather than the broader climate impact. Does the Minister feel that those points have been fully addressed? If so, can he write to noble Lords and put a letter in the Library giving details of that? In particular, can he explain how the new strands of the ELMS programme are now addressing those broader climate change obligations?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I absolutely can commit to a letter that brings noble Lords up to date with our reforms. It is much more than just flood protection. It is about producing sustainable food. It is about soil systems. It is about making sure that farmers are incentivised to protect the environment and reverse the catastrophic decline in species. We are living through one of the riskiest times in terms of biodiversity loss. We want to reverse that but we are trying to do it in a way that supports farming systems. I am very happy to keep noble Lords informed of our progress.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned that Ukraine has wheat in storage but cannot get it out because its ports are being shelled and blockaded. I am told that the real reason is that no wheat-carrying ships can get into the Bosphorus or the Black Sea because they cannot get insured and therefore cannot carry out such wheat as would be available and is necessary to stop a major crisis and starvation, particularly in Egypt, Lebanon and places like that. Will the Minister consider states, including the United Kingdom, undertaking the insurance that private enterprise will not provide and without which there will be further great starvation because of the blockade?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises an important issue that I will look into and contact him about. While this country imports a very small amount of grain from Ukraine and Russia, we have more in terms of oils. That is one of the reasons we are working with the World Bank: to make sure that countries that depend on imports from Ukraine are supported. I will certainly get back to him on the other point.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the insurance of shipping often depends on its protection. Does the Minister believe that the fact that we currently have 12 frigates and will soon have only nine does anything to help protect the global shipping that is so important for our country and many nations?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am always amazed by and respectful of the noble Lord’s ability to get naval matters into almost any Question. He is right that this is a matter of global security and not just about what Britain does. It is about what we do with our allies to support the free movement of goods around the world. There has been huge investment in the Royal Navy, which I am sure he is really pleased about, but we want to see that continue.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Given that more than 50% of human calories come from just four crops, with a fast-changing global climate, does the Minister agree that increasing the diversity of crops is crucial? What are the Government doing to ensure that we grow a more diverse range of crops in the UK, particularly more vegetables and fruit?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are enormous opportunities under our new schemes for farmers to operate in a more entrepreneurial way. They are really good at seeing new opportunities. With the new technologies which Defra and the Government are investing in for farmers, particularly in the fruit and vegetable sector, there are new possibilities with vertical farming and other means to make sure that we are disrupting the age-old food supply chains which have been found to be so vulnerable at this time.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the Minister’s reference to the international dimension, is his department involved in work towards the COP 15 conference due to be held in China on the convention of biological diversity and in particular discussion of the strategic plan and its implementation? What can the Minister tell the House about the constructive contribution that I hope the UK will make to that conference?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Building on the fact that nature was hard-wired into COP 26, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith is leading on this to make sure that these are embedded in the Kunming COP. We recognise that, as the Dasgupta review said, half the food we eat is totally dependent on biodiversity. Therefore, this COP could not come at a more important time and we have to make sure that we have success at the end of it, as we did with COP 26.
Social Security System: Rising Cost of Living
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the social security system in the context of the rising cost of living.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, no specific assessment has been made. We are committed to supporting those on low incomes and will spend around £255 billion through the welfare system in 2022-23. We are supporting households with cost-of-living measures worth over £22 billion this year, including changes to universal credit to make work pay, the £9.1 billion energy package to help us with rising energy bills and an additional £500 million to help households with the costs of essentials.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, it is not enough. The welfare state was created to provide security in retirement and to make sure that life events did not result in destitution. Last month, the state pension went up by 3% for the year, as did benefits for children, disabled people and low-earners. In the real world, we all know that inflation is heading for 10% and energy prices have gone mad. The Governor of the Bank of England has just said that food prices will be rising apocalyptically. Does the Minister accept that growing numbers of both older and younger people literally do not have enough money to buy food and pay their bills? If so, will the Government bring forward benefit increases or find some other way to stop people falling into modern-day destitution?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The Government, of which I am a member, acknowledge that these are very difficult times, particularly for pensioners and young people with families. The uprating of benefits has been done in September; that is how the Secretary of State uses the CPI figure. However, I can confirm that the Government have convened a new cost of living ministerial committee and the PM has urged Ministers to go faster and be as creative as possible in ensuring that the Government are doing everything they can on this important issue. The Chancellor and Prime Minister are working extremely closely on this and will continue to do so because they are cognisant of the very communities that the noble Baroness is representing.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is the Minister aware that 50% of people presenting in hospitals with cardiac arrest and so on are in food poverty?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I was not aware of that fact—that a lot of people who come to hospitals with cardiac arrest are in food poverty. That needs to be referred to the Department of Health to get a more detailed answer.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the household support fund is an important resource for low-income families and the £500 million increase in the budget is very welcome, but the household support fund is due to run out in September, just when inflation is set to peak and before the winter fuel bills arrive. What consideration has been given to extending the fund beyond September?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The decision to extend the fund rests with my right honourable friend the Chancellor. Global inflationary forces are making life difficult for families. I take the point that my noble friend raises but I am assured from the Chancellor’s Statement today that we stand ready to do more as the situation evolves.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, one of the best ways of helping poorer pensioners is to increase the take-up of pension credit. What are the Government doing about the suggestions that many of us have made to increase take-up through a new campaign, including perhaps renaming the credit “pension boost” or “pension bonus” so that pensioners realise that it is theirs of right and will apply to get it?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for keeping me on my toes with this; he has done an excellent job, along with other colleagues. I can tell him that we have undertaken a range of actions to raise awareness of pension credits and increase take-up. Initial internal management information suggests that new claims for pension credit in the 12 months to December 2021 were around 30% higher compared to the previous 12 months. Earlier this year, we directly targeted over 11 million pensioners with information about pension credit. We will have another awareness day, and the Minister with responsibility for pensions is working with the BBC. I can tell the noble Lord that we are doing everything we can to expand our efforts to increase take-up—but I have failed miserably in getting it rebranded.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am confident that the Minister, like me and many others in this House, does not want to see children suffer as a consequence of soaring food prices. She may have heard the same tales from families that I have heard, of the rising cost of the weekly food shop, with people unable to pay for the quality and quantity of food that their family needs. One of the best ways of dealing with that is to increase child benefit in line with inflation and bring it forward to September. Will the Minister please urge the Government to take that essential step?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. I will reiterate what the Chancellor said:
“We stand ready to do more as the situation evolves.”
Child benefit does not sit with the DWP, but I will find the person it does sit with and pass on the noble Baroness’s message.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend help me with a problem I have? Could she explain why it was appropriate to increase universal credit by £20 a week during the Covid epidemic but not now, when people are faced with exponential increases in their food and energy bills? Will she tell the Chancellor that we cannot wait—we need the money now? He got enormous credit for what he did during Covid, but the need is greater and the Government need to act.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I assure my noble friend and the whole House that the Chancellor does understand and is working hard on the issue that many noble Lords have raised today. I can tell my noble friend and others who are impatient to get something going—I do not mean that lightly—that the £20 uplift was a success but it was a temporary measure, and I honestly cannot make any promises that it might be reintroduced.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
How much time have Treasury Ministers and DWP Ministers spent sitting, listening and talking with people who are struggling either to eat or heat? It is first-hand evidence that really matters; do not get it just from reports.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I have no doubt at all that real case studies have been presented—they have certainly been presented to my Secretary of State. I know that everyone is impatient, and I understand that, but the Government stand ready to do what they can once a decision has been made. I understand that talking to real people is the best way to learn. I was in Brighton on Thursday, opening the new job centre. I met a lady there whose life had been absolutely chaotic, and now she has a job with G4S and she is cooking. We understand personal testimony.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, faced with the biggest fall in the real value of basic benefits for 50 years, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and the terrifying increase in the cost of basics, as my noble friend has said, what are struggling parents who have already cut back to the bone supposed to do when the Government refuse the uplift in benefits called for widely, including on the Government’s own Benches? What would the Minister herself do, if she was in their shoes?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I do not think I can answer on behalf of the people who make the decisions but I understand the point that the noble Baroness is raising. I know that there are families who are struggling. As I have said, a committee has been set up—I am sorry, but noble Lords know how government works. As I said, we stand ready.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, one quick solution would be to have automatic enrolment in Healthy Start vouchers. Despite the fact that the Government have put these up, we are still running at only about 60% to 65%. This money is there and it is doable—you could do it tonight.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a good point. One of the things we can do, and must do more of, to help people in these situations is to make sure they are claiming everything they should.
Gambling Industry: Gambling Reforms
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foster of Bath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of claims by the gambling industry that their proposed gambling reforms will reduce tax revenues.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, without speculating on our ongoing review, gambling duties are based on gross gambling yield. Any changes which reduced industry revenue would lower tax receipts. Conversely, changes which reduce harm could cut costs to the Government and some displaced spending would likely go to other sectors that pay tax. We will publish our White Paper in the coming weeks.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am sure he will be aware that some £5 billion of gambling companies’ annual profits tends to come from people with gambling problems or those who are in danger of having them, costing lives and increasing the cost to the NHS. Reducing gambling harm would reduce NHS costs and, with spending displaced from gambling to more labour-intensive sectors, create up to 30,000 additional jobs and increase the funding going into the Treasury coffers, as demonstrated by the NERA report. Does the Minister accept that it is possible to reduce gambling harm and have a stronger economy by doing so?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right that tackling problem gambling is good not just for the people affected by it but for the services which treat it. We are also aware that there is a black market in gambling and that problem gamblers may be liable to continue their problem gambling in that area. We are considering both these things as part of our review of the 2005 Act.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that I am not the only one in this House who is heartily sick to death of being force-fed gambling adverts before virtually any sporting event carried on commercial television? If there is a role for punitive taxation, it is surely to reduce this level of intrusive advertising, which hits particularly at young people.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We called for evidence on advertising as part of our review of the Act. Many people share the noble Lord’s frustrations. Public Health England’s evidence review did not find evidence that exposure to advertising and marketing was a risk factor for harmful gambling, but we are looking at all these issues as part of our review.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, under UK legislation the definition of gambling is tightly drawn. It excludes increasingly popular mobile phone apps such as social casino apps, which require money to get players started and, once they are hooked, they are given tokens within the game. Does the Minister agree that extending the definition would also lead to an extension of the gambling tax?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Viscount knows, we have looked also at the harms associated with online gambling. Indeed, while awaiting the White Paper and the outcome of our review, we have strengthened the rules on how online operators identify and interact with people at risk of harm. We are not delaying in taking action where that is needed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, so far as we are concerned the Government continue to drag their feet on reforming gambling regulation, with reports suggesting that the White Paper has been delayed yet again. Gambling firms pay a significant amount in tax and there is a balance to be struck—we all like a flutter. However, with the Exchequer ultimately responsible for the significant costs of problem gambling, it is right that regulatory and fiscal arrangements are reviewed. Does the Minister believe it is right for firms such as bet365 to argue against proposals for a statutory levy while its boss takes home a salary of £250 million a year and £97.5 million in dividend payments?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we have sought views from all interested parties as part of our review of the Act, including the industry, which is taking action in some areas. We are happy to engage with people on both sides of the argument. We called for evidence on the best way to recoup the regulatory and societal costs of gambling, which includes looking at a levy, and we will set out our conclusions in the White Paper.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as a member of the APPG on racing, can I ask my noble friend how the new framework that he is considering will support our popular UK racing industry? Can he ensure that it competes with the Republic of Ireland and France, where the prize money at the bottom end is much better than in the UK?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are certainly aware of the close relationship between racing and betting. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly said, many people enjoy a flutter and do so without risk of harm. The main area of concern we are hearing from the racing industry is about affordability checks. These are important but must also be proportionate, and we are carefully considering the impact of all our proposals as part of the review.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the vast majority of people gamble responsibly, and their harmless pastime supports 120,000 jobs in an industry paying £4.5 billion in tax and contributing £7.7 billion to the economy, so of course the Minister has got to consider the impact that new legislation might have on the public finances. While one problem gambler is one too many, should it not also be borne in mind that official Gambling Commission figures show that problem gambling has fallen to just 0.2% of the adult population, half the rate of the previous year?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right: 40% of people gamble at least once a year, and if you also include people who only play the National Lottery then most people gamble. Most suffer no ill-effects from a pastime that they enjoy and brings benefits to the economy. However, we are also determined to tackle problem gambling and the misery it causes to many lives, and that is the balance we are trying to strike through our review.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the majority of the online servers on which British people gamble are located in offshore tax havens. This means that profits from sales in the UK are booked elsewhere and not taxed in the UK at all. Can the Minister provide an estimate of UK corporation tax lost as a result of these arrangements?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will not hazard such an estimate from the Dispatch Box, but in 2014 we amended the Gambling Act to introduce a point-of-consumption regulatory regime. Since then, every gambling firm which transacts with customers in Great Britain has to have a licence from the Gambling Commission, comply with licence conditions and pay duties on their earnings in this country.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister has given a number of figures to the House, as have other noble Lords, but will he confirm that Public Health England, in its report of last September, put a figure of £1.2 billion on what it estimated to be the financial cost of problem gambling? It also emphasised suicide, mental health and all the other factors that come into play. Will he return to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about aggressive advertising? What does he think the point of advertising is if it is not to influence people?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The point of advertising is to influence people and sometimes it is from gambling companies encouraging people who are not problem gamblers to gamble with them rather than their competitors, which is a legitimate activity. The noble Lord is right to point to the individual levels at which harms can be committed: one suicide is too many. We want to tackle problem gambling and that is part of the review of the Act.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question that has just been asked, would the Minister agree that this issue of advertising is not limited, although it is obviously a problem, to sporting programming? It is all over the place and is particularly evident on the catch-up services, where anyone can use the service—it is not age appropriate in any way. There is no question that the advertising is extremely aggressive and extremely seductive. The evidence that the noble Lord referred to from PHE is frankly quite counter- intuitive. Could the Minister tell us a bit more about what the Government intend to do about this?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Awaiting the outcome of our review, we have updated the gambling advertising code to ban adverts with a strong appeal to children, such as those involving Premier League footballers and other sports stars. We are very alert to the impacts of advertising on different groups, and will not hesitate to take action to rule out harmful practices. By calling for evidence on advertising as part of the review, we can keep abreast of the problem and come forward with appropriate proposals where needed.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, drew attention to the fact that one of the Select Committee’s recommendations was a statutory levy on gambling. How much is that still on the Government’s agenda? When bringing any proposals forward on that, will the Minister remember that the smaller, harmless end of gambling such as seaside entertainments would be hit by a punitive levy? Such a levy should be polluter pays and not on the smaller, more harmless end of gambling. I say this as Lord McNally of Blackpool.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
And I reply as Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I am very alert to the important role played by slot machines at the seaside. We are looking at this area. We have been clear for a number of years that, if the existing system of taxation and voluntary contributions does not deliver what is needed, we would look at a number of options for reform, including a statutory levy. We will set out our conclusions in the White Paper.
Northern Ireland Protocol
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement delivered in the other place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Northern Ireland protocol, and to lay out the next steps. Our first priority is to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. That agreement put in place a new arrangement for the governance of Northern Ireland and these islands composed of three interlocking strands: a power-sharing Government at Stormont on the basis of consent and parity of esteem for all communities; intensified north-south co-operation on the island of Ireland; and enhanced arrangements for east-west co-operation.
So much of the progress we have seen in Northern Ireland rests on this agreement, and for the agreement to continue to operate successfully, all three strands must function successfully. These arrangements are the foundation on which the modern, thriving Northern Ireland is built; it commands the support of parties across this House, and we will continue to work with all communities in Northern Ireland to protect it.
As a Government, we want to see a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister in place, and to work with them to make further progress. The basis for successful power-sharing remains strong, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister laid out yesterday. However, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is under strain, and, regrettably, the Northern Ireland Executive have not been fully functioning since early February. This is because the Northern Ireland protocol does not have the support necessary in one part of the community in Northern Ireland. I would also note that all Northern Ireland’s political parties agree on the need for changes to the protocol.
The practical problems are clear to see. As the House will know, the protocol has not yet been implemented in full due to the operation of grace periods and easements. However, EU customs procedures for moving goods within the UK have already meant that companies are facing significant costs and paperwork. Some businesses have stopped this trade altogether. These challenges have been sharpened by the post-Covid economic recovery.
Rules on taxation mean that citizens in Northern Ireland are unable to benefit fully from the same advantages as the rest of the United Kingdom, such as reductions in VAT on solar panels. SPS rules mean that producers face onerous restrictions, including veterinary certification, in order to sell foodstuffs in shops in Northern Ireland. These practical problems have contributed to the sense that the east-west relationship has been undermined.
Without resolving these and other issues, we will not be able to re-establish the Executive and preserve the hard-won progress sustained by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We need to restore the balance in that agreement. Our preference is to reach a negotiated outcome with the EU. We have worked tirelessly to that end and will continue to do so. I have had six months of negotiations with Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. This follows a year of discussions by my predecessor.
The UK has proposed what we believe to be a comprehensive and reasonable solution to deliver on the objectives of the protocol. This includes a trusted trader scheme to provide the EU with real-time commercial data, giving it confidence that goods intended for Northern Ireland are not entering the EU single market. We are already sharing over 1 million rows of goods movement data with the EU every week.
Our proposed solution would meet both our and the EU’s original objectives for the protocol. It would address the frictions in east-west trade, while protecting the EU single market and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The challenge is that this solution requires a change to the protocol itself, as its current drafting prevents it from being implemented, but the EU’s mandate does not allow the protocol to be changed. That is why its current proposals are not able to address the fundamental concerns. In fact, it is our assessment that it would take us backward from the situation we have today with the standstill.
As the Prime Minister said, ‘our shared objective’ must be to find a solution that can command the ‘broadest possible cross-community support’ for years to come, and
‘protect the Belfast Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.’
That is why I am announcing our intention to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to make changes to the protocol.
Our preference remains a negotiated solution with the EU. In parallel with the legislation being introduced, we remain open to further talks if we can achieve the same outcome through a negotiated settlement. I have invited Vice-President Šefčovič to a meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee in London to discuss this as soon as possible. However, to respond to the very serious and grave situation in Northern Ireland, we are clear that there is a necessity to act to ensure that the institutions can be restored as soon as possible.
The Government believe that proceeding with the Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law—and in support of our prior obligations to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Before any changes are made, we will continue to consult businesses and people in Northern Ireland as our proposals are put forward.
I want to be clear that this is not about scrapping the protocol. Our aim is to deliver on all the protocol’s objectives. We will cement those provisions which are working, including the common travel area, the single electricity market and north-south co-operation, while fixing those elements which are not—on the movement of goods, goods regulation, VAT, subsidy control, and governance.
The Bill will put in place the necessary measures to lessen the burden on east-west trade and ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are able to access the same benefits as the people of Great Britain. The Bill will ensure that goods moving and staying within the UK are freed of unnecessary bureaucracy through our new ‘green channel’. This respects Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s customs territory and protects the UK internal market. At the same time, it ensures that goods destined for the EU undergo the full checks and controls applied under EU law. This will be under- pinned by the data-sharing arrangements I have already set out.
The Bill will allow both east-west trade and the EU single market to be protected, while removing customs paperwork for goods remaining within the United Kingdom. The Bill will remove regulatory barriers to goods made to UK standards being sold in Northern Ireland. Businesses will be able to choose between meeting UK or EU standards in a new dual regulatory regime. The Bill will provide the Government with the ability to decide on tax and spend policies across the whole of the UK. It will address issues related to governance, bringing the protocol in line with international norms. At the same time, it will also take new measures to protect the EU single market by implementing robust penalties for those who seek to abuse the new system. It will continue to ensure that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.
I will publish more detail on these solutions in the coming weeks. Let me be crystal clear that, even as we do so, we will continue to engage with the EU. The Bill will contain an explicit power to give effect to a new, revised protocol if we can reach an accommodation that meets our goal of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We remain open to a negotiated solution, but the urgency of the situation means that we cannot afford to delay any longer.
The UK has clear responsibilities as the sovereign Government of Northern Ireland to ensure parity of esteem and the protection of economic rights. We are clear that the EU will not be negatively impacted in any way, just as we have ensured the protection of the EU single market since the existence of the protocol. We must restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions as the basis for the restoration of the Executive. We will do so through technical measures designed to achieve the stated objectives of the protocol, tailored to the reality of Northern Ireland. We will do it in a way that fundamentally respects both unions—the United Kingdom and the EU—and we will live up to our commitments to all communities of Northern Ireland. As co-signatory and co-guarantor of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we will take the necessary decisions to preserve peace and stability. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating this important Statement. That the Government have been preparing legislation relating to the Northern Ireland protocol is no secret. Senior members of the Cabinet have taken every opportunity to issue threats to this effect in recent weeks, but we should be thankful that the tone of the ministerial intervention today has shifted somewhat. We have gone from what felt like the inevitability of unilateral action to this proposed Bill being a mere insurance policy. However, as I will return to, and as many commentators have said in recent times, the Government’s approach to this challenge posed by the protocol has been erratic and at times reckless.
The backdrop of the dispute over the protocol now is, in part, the crucial question of the formation of a new Northern Ireland Executive. The Prime Minister was clear in his Belfast Telegraph article that he believes that Sinn Féin, as the largest party following the Assembly elections, has secured the position of nominating the First Minister. He called for the DUP to nominate a Speaker and First Minister as a matter of urgency, to get the Assembly up and running, and for once we are in full agreement with the Prime Minister. The people of Northern Ireland want their leaders, of all parties, to get on with the job. The cost of living crisis continues to bite, and the Assembly and the Executive will have an important role to play in the coming months. Politicians must, first and foremost, fulfil those duties while negotiations on the protocol—which the majority of newly elected MLAs wish to see fixed, not scrapped—continue.
We on these Benches understand the concerns regarding the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. We have long called on both sides to show the flexibility needed to ensure that the protocol works in a way that enjoys the highest possible public support. The operation of the protocol has revealed tensions which need to be addressed; however, it has also been used by some to stoke tensions, and such behaviour is highly irresponsible. To uphold the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and sustain the peace that it brought us, we need willing from both the EU and the UK Government. Checks must be reduced to the absolute minimum necessary.
There must be an element of common sense as to exactly what trade is subject to which checks. It cannot be right that goods from Great Britain which have no realistic prospect of moving into the EU single market are subject to excessive, costly and burdensome checks that only hamper business, inhibit trade and undermine confidence and consent. We have long called on both sides to show the flexibility needed to resolve this. We need calm heads, responsible leadership and serious diplomacy from both sides, statecraft, diligence and graft. While the process is under way, the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve a functioning Government who reflect the outcome of elections, as well as restoring the institutions created by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
The Government negotiated this deal. They signed it and ran an election campaign all about it. The Prime Minister refused to be upfront about the implications of his agreement, and that is his failure. Yesterday, in an interview with the BBC’s new political editor, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the Northern Ireland protocol was his creation. It is important that he has finally taken responsibility for negotiating an agreement that required, by its very design, some checks in the Irish Sea.
Aspects of what the Government are proposing on the protocol are helpful. However, these must be subject to urgent, detailed and technical negotiations, rather than endless media briefings. Labour has long argued that a veterinary agreement with the EU would eliminate the vast majority of checks on produce going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Although this would not solve every problem—I accept that—it would be a sensible way forward. Crucially, it would act as the starting point for all sides to work with communities and businesses in Northern Ireland to find other creative solutions to minimise these checks.
One thing which is certain in this process is that the breaking of an international treaty will do nothing to improve the current situation. The proposed Bill may have been called an insurance policy but, if it is taken forward, it would amount to a major breach of our international commitments. There is no long-term unilateral solution to the issues with the protocol, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous and will make achieving a negotiated settlement even harder. The EU has already said that it will respond to any breaches of the protocol with all measures at its disposal. We think that that is code for trade friction, which affects the cost of living and which people across this country do not want and cannot possibly afford, given current pressures.
Simon Hoare, chair of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, has said:
“Respect for the rule of law runs deep in our Tory veins, and I find it extraordinary that a Tory Government needs to be reminded of that.”
I suspect that the Minister will have some sympathy for what his colleague has said today. I hope that he will impress on the Foreign Secretary the need to de-escalate this situation and to take the right and responsible approach that is in the long-term interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, while political knockabout is tempting in the surreal circumstance to which the Government have brought us in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol, the situation is too serious and dangerous for that. The Foreign Secretary’s claim that the Government’s
“first priority is to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions”
does not stand up to scrutiny. The protocol exists solely because of the nature of Brexit and the hardest of hard versions that the Johnson Government and their DUP allies chose, despite the voters of Northern Ireland not supporting a Brexit of any kind. Brexit was the original sin. The Government’s choice meant that the UK and Ireland were not aligned within the customs union or the single market. The result was the need to manage the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland through special arrangements. It was impossible to have the hard Brexit cake and to eat the no-checks-across-the-Irish-Sea cherry. However, the Prime Minister and his supporters seem never to have accepted the consequences of their choices and the treaties they signed.
The protocol can be changed only by an agreement between the UK and the EU. At the time it was signed, there was still hope that the trade agreement would supersede the protocol and make it unnecessary. Hence, the Government’s impact assessment in October 2019 said:
“The Government intends to conclude a future relationship with the EU that is centred on a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU and the outcome of this will affect the operation of the protocol.”
However, that comprehensive FTA never materialised, so the protocol—imperfect as it undoubtedly is—is still the essential best of a bad job. The Government’s announced action will put the UK in potential breach of international law. Like the noble Baroness, I will quote the Conservative chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Simon Hoare, who quoted Margaret Thatcher as saying:
“The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it’s inconvenient … then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself.”
The Assembly election results show that a clear majority of voters and elected Assembly members not only want to see the political institutions operating immediately but generally support the protocol. This also applies to the vast majority of the business community, who also want a pragmatic, not confrontational, approach.
The dual-market access that Northern Ireland enjoys is an economic asset, but the Government are not listening to these messages. In the strong words of my friend in the other place, Stephen Farry of the Lib Dems’ sister party, Alliance, which did so well in the Assembly elections:
“This proposed action is unwanted and unwarranted. Indeed, it may prove to be counterproductive and destructive. Much of the rationale cited by the Government is disingenuous … Any action or even threat of action that takes Northern Ireland out of the single market, including disapplying the jurisdiction of the ECJ, will undermine our region”—
I repeat, “will undermine our region”—
“as an investment location. It would also lead to even greater political instability.”
These are serious words for a very serious situation.
The disingenuous nature of the Foreign Secretary’s Statement is illustrated in her assertion that
“all Northern Ireland’s political parties agree on the need for changes to the protocol.”
Of course those parties, including Alliance, which accept the protocol still want to see improvements in its operation, because it is certainly necessary to address a range of issues. However, the way forward lies in partnership and mutual agreement between the UK and EU around legal and sustainable solutions to reduce the nature and level of checks through various mitigations and flexibilities in the operation of the protocol, or via building on the trade and co-operation agreement.
I note that the Foreign Secretary says that our preference is to reach a negotiated settlement with the EU—so please just do it. One extra that the Government should pursue is a veterinary or SPS agreement; there is a clear alternative here to just whingeing about SPS checks. Can the Minister explain properly why this is not being pursued? Yes, the EU should display even more flexibility than it has already—over medicines, for instance—but it also says that the flexibilities it has proposed have not been fully explored by the UK Government, and it cannot be expected to do more when the Government display belligerence instead of co-operation and undermine trust, especially as some of the solutions involve the EU subcontracting functions to UK authorities.
To risk a trade war with the EU at a time when there is a military war in Europe and when the UK economy is weak and vulnerable is deeply irresponsible. No wonder the Cabinet is split. I hope that the necessary negotiations will be taken forward.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Ludford, for their contributions and broad support—certainly from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—for the importance of moving forward in a collaborative and collective way and ensuring that the importance of upholding the principles, nature, context and content of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is at the heart of this. I know that this point was also shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and it has really been the basis of why the Government have chosen the particular pathway that I articulated in repeating the Statement.
The formation of a new Executive and a functioning Assembly—which the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, alluded to—are, of course, the primary objectives of the United Kingdom Government. I state again that this is not about scrapping the protocol, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, acknowledged; it is about fixing those elements of it which frankly are not working. They are not working for the political parties, for communities and, importantly, for businesses operating and seeking to strengthen their work across both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about Brexit and referred to Northern Ireland voting in a particular way, not for Brexit. The whole essence of the vote on Brexit was exactly what we are standing up for today: the unity of the United Kingdom. This was a UK-wide vote. It was a democratic vote—one person, one vote—the result stands and we really need now to move forward.
I also challenge the premise that, because of Brexit, our relationship with the European Union has suffered across a range of priorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to Ukraine. As someone who has been involved at the heart of our response, collaboration and collective working on Mr Putin’s aggression and war on Ukraine, I assure her that our work with the European Union and our partners in Europe is in a very strong place, particularly in an area that I oversee and work on with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary: that of sanctions. I assure the noble Baroness that our relationship is very strong both bilaterally with countries across Europe and in the European Union context. I was pleased, as were many noble Lords, I am sure, when I heard the votes of the Eurovision Song Contest and heard Paris award the United Kingdom douze points. That reflects the strength across all cultural ties as well as what we are doing across important areas of our collaborative work.
On the issue of working with the European Union, Mr Šefčovič and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have been engaged in regular meetings, both calls and direct. Indeed, in the Statement today, my right honourable friend again outlined the importance of meetings. As I articulated in repeating the Statement, in introducing the Bill, we are working in tandem to ensure that ultimately our objective is to find a strengthened partnership with the European Union based on negotiated amendments to the protocol—it is very clear that it is not working.
I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, along with my noble friend Lord Caine and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, among others, on how we move forward with the legislation. I assure all noble Lords that, in taking forward this Bill, I am someone who has at the heart of his responsibilities the importance of the international rule of law—it is something I have personally defended—and this is very much consistent with our obligations to international law. We will put forward a Statement on the Government’s legal position in due course.
On all the technical points within the protocol—the areas which are not working— we will continue to engage not just with the political parties and the EU but, importantly, with businesses to ensure that we can find the most practical and pragmatic solutions. Ultimately, the Government are making this Statement today and the proposals they have to ensure a functioning Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland. As we have articulated —it is a point emphasised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—we need to act and move forward but do so always with the hand of co-operation and collaboration with the EU, and the door remains very much open for future discussions.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, will the Statement which my noble friend has promised on the Government’s legal position make it clear why they have come to the conclusion that these proposals are consistent with our international legal obligations, in contrast with the clauses in the internal market Bill?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I hear what my noble friend said and, as I said already, we will put forward a Statement which will outline the Government’s position in this regard.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, trust, dialogue and confidence are urgently required in Northern Ireland. Not setting up an Executive and an Assembly post an election is deeply unacceptable and undemocratic. In that vein, will the Minister outline what technical meetings have taken place between the UK Government and the EU Commission in the past six months on issues to do with the protocol? I am talking about not ministerial meetings but technical working meetings. Further, what meetings will take place and when with business leaders, taking on board that the European Commission through Maroš Šefčovič has already had such meetings for more than a year?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s contribution; she speaks on issues in Northern Ireland with great insight. I assure her that yesterday my right honourable friend met the chairman of Marks & Spencer, and we meet business leaders regularly. Indeed, part of our approach has been underpinned by what businesses themselves are saying. The Road Haulage Association has said that the protocol has caused an increase in the cost of moving goods to Northern Ireland of between 34% and 35%. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that the current arrangements have
“created new bureaucracy, increased costs and impacted supply chains.”
I assure the noble Baroness that, as I indicated through my right honourable friend’s meeting yesterday, we meet businesses regularly—as does the EU, as the noble Baroness acknowledged. Specific official-level meetings have been regular and consistent. For every meeting that takes place at the ministerial level, there are official meetings both in the preamble and as post-outcome meetings. Looking at my list here, there have been 10 meetings since December led directly by the Foreign Secretary. As I said, the pre and post meetings certainly indicate our commitment to finding a practical resolution.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, although I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, there is no doubt that resolute action to deal with this deeply offensive protocol must be taken. Firm and welcome words alone will not satisfy the community that certainly I come from. My colleagues and I await the proposed legislation and will honourably judge the same in accordance with the mandate we received in the recent election. However, does the Minister accept that devolution in Northern Ireland will not be restored until the protocol issue is resolved? A fudge will not satisfy.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s contribution. Again, I assure noble Lords that I and my noble friends on the Front Bench will continue to engage with your Lordships’ House on the practical proposals as they come forward, to ensure that we work through the details of the proposed Bill. I agree with him on the importance of having a functioning Executive and Assembly. It is very much part and parcel of the solution in ensuring that we do not just find practical resolutions to the protocol issue and its continuing challenges but avail ourselves of the opportunities for all people across Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the collateral effects of other EU-UK matters that are under discussion and dispatch? This was strongly evidenced by the letter I received from Commissioner Gabriel on 29 April in response to my letter about the UK’s lack of accession to Horizon Europe. Commissioner Gabriel cited the present serious difficulties in the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. Is not the Northern Ireland protocol spilling over a lot into the wider relationship and causing other problems?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in negotiating any new agreement such as the withdrawal agreement, and in our new working with our colleagues across the European Union, there will of course still be issues that we need to focus on and resolve. However, I spoke earlier about my own practical experience of and insight on my dealings with colleagues across the EU, such as the Foreign Ministers whom I and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary meet regularly. There is certainly a raft of areas on which we see not only strong collaboration but strong partnership. That is perhaps best brought together in the current response we have seen to the war in Ukraine.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol affect not simply trade but the human rights issue, which has been identified as the democratic deficit? Northern Ireland is the only part of Europe in which people are subject to laws that are changed in a foreign parliament and adjudicated by a foreign court, and where tax rates must be approved by a foreign power. Unless the solution the Government come up with removes those jurisdictions, it will not be a sustainable one.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend articulates the current challenges. That is exactly why the Government are acting: as the sovereign power responsible for Northern Ireland and its people, we have a responsibility to ensure that the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its structures is kept at the forefront of our thinking and discussions on how Northern Ireland moves forward. My noble friend mentioned human rights. We must ensure that people in Northern Ireland have the same benefits, laws and courts as everyone else across the United Kingdom.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister make it clear that the blame for the present tensions and problems is not to be found in the unionist community, as implied by too many commentators and even by some here today? I do not always agree with the DUP, but on this I do—solidarity. Also, can I urge the Minister to commit to making it clear that the protocol is not just a practical or technical problem in terms of the movement of goods, VAT and so on? The Statement was overtechnical. Would it in fact be better for the Government to stress that what is at stake here is the principle of sovereignty? It is that principle that has to be fought for and defended; and the protocol cannot do that.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am glad that a Statement such as this has brought the kind of unity the noble Baroness has referred to. Equally, I agree with her that it is important that at the forefront of this is the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Many Members of your Lordships’ House were involved with the hard, technical negotiations which brought that forward, and it is also important that we not only sustain it but continue to strengthen it. Ultimately, yes, it is about sovereignty and unity and ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland, who are an integral part of the United Kingdom, enjoy the same benefits.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in the autumn of 2019, Mr Johnson on many occasions asserted that the Northern Ireland protocol would not create a trade barrier between Northern Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom. That is not the case. That was never the case. Why did he say that? Was it because he did not understand what he had agreed, or was it because he did not want the true facts to be known to the electorate? We need an explanation, and we need one before this House is asked to consider further legislation.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister articulated the importance of the principles of the protocol. We wanted to ensure that there were no differences between the opportunities afforded to businesses and people in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of Great Britain. That has not been the case. We have continued to negotiate on finding solutions with our colleagues across the EU in practical and collaborative ways. As I have said already, and I articulate again to my noble friend, that door is very much open for discussions. It is important that we look to address those very issues, which are not just being highlighted by the UK Government; these issues are being highlighted in practice by the communities of Northern Ireland. As the Statement said, every political party in Northern Ireland believes that the protocol needs to be amended. Also, importantly, businesses are making the case very strongly. It is important, as a responsible Government, that we act accordingly.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not recall that we discussed this issue over and again when we were talking about the impact that Brexit would have on the Northern Ireland agreement? We did so in this House; I recall very clearly my noble friend Lord Hain making exactly this point. The problem we have now was inevitable. The problem with the protocol that we are now discussing undermines, fundamentally, the painfully reached Good Friday agreement, where we were helped by Senator Mitchell of the United States, and what we now have is an almost irreconcilable problem by having thought we could have our cake and eat it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one thing I have learned in diplomacy is that you can reconcile everything. It is about having the vision and also the commitment to find an agreement. That is certainly the intention of the United Kingdom Government. We will continue to work with our colleagues and friends across the European Union to find solutions to the issues of the protocol. We do not have a functioning Executive; people are taxed differently from everyone else in the UK; you cannot access the same financial benefits; and laws and courts in Northern Ireland are different from elsewhere in the UK. These are practical problems. They must be addressed. We will continue to work with the EU in good faith. But from a personal perspective: where there is a will, you can find a way, and one hopes we can do exactly that.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, as the former Solicitor-General Sir Robert Buckland said in another place, the very first article of the protocol says:
“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement”.
So the Belfast/Good Friday agreement take precedence over the protocol. The UK, as guarantor of the Belfast agreement, has not just a right but a duty to ensure that elements of the protocol that threaten the Good Friday agreement are changed, as envisaged in Article 13 of the protocol. If the EU resists this—I hope it will not—it will be acting against both the letter and the spirit of the protocol.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has detailed what my right honourable friend Robert Buckland said, and I totally agree. As I said, the position the Government are taking is about not scrapping the protocol but addressing the very issues that are not consistent with the important agreement that was reached by all in Northern Ireland: the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We need to ensure that it is upheld.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister understand why some of us who warned of the dangers of Brexit and the withdrawal agreement—every day, as my noble friend said—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
We are just a wee bit fed up when those people who were responsible for it and got peerages as a result of supporting that campaign now get up and criticise what they advocated, and when the former Minister, sitting on the Back Benches over there, who pushed this on us leaves the front line and snipes from the sidelines, leaving the poor noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to come and explain it to us. He does it very well but it is not his responsibility. We should blame those whose responsibility it really is.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first of all, I have worked closely with my noble friend Lord Frost and continue to have a strong friendship with him and to hold him in the highest regard. I pay tribute to the important work he did in our discussions on this important agreement with those across the European Union. I do not regard myself as “poor”, because I am often enriched by contributions and knowledge shared by your Lordships.
Equally, I assure noble Lords that being part of this Government is about collective responsibility. As a Minister, I believe we are ensuring that we fulfil our obligations as a custodian of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement when it comes to upholding the rights and obligations of those in Northern Ireland. At the same time, we continue to work with our colleagues across the EU to say that, yes, we are introducing these provisions but we have not closed the door. As I said in the Statement and as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary repeated during her discourse in the other place, ultimately we want a negotiation with the European Union; that would be the best outcome.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords would expect me, as a horticulturalist, to address the House in the week before the Chelsea Flower Show. This country has a thriving horticultural industry, but trade between Northern Ireland and the mainland has been crippled by the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope it is possible that the horticultural industries can be fully taken into account in the negotiations the Government have entered into, because trade in horticultural goods is an important part of our inter- community economy.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises the important issue of the horticultural industry. On a personal note, during his time as Chief Whip and a Minister I often benefited from the precious gifts he provides around Christmastime to many of us across your Lordships’ House. Flowers bloom in your Lordships’ House courtesy of my noble friend. I think the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is feeling left out, and I say to my noble friend that perhaps that can be extended to him.
Of course, my noble friend is absolutely right. The horticultural industry, as well as all others, is very much part and parcel of our consultations to ensure that businesses operating across the United Kingdom continue to benefit from their own perspective and, importantly, that citizens across the United Kingdom benefit from businesses as well.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in the other place, the Secretary of State referred to unintended consequences. I have to say that all the consequences were foreseeable—and indeed were foreseen. The Foreign Secretary said,
“I want to be clear … that this is not about scrapping the protocol”,
and my noble friend Lord Moylan hit the nail on the head. Does this mean that, in perpetuity, laws will be made on behalf of Northern Ireland by a foreign power over which we have neither input nor say?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend brings great insight and experience, and I pay tribute to his work in Northern Ireland. The Government’s position is very clear: we are acting and will continue to act in good faith. Practical issues have arisen from the imposition of the protocol which are simply not working—they are not working for Northern Ireland or for businesses, and they go against the actual agreement that we all want to uphold. As my noble friend Lord Lilley articulated very well, we all want to see the essence of the Good Friday agreement sustained as part and parcel of our discussions going forward. We will continue to work to ensure that all people across Northern Ireland have the opportunities and rights that are protected in that agreement, and where the protocol does not do that, it needs to change.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is not the effect of what the Government are proposing to issue an ultimatum to the European Union? How do they expect the European Union to respond positively to that approach?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said, we have been negotiating with the European Union for 18 months, and my right honourable friend has been leading on this for the last six months. I have seen how serious and focused she has been in finding practical solutions; that door is very much open. Mr Šefčovič has been invited to have further discussions, and one hopes that the European Union will respond constructively.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as a former chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place, I ask my noble friend to take particular note of the very wise words of the current chair, who, after all, leads a committee of several parties and has got to know Northern Ireland very well. I hope that he will be present at key negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I certainly regard all contributions as wise words, whether they are in the other place or in your Lordships’ House. I reiterate the point—I know I speak for others on our Front Bench—that there are many people who have direct insight and experience on this important issue. As we work through the proposals that the Government bring forward we will be well placed to leverage, utilise and make sure that that experience feeds into what one hopes will be a practical outcome to the issues around the protocol that we currently face.
Shireen Abu Aqla
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the killing of Shireen Abu Aqla was not only an outrageous act but an attack on the freedom of the media and the independence of journalists working around the world. Her killing was rightly condemned by world leaders, the UN and civil society. The recent violence at Shireen’s funeral was similarly indefensible. While I note that Vicky Ford in the other place yesterday confirmed support for the international investigation, she did not indicate whether representations had been made to her counterparts in the Israeli Government to encourage them to support such an inquiry. Can the Minister answer this, and say whether further representations have been made to the Israeli Government on the subsequent violence following the funeral?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that I speak for everyone, irrespective of where they are on the issues in the Middle East and the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, when I express my shock at the killing of a very renowned journalist, Shireen Abu Aqla. She worked over many years with great diligence and great conviction, and— speaking as someone who leads on the importance of media freedom around the world, which I know is close to the noble Lord’s heart as well—she did exactly what we know many journalists do in conflict zones: operated in reporting news with great courage and conviction. She has tragically paid the ultimate price of her life. The subsequent scenes we saw during the funeral shocked many of us. Witnessing that unfolding on television screens was clearly something that everyone found extremely shocking. I can confirm that of course we are engaged. Our ambassador has engaged directly with the Israeli authorities, as has our consul general in Jerusalem. We have continued to press for a thorough investigation into the events that took place.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
With regards to the funeral, Archbishop Pierbattista Pizzaballa, of the Roman Catholic Church, was reported as saying this:
“The Israel Police’s invasion and disproportionate use of force—attacking mourners, striking them with batons, using smoke grenades, shooting rubber bullets, frightening the hospital patients—is a severe violation of international norms and regulations, including the fundamental human right of freedom of religion.”
The Vatican has said that the 1993 agreement on the protection of the fundamental human right of freedom of religion and belief has been brutally violated. The Minister is well regarded on this subject, and he has spoken very regularly in this House on the importance of UK leadership on the protection of the fundamental human right of freedom of religion and belief. What direct representations have Ministers from the UK Government made to their counterparts in the Israeli Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that freedom of religion or belief is a key priority for the United Kingdom Government. We look forward to hosting the important ministerial event in July this year. I assure the noble Lord that, as the Human Rights Minister, I put out a specific statement in respect of the events that unfolded at the time of the funeral. As the noble Lord has said, the response is being investigated—and it is right that those actions are fully investigated. What unfolded on our screens was, irrespective of where you stand on the issues that divide people in the Holy Land, something that no one deserved. The sanctity of life is important, and the funeral of someone who has tragically been killed—or any funeral—has to be respected for the dignity of the deceased. We will continue, as we have done, to call on the Israeli authorities to open an investigation. I know that, equally, the Palestinian Authority is looking at an investigation. We believe that it needs to be impartial so that it can establish the facts on the ground, and we will continue to work constructively with both sides.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the bravery and courage of journalists reporting from war zones and caught up in the crossfire knows no bounds, and my sympathy and prayers are with the family of Shireen Abu Aqla. However, does my noble friend the Minister share my sympathies and prayers for the families of Oren Ben Yiftah, father of six; Yonatan Havakuk, father of five; and Boaz Gol, father of six? They were all hacked to death with axes and knives by Palestinian terrorists on 5 May.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in joining my noble friend in prayers for the family of Shireen Abu Aqla, I am sure that I speak for all Members of your Lordships’ House, irrespective of what our positions are or where the Government or anyone else may stand, when I say that while we ultimately seek and hope for peace and security for all, I condemn any shocking or tragic death and express our solidarity with those who suffer the tragedy of such actions. This underlines the importance of achieving a resolution to the conflict. It is important that we strive to find peace in the Holy Land.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it is sad but not surprising that the general opinion piles in to find that Israel is guilty before any investigation is carried out. Will the Minister encourage the Palestinians to hand over the relevant evidence—I believe it is a bullet, and we hope that it will be the right one—for investigation? Will he also encourage the Palestinians to stop their “pay for slay” policy whereby the families of assassins who are in prison are given salaries? That would be one way to cut down the amount of tragic bloodshed in that area.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the tragic killing of Shireen Abu Aqla, it is important that we have made the UK’s position clear. Indeed, on 13 May, with other members of the UN Security Council, we not only condemned the killing but stressed the importance of an
“immediate, thorough, transparent, fair and impartial investigation”
and the need to ensure accountability. In this respect, anyone who has evidence in support of such an investigation needs to bring that forward. It is also important to say that no one who commits these acts achieves any goal towards the important path of peace. What we need at this time is reflection on the tragedy that continues to engulf all communities across Israel and the Palestinian territories but, equally, to ensure that the structures and justice systems act to bring justice for those who suffer as a consequence of these tragic acts.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the scenes at the funeral were terrible but it is completely wrong for people to attribute all the blame to Israel for this tragedy, when it occurred during a gun battle launched by terrorists trying to prevent the arrest of people responsible for the sort of attacks we have just heard about, and when one of those gunmen was heard saying that he had shot a soldier when in fact no soldiers were hit. This might explain why the Palestinian Authority has refused to allow the bullet that we just heard about to be examined and has refused to hold a joint investigation.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, that is why we have been very clear in saying that the investigation has to take place. It needs to be impartial and to ensure that all evidence is included. As I have said—I say it time and again as someone who has visited Israel, not just officially but with my family, and who has also visited the Palestinian territories—there is much that those communities find in common. It is important that we now find minds that can bring this conflict to a resolution. Ultimately, for every life lost there is a family, whether Israeli or Palestinian, that has to endure the loss. This tragedy has to come to an end.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we have time for just two more so we will take a Lib Dem first.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister did not quite answer the question of whether he thought it feasible and valuable to have a joint investigation. The bullet is clearly an essential piece of evidence. He talks about an impartial investigation; does he believe it should be a joint one?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, that has certainly been put forward, and the Israeli side has called for a joint investigation. As I have said, one hopes that both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli authorities can come to an agreement to ensure that the evidence necessary to any investigation is fully provided, so that we have that impartial investigation. One hopes that that bridge can be crossed, so that there can be agreement on the investigation.
With the indulgence of the House, I will also take the second question as the Whip indicated.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Shireen was an American Palestinian Catholic member of the press. We have seen just from the interventions in this House that opinion is divided as to how she was murdered. In those circumstances, does my noble friend agree that the only way to make sure that we get to the bottom of who killed—assassinated —Shireen is to have an independent investigation, independent of those accused of being involved?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, of course, as I have said already, the United Kingdom Government have been very clear that what is needed is an investigation that is
“immediate, thorough, transparent, fair and impartial”.
It is important for all involved in that investigation to come together. Ultimately, we want to see those who were responsible for the killing of Shireen to be brought to justice.
Queen’s Speech
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which was addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of all noble Lords, I thank Her Majesty for her gracious Speech. I am grateful for the privilege of opening today’s debate on the Motion for an humble Address. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Her Majesty for the outstanding service and dedication to our country over these last 70 years. Her Majesty is deservedly held in the highest regard and deepest affection across the country and around the world, and it is an honour to serve in her Government.
Today, I will outline the Government’s plans regarding education, welfare, health and public services. These are at the heart of our mission to level up: to spread opportunity right across the country so that no matter where someone lives, where they were born or who their parents are, no matter what their background, health condition or circumstance, they can access excellent public services to improve their quality of life and realise their potential.
To deliver this levelling-up agenda, our public services and the Civil Service need to be set up in the right way so that we can deliver in an efficient and timely way for all parts of the UK, while we also focus on delivering front-line reforms that will improve lives: such as the Schools Bill that will level up standards in schools so they deliver for every child; by strengthening the academy trust system and supporting more schools to become academies; reforming attendance measures; and delivering the long-standing commitment of a direct national funding formula. Alongside this, it will improve the protection of children across a range of educational settings, making sure that the most vulnerable are not falling through the cracks.
The Government will also introduce a Bill to ensure our post-18 education system promotes real social mobility, is financially sustainable and will support young people to get the skills they need to meet their career aspirations and help grow the economy. In addition, the Government are fulfilling our 2019 manifesto commitment by taking steps to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities in England. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and directly address gaps within the existing law, including the lack of a clear enforcement mechanism. This will help ensure that, as a country, we have the skills our economy and employers need for the future while providing young people with the very best start in life, so they can pave a solid path towards their future. Developing the right skills is key to unlocking greater prospects and prosperity for young people and adults alike. That is why the Prime Minister introduced the lifetime skills guarantee, so adults have the opportunity to gain new qualifications for free to help them to gain in-demand skills and secure great jobs.
We understand that there are some people in this country who, for a variety of reasons, cannot work and we are committed to providing the support these people need. That is why we are spending £242 billion overall on welfare and £64 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions in Great Britain this year. Understanding people’s personal circumstances is an integral part of the universal credit system. Each claimant signs a claimant commitment, which is a mutually agreed contract between the claimant and the department. Sanctions are at very low levels and will be administered only when a claimant fails to comply with a requirement in the commitment, which is tailored to each claimant’s circumstances.
We know, however, that for those who are able to, work is the best and most sustainable route to raising living standards and lifting people out of poverty, and we want as many people as possible to take advantage of this and stand on their own two feet. The evidence shows that working-age adults in a job are around six times less likely to be in absolute poverty after housing costs than those not working. The latest data from 2019-20 shows there were 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty before housing costs compared to 2010, with nearly 1 million fewer workless households and almost 540,000 fewer children living in workless households than in 2010. During this time, we have placed a sustained focus on making work pay—for example, through universal credit, and we entered the pandemic with the highest levels of employment this country has ever seen.
Since then, our plan for jobs, together with the great work of our jobcentre work coaches across the country, has been hugely successful in supporting, creating and protecting jobs and helping people get the skills and experience they need to move into, or back into, work. For example, sector-based work academies have supported people to move from struggling to surging sectors such as social care and engineering. Our job entry targeted support programme, which we have extended to September, supports the recently unemployed with specialist advice on how people can move into growing sectors, as well as with CV and interview coaching. Restart is providing intensive support for claimants unemployed for more than nine months and we aim to help 1 million people by June 2024. Kickstart has enabled over 162,000 jobs to be started by young people. Unemployment is now back to low levels, as we saw before Covid. In fact, today’s labour market stats show that the unemployment rate fell to 3.7% in the first three months of the year, which is the lowest since 1974.
In 2017, the Government set a goal to see 1 million more disabled people in employment between 2017 and 2027. The latest figures show that between this quarter and the same quarter in 2017 the number of disabled people in employment increased by 1.3 million, meaning that the goal has been met in half the time set and demonstrating just how much progress has been made. Through our disability and health White Paper, which we will publish later this year, we will set out our plans to help even more disabled people to start, stay and succeed in work where possible, and to live independently through a more effective health and disability benefits system.
We are committed to improving the nation’s mental health by modernising the Mental Health Act and will shortly publish a draft mental health Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. It will contain draft measures that will allow for greater patient choice and autonomy, help us address racial disparities that currently exist within the Act and make it easier for people with learning disabilities or autism to be discharged from hospital.
We also need to focus on education. The special educational needs and disabilities—SEND—Green Paper, for example, aims to deliver a more inclusive education system with excellent local mainstream provision providing targeted support at the right time for those with special educational needs.
Through the Conversion Therapy Bill, we will continue our commitment to ensuring the safety of individuals by bringing forward a ban that protects everyone from attempts to change their sexual orientation. Recognising the complexity of issues, we will progress work to consider the issue of transgender conversion therapy further. Our actions to protect people from conversion therapy extend beyond legislating. We will deliver a support service for victims via a contracted helpline and website, which will provide initial pastoral support and signpost to services such as counselling and advice about emergency housing. This support service will be open to everyone who has been through, or is going through, conversion therapy, regardless of their background or identity.
Although it is a huge achievement to have the lowest unemployment since 1974, after the last two years we have been through, we know that many people up and down the country face huge pressures at the moment with the rising cost of living. We are keeping measures under review and doing all we can to help people, while maintaining a responsible fiscal position to ensure that we can continue to provide support in the longer term.
As we heard from the Bank of England, there is absolutely no room for complacency about unemployment and the wider economy. Alongside this, we are taking action to cushion the impact of price rises on people’s pockets, providing £22 billion of support. The Chancellor’s £9 billion energy package provides a £150 discount on council tax for those living in properties in bands A to D and the £144 million discretionary fund is available through local councils. The £200 rebate on energy bills this year will help spread the costs of the expected increase over the next few years. We have also extended the household support fund, providing a further £500 million to help households most in need with the cost of essentials: £421 million is being made available to households in England, as well as £79 million for the devolved authorities.
With more than a million vacancies available in the labour market right now, filling these posts means fulfilling potential and providing help with a pay packet. That is why the DWP is pulling out all the stops to get more people, including disabled people, moving into jobs and, importantly, progressing in them so that they can boost their pay, prospects and prosperity. For example, through our Way to Work scheme, we are getting people into jobs more quickly, with the aim to get 500,000 claimants into work by June. Way to Work is helping people move into any job now, to get a better job tomorrow and build a longer-term career.
To help people progress at work when they land a job, we are rolling out a new national in-work progression offer to provide extra support for claimants to build the skills, confidence and contacts they need to get on at work and move up the career ladder. This is underpinned by the stronger work incentives we have introduced as a result of lowering the universal credit taper rate from 63% to 55% and increasing the work allowance by £500 a year, which means people can keep more of what they earn.
As well helping people progress in the labour market, DWP also helps some of the most vulnerable people in society. That important work is about helping improve people’s quality of life, including those going through the most challenging of times. To improve their lives, we need to continually look at how we can improve the system.
The Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill will ensure that thousands more people nearing the end of life can access benefits sooner, without needing a face-to-face assessment or waiting period. The Bill extends eligibility so that those expected to live for 12 months or less, rather than six, will get fast-tracked access to three disability benefits: personal independence payment, attendance allowance and disability living allowance. It builds on changes we have already made to universal credit and employment support allowance. It will ensure a consistent end-of-life definition across the NHS, and health and welfare services more broadly, and introduces easily understood criteria which support implementation. The changes will ensure that we have a system that works—a system that gives those affected the support they need when they need it, and one that clinicians and charities can engage in with confidence. Above all, it is the right thing to do to help those facing the end of their lives with earlier and faster access to financial support.
At the heart of policies, processes and procedures are people. If we are to deliver on levelling up and break down the barriers people face, we must make sure that the government services on which people rely meet their needs.
That is why I am proud of the landmark British Sign Language Act. It legally recognises British Sign Language and requires the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to report regularly on what each relevant government department has done to promote or facilitate the use of British Sign Language in its communications with the public. This will give us a much better understanding of how British Sign Language is being used across the Government, and how we can continue to improve communication for British Sign Language users.
More widely, the Government are bringing forward Bills to improve the way services are delivered and accessed by the public. The pandemic has shown how important it is that people are able to access government services online. Noble Lords will remember that, as a modern, digital and dynamic system, universal credit successfully stood up at the start of the pandemic when it faced a case load that almost doubled in the first year. Through the OneLogin programme, we will make it easier for more people to use a range of government services online. This will provide a single account for any member of the public in the UK to log in, prove their identity and access all central government services.
Through the procurement reform Bill, we will replace the bureaucratic EU regime for contracting services with a simpler, more flexible commercial system that is better and meets the needs of our country, while also complying with our international obligations.
That is in conjunction with various government initiatives to improve IT systems, such as the modernisation of the Child Maintenance Service. This feeds into the overall reform Bill and underlines the Government’s commitment to continually improve how they operate.
A key part of that is addressing the regional imbalance in where public sector roles are and where government operates from. Through our network of jobcentres, DWP has long forged deep and wide connections to communities across the country. Since the pandemic, we have increased our presence in even more towns and high streets, having opened 194 new jobcentre sites, 160 youth hubs and recruited 13,500 new work coaches. This is helping us to help more people in all corners of the country. Across government, we know we need to do more. That is why we are committed to moving 15,000 civil servants who design and make decisions about public services out of Greater London by 2025 and rooting them in more of the local communities they serve across the country.
Her Majesty’s gracious Speech reflects this Government’s commitment to levelling up across the United Kingdom, underpinned by our focus on changing the way public services are designed and delivered—looking beyond London to all parts of the UK. The reforms to education will spread opportunities and level up standards, ensuring that everyone can get the best from, and out of, school and higher education so that people can thrive in work and have the talent and skills our economy needs for the future.
Together with DWP’s expert support and focus on improving people’s quality of life, we want every person and every community to have hope, pride, opportunities and the satisfaction and dignity of knowing they achieved their potential and are not forgotten. My noble friend Lady Barran and I look forward to hearing all noble Lords’ valuable reflections on the measures I have outlined.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, today’s debate covers some of the most important issues to a well-functioning society. I am delighted to be speaking to them on behalf of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition.
Arguably, education, welfare, health and social care and public services are critical and central to the Government’s latest populist phrase, levelling up. That is why it is so regrettable that the measures announced in the Queen’s Speech do precious little to make a real difference—if any—in these areas.
Schools and universities across the UK have been profoundly impacted by the pandemic. It is well documented that there is a disparity in this impact between schools in deprived areas and in the most affluent, yet despite the scale of the challenges schools are facing—indeed, the Sutton Trust found that one in three headteachers are using pupil premium funds to plug general budget gaps—this Government’s response is a desperately sparse Schools Bill.
It is a gaping hole of a Bill and consists mostly of one-size-fits-all academisation—we do not have it in Wales, that is why I cannot say it—on which the data is lacking or mixed at best, and formal naming and shaming of truant children through imposing compulsory attendance registers for schools. It is narrow in scope with little ambition and sparse policy, with 32 clauses on the governance of academies and 15 clauses on funding arrangements. It gives it an ideological approach rather than looking at the evidence.
How many more times are the Government going to rearrange the classroom desks, hoping for a better outcome? Where is the wide-ranging, substantiated plan to support children’s pandemic recovery? Where are the proposals to improve teaching standards or tackle the absolute exodus of burnt-out school staff? Where is the vision to equip our students with the skills they will need in the industries of the future, in an ever more globalised and technologically advanced economy?
In stark contrast, Labour is ambitious for every single child and every single precious teacher. Our children’s recovery plan would train up to 6,500 new teachers and give them ongoing professional development. We should not settle for less than world-class standards of teaching. We would introduce breakfast clubs, as we have in Wales, so every child starts the day with a proper meal. We would have afterschool activities, so every child gets to learn and experience art, music, drama and sport, as enjoyed by pupils in the private sector on Wednesday afternoons. We would introduce mental health support in our schools, because every report tells us that children’s development has fallen behind in the pandemic.
There would be targeted and funded continued professional development for teachers, which is absolutely vital for the workforce. There would be extra investment, right from early years through to further education, to support those children at risk of falling behind, because attainment gaps open up early and they need tackling early. Gains made in the early part of this century imploded during the savage cuts to public services imposed by this Government over 12 long years. In order to address this appalling deficit, we would go further to lock in the gains of a recovery programme for the long term. To ensure that education readies pupils for a rapidly advancing world of work, we would provide professional careers advice and work experience for all.
In the Government’s plans, higher education fares no better than schools. Instead of introducing measures to alleviate universities’ challenging financial contexts or reduce the record high number of student complaints in 2021 about their courses to the OIA, the Government have seen fit to give struggling universities two baffling, and in places troubling, Bills.
The higher education Bill will consider minimum qualification requirements for student finance and a cap on student numbers. Both are vehemently opposed by universities. As well as its huge adverse impact on social mobility, which expert bodies such as the IFS have pointed to, it is coupled with a worse still carryover—the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Your Lordships may remember that my party in the other place voted against this Bill at Second Reading, such was our concern about its enabling of hate speech and the potential financial implications for universities. Culture-warmongering and wedge-issue politics, again unsupported by any evidence, simply do not deserve a place in any Queen’s Speech—not when so many real problems for higher education remain.
The Government’s approach on social care goes alongside their failure on childcare. It is not fair and is unworkable, because the least able will pay the most. If your house is worth £150,000, you will lose almost everything while the wealthiest in society are protected. As for social care, on which the Government have not planned for any new legislation, I can assume only that they think the measures contained in the recent Health and Care Act are sufficient to deal with soaring care costs and a staggering staffing crisis. There is no mention of dentists, so critical to people’s quality of life, who are leaving the NHS in droves. This week is the Alzheimer’s Society’s Dementia Action Week, and the focus is on the theme of diagnosis. An acute diagnosis is the current state of our social care. Do the Government even mention the forgotten and undervalued millions of unpaid carers?
When it comes to welfare, Labour is on the side of working people. That is why we have set out our plans to reduce the taper rate when we replace universal credit, to allow those on low incomes to keep more of what they earn.
I regret having to give such a pessimistic speech, but I am afraid I have little positive to say about the Speech’s health Bills or, I should say, its solitary Bill. We do, however, welcome the long-overdue overhaul of the Mental Health Act.
After 12 years of Conservative underfunding, the NHS went into the pandemic with record waiting lists, 100,000 staff vacancies and 6 million people waiting for treatment. For any of this to work, the commitments are dependent on a sustainable workforce—our fantastic front-line staff, of whom there are simply too few right now. My dear late mother suffered greatly with mental health issues and we were entirely dependent on the wonderful NHS service we had available to us to support her in-patient and out-patient recovery; I dread to think what would be available to us now. Crucially, Labour wants to guarantee mental health treatment within a month for all who need it, and to place specialist mental health support in every school, resulting in over 1 million more people receiving support each year.
There is also the lack of a women’s health strategy, which was promised by the Government at the end of last year but has yet to appear. This is coupled with the latest announcement of the Government’s delay to restricting advertising on foods high in fat, salt or sugar. The department’s own impact assessment shows that these promotions result in additional spending for an average household—in an acute cost of living crisis.
I hope I have begun to shine a light on where the Government are falling far short on our public services. I must point out that, if their party had the last Labour Government’s record on the growth of the economy, there would be £40 billion more to spend on them, without having to resort to punishing tax rises.
In conclusion, I have spent my life as a public servant—as a teacher, a councillor and the leader of a council. I genuinely despair of the Government’s legislative plans for health and social care, education, welfare and public services. They are lacking in ambition and vision, and I would have hoped that, out of a total of nearly 40 Bills, we might have seen one Bill of true substance in at least one of these critical areas that are so crucial to a well-functioning society. As it is, it will fall to us parliamentarians to probe and push and negotiate our way to legislation that delivers real outcomes and some hope for the public. If that means sitting here in this House until the early hours of the morning to defend the indefensible, so be it. After too many years of a Conservative Government, it is our duty, and we will willingly fight for what is right and proper for the people of Britain. We will continue to seek Labour’s vision that this is the best place in which to grow up and to grow old.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a vice-chair on the All-Party Group on Adult Social Care. I start by echoing the Minister’s tribute to Her Majesty the Queen and will add how good it was to see her using her Oyster card today on the new Elizabeth line.
A Queen’s Speech is obviously about legislation, the economy and finances, and the priorities of a Government. But it is also an indicator of the attitude and approach of a Government to how they are going to govern. The last five years have meant that they have had to face some extreme challenges; some of this Government’s own making—Brexit—and some external ones—Covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—to which our Government have had to respond. The cost of living crisis, energy costs, food costs: millions of people are struggling to pay their bills, and with inflation currently at 7%, a 30-year high, this is likely to increase. Public services become even more critical when individuals and families are struggling, and they, too, are finding it difficult.
The Minister referred to the managed migration to universal credit, which has caused real problems for claimants. The Government’s own documents say that of the 2.6 million households still on legacy benefits,
“we estimate around 1.4 million (55%) would have a higher entitlement on UC, 300,000 would see no change and approximately 900,000 households (35%) would have a lower entitlement.”
But the poorest in our society already face impossible pressures on their costs, and for nearly 1 million households to face a lower entitlement because of a migration to a new benefit is a disgrace.
The Government say they understand the problem, but unfortunately there is no real offer of help for the people who are already having to choose between heating and eating, and who are not in a position to take on extra work, as one MP suggested yesterday, or to cook better. Instead, this Government will raise an additional £13.8 billion through personal taxes this year. That is why from the Liberal Democrat Benches we say that VAT should be reduced immediately, saving the average family £600 a year, and there should be an emergency Budget: these families need action right now.
The Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill, extending the period of terminal illness from six to 12 months to be eligible for special provisions, is also very welcome, but I hope that Ministers will also guarantee a speedy decision within a few days of notification, rather than using the extra time to delay implementation.
I am looking forward to my noble friend Lord Storey’s contribution on the Schools Bill, but I want to make a brief point on Part 3, to do with the register of children out of school. While it is absolutely vital that there is a record of where school-age children are, the Secretary of State announcing the naming and shaming of children not in school and their parents, as well as increasing the criminal penalties for parents, is very worrying, including for those parents who wish to home school.
Criminalising parents and naming and shaming children is completely inappropriate when a child, for example, has been so severely bullied that they are traumatised and waiting for a CAMHS appointment to start therapy, which currently can take 18 months to two years. It is also completely inappropriate that children who are immunocompromised, for example on chemotherapy, are currently forced to go into school without special measures and ventilation, even though their consultants say that these children cannot live with Covid. Parents of some of these children are currently being taken to court and fined.
Any register must record why a child is absent, and specialist advice, such as that of a hospital consultant, should be followed. This means alternative provision online may be needed and should be both provided and fully funded. Covid has also laid bare the inadequacies of too many school buildings, whether in terms of ventilation, appropriate space to learn in, or safety features, so we need an urgent investment in our school estate.
I have talked already about the increase in living costs, but many disabled people need much more heating than most families, and there are some who need to run life-saving equipment, such as ventilators and heart monitors, overnight. I have had family experience of this with my granddaughter. People in this particular group are very easy to help, because they are registered with their local energy supplier for emergency help in the event of a sustained power cut—so why cannot these disabled people be given grants to cover the extra costs that they face through no fault of their own?
More generally, disabled children cannot access the healthcare and other services that they have a right to. Forty-three per cent of families with disabled children have waited more than a year to get respite care, and more than four in 10 disabled children have waited more than a year for an operation.
The lack of funding available in local councils means that more parents of disabled children have had to take their local authority to tribunal to get the support they are entitled to. Lest you do not believe me, in 96% of hearings, the tribunal supports the parents. These children deserve that support, and frankly our local authorities deserve the funding that they need to deliver it.
Disabled people still face problems with transport and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, who in his speech last week reminded us that when the Disability Discrimination Bill of 1995 was in Committee, the Minister said that
“taxis newly licensed must, as a condition of licence, be accessible to all disabled people, including those who use wheelchairs.”—[Official Report, 15/6/1995; col. 2035.]
In addition to that, we heard only two days ago of BBC correspondent Frank Gardner being stuck yet again on a plane because Heathrow’s disabled service had failed. There are many other problems. Nearly three decades after the Disability Discrimination Bill was passed, our taxi service can still opt out of carrying wheelchair users, and people can still just sit and wait on aeroplanes.
I turn now to working disabled people. NHS England has just reported that, even in the NHS, disabled staff are nearly twice as likely to face formal capability questions about whether they can do their job properly. NHS England is now asking trusts to look at whether they are doing that unfairly.
From these Benches, we have concerns about the Bill of Rights. We believe that it will further take away the rights of those with protected characteristics, including disabled people, who can currently rely on the positive obligations placed on public authorities by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill of Rights will cut those positive obligations and severely weaken people’s ability to access their rights under the convention.
Banning conversion therapy is absolutely the right thing to do. However, it is not right to exclude trans and non-binary people from the ban, thereby allowing conversion abuse to continue to take place against two groups of people with protected characteristics.
I am pleased that the mental health reform Bill is coming into the process this year. It is a very important Bill and the Minister was right to say that. People definitely need a stronger say in their treatment. However, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Local Government Association and many other stakeholders make the vital point that mental health reform must also include fully resourced funding for mental health services on the front line, training mental health professionals, workforce planning and community services. It is also vital that those with learning disabilities are not kept in secure accommodation. This is a scandal of which we should all be ashamed and which I hope will be ended by the Bill.
Mental health is part of a wider health crisis. This is undoubtedly partly as a result of Covid, but many of the current problems are long-standing and point to a lack of investment over the last 10 years and an unwillingness in Ministers to tackle them honestly. The NHS is undoubtedly in crisis and doing the best that it can, as it always does, while its staff is exhausted, understaffed and demoralised. The most visible points are the ambulance crisis leading to an A&E crisis, the lack of clinical staff and the cuts in capital spend, resulting in too many NHS trusts delivering services in poor buildings.
Today, a paramedic noted that her first patient of the day in her ambulance was now in a queue at the local A&E department. She commented that if today was like her last shift, she would spend the entire shift with this one patient in this one car park. This is not a one-off; it is happening all over the country every day. A&E departments are stuck because beds cannot be freed up, since patients cannot be sent from other wards into residential or nursing care—or even to their own homes—if there are no carers to look after them. The social care sector continues to see staff leaving for better paid jobs, including in the NHS, without being in a position to charge more for their services. Instead of real help, Ministers and the press continue to attack the NHS and the care sector. They attack the NHS for having too many managers, but the NHS’s 2% compares well to the German and French healthcare systems, which have more than double that figure.
From these Benches, we hoped to see more about tackling the inequalities in our health system. Whether they are based on deprivation, ethnicity or disability, we need to address the social determinants of health. Instead of cutting public health budgets, as happened to the UKHSA last month, we should be investing in food reformulation, tobacco bans and social prescribing. Until this happens, the focus will be on those already ill, rather than preventing them becoming ill.
Above all, everyone involved in the health and social care sector is looking to the Government to plan and invest in the workforce. The NHS staff survey published as recently as March found that 52% of staff said that they cannot do their jobs properly because of staff shortages. Vacancies across the NHS are now back to their pre-pandemic levels, with over 110,000 full-time-equivalent empty posts. Some 48% of advertised consultant posts are unfilled; this needs to be addressed urgently.
Finally, I ask the Minister why unpaid carers’ leave is once again not in the Queen’s Speech, despite it being a Conservative Party manifesto commitment. Over half of working carers say that they needed unpaid carers’ leave to help them juggle work and care. Despite commitments to help carers at the end of the passage of the Health and Care Bill, the Government have once again let carers down. Ministers talk of levelling up, but I fear that the Government are not listening to the evidence of how the current cost-of-living crisis and the cuts to our public services are affecting the most vulnerable in our country.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an unpaid ambassador for UNAIDS. I would like to concentrate upon health, particularly public health.
I remember intervening on a Question on HIV/AIDS three or four years ago. As I sat down, the Member next to me on those Benches said, “Of course, no one dies from AIDS any more”. The campaign of the 1980s was a distant memory, and AIDS no longer dominated the headlines—but, of course, his statement was not true then, and it is not true today. AIDS has been a deadly scourge, which has lasted for at least 40 years. Over 33 million people have died from AIDS-related illnesses since the start of the epidemic. Even today, 700,000 people a year die from AIDS—men, women and children, particularly young girls. It is an appalling toll, and one which this country must make every available effort to reduce and eliminate. We are now relatively fortunate in the UK but, even so, there are still well over 100,000 people living with HIV and all the problems that it brings: ill health, isolation and, above all, discrimination.
Other countries have not been so fortunate. If you take Ukraine—which I visited a few years ago to study its position—before the Russian invasion, it faced one of the worst and most serious HIV problems of any country in Europe, mainly from injecting drugs. Russia itself was much worse. However, in the last years the position in Ukraine had improved—thanks to the work of local and international organisations, including some from this country—but is now dramatically under challenge. The conflict has put the improvement at risk. Ukraine now faces formidable difficulties, including the dangers involved in getting drugs through and the risk to life that this entails, and the plight of those who are displaced and have become refugees.
The basic point I wish to make in this very short contribution is that although public attention may have drained away from HIV and AIDS, they still pose an enormous challenge to this country and the world—one that can increase because of new events such as war. In these circumstances, the question is: what can Britain do to help in this challenge?
Prejudice is a very serious issue. Perhaps we should say that although there have been Acts of Parliament that do away with the outright persecution of people such as Alan Turing—they are behind us—that does not deal with the whole problem. Changing law does not mean that all attitudes have changed, and individual examples become more important. At this point, may I say that I think the footballer Jake Daniels of Blackpool, who has taken a lead by coming out as gay only a day or so ago, is a magnificent example to this country?
However, we as a country need to be generous not only inside but outside. I remind the House again of my interest in the UN. In my view, our record over the past few years has been deficient. Frankly, it was a hell of a time to cut back on overseas aid. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary published a new strategy. One part of that will be to make aid delivered more directly—we assume, by the Foreign Office—and a large slice will be taken away from organisations such as the United Nations and, I assume, UNAIDS that have undoubted experience, expertise and commitment. “Aid for trade” may make a convenient political slogan, but it is not, I suspect, a banner under which the small army of volunteers that we have in this country march. Let us be absolutely clear: if it was not for that contribution, this country would be in serious difficulties.
I am sceptical about what the Foreign Secretary is announcing. The banner that young people would march under would be one concerned with saving lives and preventing illness rather than some connection with trade. I say to the Government that I need to be convinced that the strategy set out by the Foreign Secretary at this stage is the right one to take this country forward.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the Motion for the humble Address. I declare my interests as outlined in the register. There is much in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech to commend it to your Lordships’ House. However, it is unfortunate that it did not include any detailed remarks on the relationship between health disparities and the levelling-up agenda. While there was a valid emphasis on restoring the strength of the economy, it was a shame to hear so little detail on the circumstances that will enable us to economically bounce back: namely, our health.
Thankfully, the actual levelling-up report highlighted health as one of its mission areas, stating:
“By 2030, the gap in Healthy Life Expectancy … between local areas where it is highest and lowest will have narrowed”,
and that, by 2035, healthy life expectancy will rise by five years. The measurement of these missions, along with an independent body to ensure that they are seen through, will be vital to their success and essential in the wider context of health inequalities which we are facing post pandemic. Without these metrics and this accountability, we may well miss the goal of levelling up entirely.
The Health Foundation’s analysis shows that it will take 200 years to meet the goals named in the levelling-up White Paper, meaning that we are at least two generations away from a more equitable society. This is if we maintain what we are currently doing—and we are not. We are losing our healthcare workforce faster than we are replacing it. With a falling number of GPs, dentists and nurses and increasing pressure on the NHS, we are overlooking prevention of ill health and, by not investing sufficiently now in health coverage, we are storing up increased expenditure in the NHS in future. We need a comprehensive and integrated approach to restoring our collective well-being. To achieve the ambitious and worthwhile health missions of the levelling-up White Paper, we must be direct, pragmatic and specifically work them into legislation.
Last year, I launched a Health Inequalities Action Group, bringing together parliamentarians, interfaith leaders, health specialists and civil society leaders to explore how we can improve health outcomes across London and the social circumstances that surround them. In 2022, we hosted a series of community consultations to capture the different experiences. Through this work, we have found that faith groups, if sustainably supported, can continue to improve the work of statutory and civil society organisations to action complex health and social interventions. The action group is drawing out case studies of public health interventions that are modelled on relationships, trust and the mobilisation of resources.
One case study was the visionary community health worker pilot initiated by Westminster City Council. These public health professionals are trusted, permanent and regular visitors who are integrated in the community and connected to the local primary care teams and other relevant bodies necessary for community flourishing. This pilot was modelled after the Brazilian family health strategy, which began in 1994 and is now the primary care system in Brazil.
Brazil shares many of our disparities; research in this area by British GPs who have worked in Brazil laid out a rationale for why we should use this system in the UK. A national study in Brazil, featured in the British Medical Journal, showed that residents in areas with a long-standing coverage of community healthcare workers had a 34% lower cardiovascular disease mortality rate compared to areas without them. The benefits of such an approach to community care, and arguably the entire levelling-up programme, are clear.
I have said before that the vision we should be striving for is one of mutual flourishing, generosity and abundance. This is also known as the Jewish and biblical concept of shalom, which can be summarised as experiencing wholeness or a state of being without gaps. Together with those working for a more whole and healthy society, I would like this Government to act in line with the NHS long-term plan, which focuses on prevention and early intervention to reduce healthcare costs and the burden of disease. I would like this Government to adopt models and practices that embody efforts to design a more holistic health service—this is in effect aimed at achieving shalom—not just the absence of disease. It is an approach that needs to happen if we are to take the levelling-up agenda seriously.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about health again in this debate.
One of the many things that transpired from the Covid epidemic was the many acts of kindness, thoughtfulness and active help that the people of this country gave to each other. Lonely people were sadly deprived of company, but they received from kindly neighbours food and encouragement within the restrictive social distancing measures.
The country is now facing a number of huge crises, including the obesity epidemic, inflation and huge increases in the cost of heating our homes. More than ever, huge swathes of the public need help, encouragement, compassion and love. What is needed is an even greater increase in the already many acts of kindness and love shown to those who need it most. We cannot expect central and local government to supply all the answers, but we know that the vast majority of people in this country are willing to help one another in this great time of need.
There are so many practical ways in which help can be delivered, such as visiting lonely people, helping them with their food shopping, generally befriending and comforting them, and being cheerful friends. There are other activities, such as babysitting, childminding and transporting people to and fro, especially to GP surgeries and hospitals. Then there is encouraging families in wise shopping and cooking at home, and helping them to discover cheap sources of food that are more nutritious and healthier than a lot of the junk food presently on the market. My friend the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, reminds us of the Zulu exhortation, “Vuk’uzenzele”. In case any of your Lordships are not familiar with the Zulu language, it means, “Just get on and do it”.
One of the impacts of these crises is that some people are having to skip one meal every day. This may be all right for some of us, but it is a very difficult situation to be in when it is forced on hard-working people with few resources. We really need to work together to show compassion and practical help for the many who need it.
We need to avoid blaming one another for these disasters and problems. Being angry and blaming other people does not harm those so attacked, but it does a great deal of damage to those who indulge in the blame game, the anger game, the paying-off-old-scores game and revenge. These emotions tend to wreck the immune system and lead to more illness, more hospitalisations and greater strains on an already stressed health service.
We have a long tradition of Christian service and the service given by many of different faiths or no faith. The Church has a very important role in setting an example in these areas. After all, it is from our Christian foundations that this country’s hospitals and schools were set up in the first place and its welfare system developed. It is to be hoped that the bishops will support a unified vision to encourage us all. Of course, this may require putting aside personal party politics for the sake of being of one in spirit and of one mind.
When a politician was being badly treated and repeatedly interrupted on a television programme, he said, “Excuse me, sir. When you entered this BBC building at Langham Place, did you notice the advice inscribed in stone on the wall of the entrance?” The interviewer shook his head; he had not seen the exhortation, which had been there since 1922. It reads, from the New Testament,
“that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness.”
What the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, said in Zulu bears repetition: “Vuk’uzenzele”—just get on and do it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, we had a small issue with the timer that has now been resolved, so perhaps this is a good opportunity to remind noble Lords that the advisory Back-Bench speaking time is five minutes.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register—in this case especially as master of Fitzwilliam College and a trustee of the Education Policy Institute, because I will talk briefly about the Government’s priorities in education in the Queen’s Speech.
Many noble Lords all around this House have served in government, as Ministers or in No. 10. I suspect that many of us have the same view: that in government, the overwhelming priority should be to work to meet the needs of the whole country and not to govern with the party in power’s electoral interests as the paramount concern. I suspect that, at least privately, many share my real anxiety, and indeed distress, for the functioning of our democracy that that approach seems to be no longer functioning. Instead we have a sort of permanent campaign, dividing lines, political games and token gestures to appeal to elements of the electorate or the media, not serious programmes of government.
I am not naive—I was in No. 10 for eight years—but I maintain that for many Members across this House, of whatever party or none, the broad approach to government, if not necessarily the policies, is the same. But that priority—that governing principle, if you like —does not now seem to be paramount. By the way, that is not to say that individual Ministers do not work in that way, but everyone knows that the overall direction, priorities, purpose and principles come from the top.
We are told that the flagship policy is the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and it sounds utterly laudable and much needed to improve productivity, boost economic growth, encourage innovation, create good jobs and enhance educational attainment. What is not to like? Unfortunately, the devil is in the detail: a combination of inadequate, small measures and a few political pieces of gesture politics.
Other days will have covered the vote on verandas, so let me talk about education. First, early years education: where is it? We have known for the past several decades that high-quality early years provision is essential. It is why many of our competitors are flying educationally. Sustained quality investment gives a strong grounding for school and beyond. We also know that the gap widened during Covid and is likely to get worse as a result of the cost-of-living crisis. So far as I can see, the only conversation at the moment confuses early years education with childcare and the only measure relates to the cost of childcare provision per child.
If you look at schools, we all know what the problem is. We all understand that there is a widening gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils. There is the effect of Covid, low aspiration, poor results, and poorer teaching and leadership in the poorest parts of the country. We all know that. What has to be done is not rocket science—we saw it in London Challenge and in other areas: a very clear dedicated team, sustained delivery, a focus on performance and leadership, and tackling teachers to make sure that we get the best to the poorest schools.
I agree with new governance where it is helpful—and I was certainly involved in city academies—but not for the sake of it. It should genuinely bring new skills and energy, a mixture of carrot and stick. We know that that leads to better outcomes, so we know that there is a blueprint. The Government’s response in the Queen’s Speech, frankly, is pretty pathetic. There is no proper recovery plan. There is no coherent levelling-up agenda; bits of little measures are scattered around the place but there is no real long-term interest or investment to make change happen. There are just little initiatives such as joining a MAT by 2030. That is about structures, not quality. We have got to have sustained progress, not headlines.
To be clear, I never excuse failure and poor outcomes but the deal has to be proper, practical support, sustained policy and investment. Frankly, for many years there has been a level of consensus across the parties about the priorities, and that is now being or has been broken.
On HE—that potential engine of economic growth and levelling up, a massive route to push productivity and improve skill levels, regionally and sub-regionally—at the moment, we have the leftover Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. I will not go there because I know we will spend time on that on other occasions. I look forward to the promised HE Bill that the Government have still to bring through. I hope they are serious about promoting practical policies.
Finally, I wait with real interest to see what advice will now be given to the Office for Students after the Secretary of State’s interview in the Times. Are we really saying that investment does not matter? Are we really saying that we are going to stop encouraging poorer applicants? I do not doubt the need for a sophisticated approach to admissions to good universities. That, frankly, would be very welcome. But a simplistic exams grade only approach will not be fair, will break well-established focuses on realising potential and especially will not encourage disadvantaged students, those with huge ambition and potential, and will not be good for the UK economy. Please let us together stop the campaigning and talk about governing.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I receive disability living allowance. I shall make just one point, but it is an important one for disabled people and must be looked at in the light of the cost-of-living crisis. It is the unacceptable delay in the waiting time for PIP—the personal independence payment—which helps people with long-term conditions manage their day-to-day living costs and get around. The delay I am talking about in the whole application process is now about six months and is particularly tough with the cost of living rising so fast.
PIP is a most welcome benefit as it is not means-tested and not taxed. It is an in-work as well as out-of-work benefit. Put simply, it helps to enable thousands of disabled people to keep going. To apply for PIP, either by phone or online, an extensive form must be filled in. An assessment is then undertaken by one of the DWP’s outsourced companies, usually either face to face or by phone. A DWP decision-maker then reviews the claim and either awards the benefit for a certain time or turns it down. At the height of the pandemic, there were understandable delays in this whole process, but it is not acceptable that the delays seem to be getting worse rather than better.
Making an assessment is not always straightforward, and this is especially true for those with fluctuating conditions, who must be affected more than 50% of the time to qualify for the benefit. At this point, I welcome the new Bill, which extends the right of those at the end of life to apply for disability benefits in a fast-track procedure. But for those who have a progressive long-term condition, such as a muscle-wasting disease, this is not a fluctuating condition but one that will progressively get worse. However, even those with progressive conditions are having to wait a very long time to receive an award.
Being disabled is very expensive. As well as perhaps needing extra heating or special food, many disabled people have appliances such as a hoist, an electric bed, a stairlift or a through-floor lift, all of which need power. As for help getting around, a Motability vehicle would be available if a claimant received the enhanced rate mobility element of PIP. Yet thousands of PIP claimants are waiting six months for a decision and cannot lease a Motability vehicle until the award is given.
I urge the Government to take immediate action to address the delays in the system. Why is it getting worse? Has the DWP recruited enough staff to deal with PIP assessments? Are there any plans to deploy DWP staff instead of using outsourced companies? We know that the population is getting older, so more people are likely to need disability benefits in the future. But we need to be sure that the whole process is working properly, which it clearly is not at the moment. I look forward to the Minister’s reply or a letter if that is more appropriate.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the National Society and co-chair of the Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households.
A key question for evaluating the legislative agenda laid out in the gracious Speech is: are we, as a nation, prioritising the holistic well-being of all our children? I welcome the forthcoming Schools Bill. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State’s approach in constructively working with us to enable churches to have confidence in moving towards a system where all schools can be in a strong academy trust, maintaining their own ethos. The whole system must provide an education not solely pursuing the ends of maths and literacy but enabling children to be the best people they can be and to contribute to transforming the schools in which we live.
Small, rural schools pose a particular challenge. The Church of England provides around 65% of rural primary schools in England. The key to their flourishing is not simply the means for academic achievement; it also requires investment in rural economies so the whole community flourishes. I echo the emphases made to that effect in an earlier day of this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. For us, strong trusts are those where the vision, character and ethos promote an education that is, as our national Vision for Education explains,
“Deeply Christian, Serving the Common Good”,
where the vision for every child is that they have
“life in all its fullness”,
which is rooted in wisdom and not simply knowledge.
There are currently 1,250 Church of England academies, but moving to a system where all 4,700 schools are in strong trusts will require significant structural capacity and proper investment in teachers and leaders. Sustaining a culture of teacher excellence is transformative for pupils’ outcomes from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, so I hope that the Minister’s department will be sufficiently resourced for this through a budget which shows commitment to children’s holistic well-being through education.
Speaking of children’s well-being leads me to note the lack of action in the gracious Speech to alleviate the cost of living crisis. Those worst affected are families with children. In the north-east, almost half of families with children under five are in poverty. This is unconscionable. There are also significant concerns about inflation. The complexity in finding solutions requires openness to different routes on all sides to what is, I hope, a shared goal. It is vital that the voices of those who are the most vulnerable are heard and heeded.
My opposition to the two-child limit remains. I am disappointed that the Government have disregarded the overwhelming evidence documenting families being pushed into poverty. Sadly, often direct questions asked in this House regarding its justification have not been answered. It is crucial that we have an opportunity to focus on this, and for that reason I have tabled a Private Member’s Bill to abolish the two-child limit.
Every child is of great value and, as education is prioritised, we must recognise children as whole people whose welfare needs are inextricably linked to their education. I add my voice to the many who have raised their concerns about the progression of the managed migration to universal credit plan and the many unanswered questions regarding the uncompleted pilot, support for claimants and the consequences of failing to navigate the process. Concerns continue about the impact of the five-week wait, up-front childcare costs and accessibility issues. Concerns continue too about the treatment of some child refugees and asylum seekers.
Our children’s flourishing cannot be achieved in a one-dimensional way or only for some. We must ensure that children in larger families, in poverty, in families with no recourse to public funds, victims of trafficking and refugees can flourish at home, at school, in their neighbourhoods and online. I will engage with legislation this year with children’s holistic well-being in mind.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my registered interests as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education, the English Schools’ Orchestra, and several other charities and bodies connected to education.
I welcome greatly the emphasis in the Queen’s Speech on school education and particularly want to mention two potential measures: first, the promise to allocate funding fairly and consistently to all schools; and secondly, the determination to remove the current barriers for some schools to become academies.
First, many of us have had the experience of leaving the school gate, driving up the road for a mile or two, crossing a county border and coming to an almost exactly similar school serving a similar population of young people and discovering that, for almost forgotten historical reasons, the funding of the second school differs from the first by possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds—with all the knock-on effects that this has on the standards of education on offer. That is why a direct funding formula is required and I am very pleased to see that the further development of it is a priority.
This is to continue work begun in the early 1990s by the former Funding Agency for Schools, of which I was vice-chairman. Per capita funding allocated using the same criteria for wherever a child lives in the country is vital and fair. Wholly transparent exceptional adjustments should be made only when it is clear that they are deserved and necessary. Of course, a move to a nationwide formula for resources has to be carried out over a considerable period and with great sensitivity, as there will clearly be winners and losers as a funding increase in one area might lead to a decrease in real terms in others.
On my second concern, I have had meetings with governing bodies of some first-class and well-established schools that would like, in principle, to become academies. They tend to be church schools, voluntary aided or controlled, and selective schools, many of them with long histories that pre-date the introduction of state education. Some date from the 18th and early 19th centuries. They usually have a distinctive ethos; for some, this is a particular faith. The schools are usually owned by boards of trustees and not by the state or local authorities and will have a trust deed. The foundation governors are legally appointed for the purpose of ensuring that the school is preserved and developed in accordance with the trust deed. Their governors, while often attracted in principle to academy status, have expressed to me two major anxieties that often prevent them taking their interest further.
First, the present regulations for converter academies are too restrictive and often require the appointment of governors by outside bodies, unwelcome to a particular school, or the alteration of governance traditions that are centuries old. There should be much more accommodation in the current arrangements to take this into account. The Government should look back at the conversion regulations for grant-maintained schools—these were the precursors of academies. They were allowed to convert largely “as is”, or rather “as was”, as far as their governance arrangements were concerned. So, the current, often inflexible rules should be changed if more voluntary schools are to become academies.
Secondly, these schools have often been used to a special kind of independence within the system and would not wish to be thrust by law, as the recent White Paper seems to imply, into a multi-academy trust with other schools, although they often welcome loose federations with others in their localities. Some governing bodies greatly fear the loss of their autonomy to the bosses of multi-academy trusts and, in my view, with some good reason. Often, these voluntary schools are among the country’s best performing schools and there should be as few impediments as possible to them becoming stand-alone academies. They certainly should not be required to change historical governance traditions in order to accommodate a one-size-fits-all approach.
I look forward to the Second Reading of the new Schools Bill next week and the opportunity of further debate on these important subjects.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I want to address the role of higher education in the Government’s levelling-up agenda. I also want to mention housing issues raised in the Queen’s Speech, and I hope the Minister will be willing to pass on the points I make to her ministerial colleagues.
There is a university in every part of the country, and they are well placed to play a hugely important role in the levelling-up agenda. The role of these institutions in their local communities is often overlooked. In fact, universities are central to the local, regional and national growth effort. They are vital partners to local authorities and have huge networks including schools, big business, SMEs, charities and community groups. Quite rightly, the Government want universities to do ever more, recognising the role they could have in the levelling-up and the skills agendas, but they need adequate funding to do all this. Tuition fees are now frozen until 2024-25; they have reduced in value each year and are now worth in cash terms only two-thirds what they were 10 years ago. It is reasonable for the Government to expect efficiencies from universities, but they are reaching a point where they will have to consider reducing many of these very activities rather than enhancing them, or, where they have the choice, potentially recruiting more international and fewer domestic students, which seems a perverse outcome for bodies that could contribute so much to our national renaissance. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government will recognise the need to support the social and economic benefits that universities provide to the country. As the levelling-up directors are appointed, will she confirm that the Government will encourage them to speak to their local higher education institutions and utilise the expertise they will find there?
I now turn to housing. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation, the trade body for England’s housing associations, and as the chair of the Property Ombudsman for the private rented sector. I welcome the introduction of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill last week. It is crucial that, through this important legislation, the Government ensure that affordable homes are available throughout the country for those who need them.
The Levelling Up White Paper rightly emphasised the central role that housing must play in closing the stark gaps in regional equality. For many, social housing would be the only suitable and affordable type of home for their families. That is why it is also vital that any changes to the planning system introduced through the Bill are designed to increase the number of homes for social rent in communities up and down the country. Can the Minister give me assurances on this matter?
I also warmly welcome the Government’s aim to improve the quality and regulation of social housing and strengthen tenants’ rights through the social housing regulation Bill. Since 2017, the National Housing Federation has been working with social housing residents on the Together with Tenants initiative to establish a new set of standards for housing associations, including a four-point plan for change and a new charter that sets out what residents can and should expect from their landlord. This work has already begun to deliver the new paths of accountability and influence for residents mapped out in the Social Housing White Paper.
The energy Bill should enable us to deliver the manifold benefits of decarbonising Britain’s homes. It will enable us to tackle fuel poverty and the climate emergency together, boost the economy and create jobs, as well as creating healthier, warmer homes and healthier, cleaner air. It is vital that we insulate and retrofit homes throughout the UK. I welcome the Government’s Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund, to which housing associations can directly apply for funding, but if we are to be truly transformational in our approach to tackling the climate crisis, we need a longer view. I ask the Minister whether the Government have plans to provide funding for making social homes more energy efficient beyond 2025.
Currently, Ofgem energy price caps apply only to individuals and not organisations. Many housing associations manage energy bills for housing schemes through heat networks. Residents who receive their energy this way will be the hardest hit by rising costs. I urge the Government to take action to ensure that emergency support is put in place for customers on heat networks.
Finally, I welcome the commitment to introduce a renters reform Bill and the establishment of a landlord ombudsman to allow tenants to seek redress and resolve disputes against their landlords. As chair of the Property Ombudsman, I know that our inquiries team takes time to talk to tenants on a daily basis, providing advice, guidance and signposting where we are unable to investigate a complaint. While there are many forms of dispute resolution, this is a service that only ombudsmen provide. Will the Minister confirm that the intention is for the landlord ombudsman not only to deal with complaints that fall within its remit but to provide an accessible advice, guidance and signposting service to help both tenants and landlords understand better their rights and responsibilities?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, if we are not able to rely on Ministers and other parliamentarians to tell the truth, then reliable and acceptable government is impossible. The recent police notices to those who had previously denied breaking the pandemic control laws lead millions of people to question the truth on matters of greater importance like, perhaps, the crises in Ukraine or Afghanistan—those that are matters of life and death.
We all know of broken promises. Putin was adamant: “We are not going to invade Ukraine”—we remember that—in spite of a procession of tanks stretching 40 miles, the distance from Chester to Colwyn Bay. Ukraine is in the midst of being invaded in spite of Putin’s denial, creating a hell for millions of children, men, and women. Putin’s assurances are as meaningless as denying being at gatherings that broke Covid laws. Government and the safeguarding of democracy cannot continue if those who lead cannot be trusted or believed. Mr Rees-Mogg tweeted over the Easter weekend, “Christ is risen, Alleluia”, a greeting of hope, while at the same time supporting deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda—a destruction of hope.
The consequences of these lies are the distancing of millions of ordinary people from government. If you cannot believe a word they say, there is no use voting for any of them. Turnout at general elections has fallen from 83% in the 1950s to less than 67% in 2019. We have grown increasingly apathetic about the democratic process, and nature abhors a vacuum.
The Government must change in order to show the British people that the Government can be believed and are engaged in the democratic process. Failing to do so will only increase apathy and sow distrust—something which, because of the unbelievability of the present time, continues to do immense harm. The United Kingdom can serve as an example to others, but not by refusing parliamentary scrutiny—for example, of the deal with Rwanda regarding asylum seekers or the continued lying about parties in gardens during the pandemic. We undermine democracy itself.
At the Liberal Party conference I used to sing the “Land Song”, which goes:
“Why should we be beggars with the ballot in our hand?”
and
“God gave the land to the people!”
Now we have to restore this trust. We must restore the value of ordinary people and their worth and influence in what is a democratic society.
Finally, Paddy Ashdown said:
“The one thing that unfailingly gives me satisfaction in politics is to watch those who have been taught they are the subject of others’ power, rise to meet the challenge of power in their own hands—and then be unbelieving at what they are able to do. To believe in this and make it happen is, for me, the great passion of politics.”
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, the gracious Speech had some very welcome announcements in it relating to the levelling-up agenda that will have a profound impact on health and care. Previously, I have expressed concern in this Chamber that levelling up is little more than a glib slogan. However, there are now some positive reforms on the agenda that could have tangible and important outcomes.
I declare my interest as set out in the register as patron of ARCO, the association representing retirement community operators. This model of housing, often referred to as “assisted living” or “housing with care”, allows people to live independent, healthy lives while living in a housing complex where care and support are provided if needed. Allowing people to live independently in this way reduces pressure on both the health and social care systems, and is greatly needed.
To date, fewer older people have moved into housing with care complexes in the UK compared with other countries. This is for two reasons. The first is a greater reluctance in this country to leave the family home, and the second is that it is costly and very slow to build this style of housing, in large part due to the current planning regulations. The announcement in the gracious Speech that the planning system would be reformed as part of the levelling-up agenda is a huge opportunity to remove these barriers. The government task force looking into housing for older people can help feed into this.
In countries such as New Zealand, where integrated retirement communities have become rather popular, there is specific legislation making it easier for developers to meet growing demand. This policy area is relevant to both health and social care, and indeed to planning, so having specific legislation could be a useful way to address this. I hope the Government might consider it. I was also delighted to learn recently from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be working with the Department of Health and Social Care to provide capital funding for older people to incentivise supply. Can the Government provide more information about this initiative—specifically, how the funding will be used to incentivise supply?
One of the biggest challenges we face as a society is a population that increasingly is living longer in very poor health. It was with great sadness last month that the charity Care and Repair, of which I and the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Eaton, were patrons, had to close due to lack of funding. The charity focused on home repairs and adaptations for older people living with disabilities. We can no longer rely on the charity sector to see that older people and others living with disabilities are living in suitable homes. Instead, the Government’s levelling-up agenda, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Care, will really need to turn their attention to this. I would be grateful if the Government could outline any plans that they have to address this.
I was pleased to hear that the Skills and Post-16 Education Act had received Royal Assent. This is a good start, but there is still a lot to do to see that we have a lifelong education system that will meet the needs of the 21st century. I declare my interest as chief executive of the International Longevity Centre, which recently projected that the UK economy could see a shortfall of 2.6 million workers by 2030. Investment in education across the life course will be one important way to address this. I hope the Government will respond positively to this important challenge.
Finally, I draw attention to recent comments by the Prime Minister, who expressed the view that 90,000 civil servant jobs should be cut. Civil servants play an essential role in helping government deliver in areas such as levelling up. I hope the Government will think carefully before making any more major changes to Civil Service numbers, because the Civil Service is so important to all of us.
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment in the gracious Speech to bring forward a draft mental health Bill. I hope that the consultation, ending in June, will be followed by early legislation. I particularly hope that the provisions of the Bill will address dementia, which is the fastest-growing health condition in the UK and, apart from the suffering and distress it causes, is set to be the most expensive condition by 2030.
Almost 1 million people in the country are currently living with dementia, costing the economy £25 billion a year. Among the leading causes of death, dementia is the fastest-rising health condition, with the number of sufferers expected to increase to more than 1.6 million by 2050. Despite this, no new treatments have been approved in the UK to prevent, slow down or cure the diseases that cause dementia in nearly a decade. I hope that the Government will deliver on the manifesto commitment to the dementia moonshot, to double funding for dementia research and speed up clinical trials, as soon as possible. We should establish a dementia medicines task force to drive dementia research and clinical trials, as has been done in other fields—most recently Covid.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to publish and implement a women’s health strategy, which would be closely integrated with the promised forthcoming dementia strategy. Dementia has been the leading cause of death for women for more than a decade. In 2020, around 46,000 women died from dementia, compared with 33,000 from Covid-19. Women are at greater risk of dementia than men, although dementia was the third most common cause of death in men in 2020, after Covid-19 and heart disease. Nearly two-thirds of dementia sufferers are women. The lifetime risk of developing dementia for women is one in five, compared with one in 10 for men. Nobody yet knows why this should be.
I welcome also the Government’s commitment to invest £2.3 billion to increase diagnostic activity and to establish 160 community diagnostic centres. Dementia is seriously underdiagnosed and should be specifically included—I hope in the legislation—in the scope of the community diagnostic centres. In the long term, the Government should in my view provide the resources, infrastructure and clinical workforce to build adequate diagnostic capacity. Dementia is a condition directly or indirectly affecting nearly every family in the land. I hope that the Government will now give priority to research into its causes, diagnosis and treatment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the part of the Queen’s Speech debate that addresses public services. Quite frankly, it is probably the most important area because, without success here, none of the other areas of government and activity within the community can thrive and succeed. This is about giving people skills, and about giving them both support and opportunity; it is also about setting the values against which our society ought to operate. These are key debates.
On higher education, briefly, I may find myself out of step with my own party on the freedom of speech Bill; I shall see. I look forward to seeing the details. I will have to consider whether the Government’s suggestions are the way to solve it, but I take the view that there is a problem to be solved and that it is not acceptable that many academics have found themselves hounded because they have spoken their view. I worry about the context of the other higher education proposals. There is a worrying trend at the moment to say that we have too many young people going to university. That is not true—we want more, not fewer—but yes, we want good standard courses and good routes to employment as well. I read in the proposals a bit of that format of, “Hang on, we’ve gone too far. Quite frankly, too many kids ought not to have gone to university. They used to do apprenticeships; they ought to go and do them again.” That would mean closing down the doors that have taken so long to operate.
As I said, I look forward to thinking about that piece of legislation, but the Schools Bill is what I mainly want to address. Gosh—there is not much there, just as there was not in the White Paper. It is the first schools Bill since 2016. If you said to any teacher or anyone else who knows about education, “Come on, it’s been six years without legislation. What’s on your list?”, it would be things like teacher recruitment and retention, and changes to the curriculum to meet the changing demands of society. Lots of smashing thinking about new forms of assessment is going on among schools, and lots of people have done good work on the new accountability structure. None of that is in this Bill, yet those are the things that need to be addressed. The reason it matters, as I know from my own experience, is that when a Bill is being implemented, the whole energy and resource of the Department for Education and its Ministers is about implementing the Bill. Other things get swept off the agenda—and that measure goes down to the schools. We already have teachers beginning to worry about whether they will have to become an academy this year, next year or in 2030. That is not a good message to give.
What is the Bill about? What is there? Quite simply, it is the same as the 2016 Bill. It has the same measures trying to do the same things. The difference is that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, wanted to do it by 2022 while this Government now want to do it by 2030. Let us be clear about this. The Bill is about trying to remedy the effects of the 2010 Bill created by the coalition when it came into power. The result of that has been terrible fragmentation of the school system, underperforming academies with no measures to deal with it, and lack of accountability of the academies through the funding agreements.
Every single one of those problems was predictable; go back through the debates in 2010. It is clear that both the Liberal Democrats and the Tories have to take responsibility for this. They were predictable consequences of a policy that deliberately went out to favour only academies but did not have the courage to make all schools academies, so it settled on 10 years of incentivising. A bit—in fact, a lot—of me wishes that the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, had gone through. I am going to look carefully at this new Bill because the way things are now with this fragmented system is not good; it is not helpful position for us to have been put in. However, I make my position clear: I have never been against academies. How can you be against a good school just because it is an academy, or because it is a local authority school or a church school? It is not about the structure or the governance. It is about the quality of teaching, the leadership and all that—none of which is in this Bill.
I cannot find one thing in the Queen’s Speech that will help raise the quality of teaching and the standard of school leadership. The energy of the department will all be away from that and all about implementing something, and we have eight years of uncertainty before we actually reach the objectives. I would very much like the Minister to explain why 2030 has been chosen. The only other vehicle on the road at the moment as regards schools is the catch-up programme; I do not have time to talk about that. However, if this empty Bill and a fairly discredited catch-up programme are how we are trying to take forward our joint wish to raise standards and do well for the children, then I am worried. I very much look forward to the debate.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is always a challenge and a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. Following up on one point, I would say that she is absolutely right: I do not think many people care whether their school has the label of “academy”, “maintained”, or “run by the small green men from outer Mars”—as long as the damn thing works. If you get the children through with the grades, the incentives and what they need for the next stage—and enjoying the process, I hope, or at least some of it—everybody is reasonably happy. I hope that this will be acknowledged when we get down to the joyful little slugfest that will be that Bill.
The main thrust of what I want to say is to ask the Minister for a little context about how the work that we are doing to review special educational needs will fit into this Bill. The first clause of the Bill suggests that the Secretary of State will do lots of things and set standards. I remind the House of my interests, particularly that I am dyslexic and president of the British Dyslexia Association. Special educational needs include a huge range of subjects, all requiring slightly different approaches to get the best out of the people who fall into these categories. Usually, they are not by themselves; usually, there is another factor behind the real, serious problems.
The weirdest thing about the system we have is that very severe problems stand a better chance of getting through because they are spotted. The students concerned may have greater problems in life et cetera but, if you have something obvious, you will normally get help. There will be many dyslexics but they are not just dyslexic; you can add in dyscalculia, dyspraxia, attention deficit disorder and high-functioning autism. These are people who will be within the normal classroom; how are possibly five such students in every classroom to be accommodated? Two or three children may have all these conditions combined; it is not that uncommon. How do we make sure that there is enough flexibility in our teaching approaches to ensure these children will get through?
Am I overreacting about this? Well, systematic synthetic phonics—if I have the term right; I often manage to get it wrong when talking to people—is supposed to be the way you teach people English. That is great, but it does not work for dyslexics because it puts too much pressure on one of the areas of short-term memory that we are bad at. So we have a fundamental problem; we need to use something else, another way to get through. How are we to institute that?
If we have a system where the Secretary of State says, “This is the way we’ll do it”, will we ensure that he is advised so that we get enough information and flexibility, and enough training into the normal classroom—I emphasise “the normal classroom”—to allow these people who are there in considerable numbers, reckoned to be 20% of the school population, to function?
What use are we going to make of technology? I know that the noble Baroness is doing some work on this, and I appreciate that, but it should be written into the Bill that you will need, for instance, flexible choices to get the best out of technology. I have yet to see somebody who would object to me word-processing by speaking to a computer—as is my day-to-day existence—as opposed to tapping a keyboard. Nobody cares. You are still communicating using the written language, so who cares? That is just one example of how you could use technology. Are we going to take that on board and build the flexibility in?
I hope that, over the next few months, we will get a system where, whatever comes out of this, we will have instituted the fact that one size does not fit all, even if fits most. We have a bit of change and a little give will be in the system. We will help ourselves and have more people getting through. Whether that will be enough to hit our 90% target, I know not—and I suspect not —but we may do better than we are at the moment.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because he always says something of real interest; today was no exception, and I congratulate him on that. I declare my interests, which are in the Lords’ register.
I will be brief. I want to focus on one issue that is related to our healthcare system. As we know, the NHS is under great pressure, with a workforce crisis, the impact of Covid and a huge backlog of patients awaiting treatment. Yet we also know that the NHS is capable of great things: it saves and improves lives, and it enables us to live our lives, day in, day out. But sometimes things go wrong, and I do not mean isolated incidents. I am referring to avoidable harm on a sustained and widespread scale. That is what my team and I discovered when we undertook the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review.
Thousands of women’s and children’s lives have been turned upside down by two medicines and a medical device. Warnings and patients’ concerns were ignored. The system seemed unwilling or unable to listen, let alone respond. It was unwilling or unable to stop the harm. The harm these women and their families have suffered is irreversible and lifelong: children with physical and cognitive damage from the anti-epilepsy drug sodium valproate; women in agony due to the cavalier attitude on inserting pelvic mesh; and women who took the hormone pregnancy test Primodos, and miscarried or had children who were physically damaged.
Things do go wrong, and when they go wrong on this scale lessons really have to be learned. We have to learn to prevent similar tragedies in the future, but that is not all. We must also accept that in any decent society we have a moral and ethical duty to provide help to people whose lives have been ruined and who suffer constant emotional turmoil through no fault of their own. They did nothing wrong. The system failed them and we have a duty to help them. We must not turn our backs on them.
This principle of providing redress is not new and has been applied in this country—for example, in the case of Thalidomide and in variant CJD, where a fund of over £67 million was allocated by the Government for victims of the disease. There was no need to go to court or to prove negligence or liability. This is not compensation. Going to court is costly and stressful, and it has not helped the families affected by sodium valproate, Primodos and pelvic mesh. They need redress schemes. Just like Thalidomide victims or those diagnosed with variant CJD, they need and deserve our support—not just financially but with practical, non-financial help as well. Other Governments are acting—in France, for example—and it should happen here. We should ensure that redress schemes are established.
Even now, two years after we finished our review, I am regularly contacted by affected individuals who tell me of their suffering and what they need. I know their lives would be improved immeasurably by the support that such a redress scheme would offer them—a new wheelchair, a respite break or additional help at home, for example. They cannot currently access these things from existing state providers.
There is widespread cross-party support for this in this House and the other place. The patient groups support us, of course, and the Sunday Times is calling for it. The Government have so far refused to help, saying that their focus is on preventing future harm. This should not be a choice between reducing the risk of future harm on the one hand and helping those who have already suffered on the other. We should do both. We must do both.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Many patients past, present and future have reason to be extremely grateful for her work.
I was listening with half an ear to the opening debate on the gracious Speech in the other place, when I thought I heard the Prime Minister say that the Government were giving confidence to people so that they knew they would be looked after in old age by fixing social care. I did a bit of a double take and thought, “I can’t possibly have heard that right—he can’t have said that”. So the next day, I got the Hansard of the debate and, sure enough, there it was in black and white: the Government are “fixing social care”. Well, you could have fooled me.
Most people in employment, including of course many of those actually providing social care, will have noticed the effects of the health and social care levy on their pay last month—their contribution to the £12 billion that is set to improve health and social care. Most of those of us who worked in the social care field for years were always pretty cynical that any of the £12 billion would reach the front line, as it was always going to be used first to clear NHS waiting lists. Social care is, after all, used to being the tail-end Charlie in these matters.
Given that waiting lists now stand at 6.5 million, the highest figure since records began, and seem to be growing exponentially—perhaps reaching 14 million by 2024—I do not hold out much hope of any of the money reaching social care. Yet why are people waiting so long for a knee replacement? Why are they waiting more than 12 hours for admission via A&E? Why are paramedics stuck in queues for a whole day, as we have heard, instead of answering emergency calls? The answer is so obvious that it beggars belief it does not drive the policy.
The answer is that patients are not being discharged at the other end of the process. And why not? Because there is inadequate social care to receive the discharged patients and care for them so that they are not readmitted to hospital, thus starting the whole sorry process all over again. Is it any wonder that the usual suspects who speak in your Lordships’ House on social care are weary, disillusioned and angry?
When it comes to social care, I always remind your Lordships that the main providers of this care are not public services but the millions of unpaid carers who do most of the heavy lifting. With regard to carers the Queen’s Speech was a bitter disappointment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us. In 2019, the Conservative Party manifesto committed to introducing a right to one week’s unpaid leave—I repeat: one week, unpaid—to help with caring responsibility. We expected an employment Bill to contain this provision but it was notable by its absence. That the promised employment Bill has been excluded from the Government’s commitments for the next year is a severe blow to unpaid carers and a huge missed opportunity.
The Government had been very keen to stress the introduction of a right to carer’s leave, as support for unpaid carers, as an important part of their delivery of social care reform, hospital discharge and staying in work. It is essential, given the pressures on families as the cost of living crisis deepens. Are the Government now back-tracking on their manifesto promises to carers? This is such a missed opportunity to value carers and to ensure they have the support to continue to juggle work and care.
With severe social care shortages and pressures on the NHS, families simply cannot do it all. Many are at breaking point. This is precisely the time when the Government should be investing in carers and their families, as well as employers, by bringing in the right to one week’s unpaid carers leave, and a right from day one to request flexible working. It is a modest enough request, surely. Five days unpaid leave might just stop you having to use all your holiday leave to take the person you care for to their endless hospital appointments and would be a small step towards helping employed carers stay in employment as long as possible. Why do we want them to do that? To help them stay solvent while they are caring, and to stop them building up poverty for the future by losing access to pensions from employment.
As I have been so disappointed in the gracious Speech, I must pin my hopes on a Private Member’s Bill. Three times over the last few years we have had success for carers through this route, and if any Member of the other place wishes to take up the issue—I hope at least some of them are listening—I earnestly hope that the Government will commit to support it.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, my heart sank somewhat when I saw that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, was ahead of my on the list, because I knew full well what she would talk about. My speech is all about carers as well, but we are coming at it from a completely different tack.
I looked at the Queen’s Speech and tried to work out what was missing. The subject of carers was completely missing—just not there. So, let us look at some hard facts. We know that many carers look after friends and family, juggling work and caring. One in eight adults considers themselves a carer; that is around 6.5 million people. Every day another 6,000 people take on a caring responsibility, which amounts to an increase of about 2 million people each year. Figures from the ONS suggest that just under 250,000 people under 19 are carers, and about 23,000 are under nine years old.
The Government say that schools have a key role in supporting young carers. I am happy with that, but who leads on determining this support, DfE or the NHS? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what this might look like. Over a million people care for more than one person. Carers save the economy £132 billion a year, which is just under £20,000 per carer. Five million people in the UK are juggling caring responsibilities with work; that is one in seven of the workforce. However, the significant demands of caring mean that 600 people give up work every day to care for an older or disabled relative. Carer’s allowance is the main carers benefit and is £67.60 for a minimum of 35 hours—the lowest benefit of its kind. This surely should be reviewed.
People providing high levels of care are twice as likely themselves to be permanently sick or disabled. Some 72% of carers responding to Carers UK’s State of Caring 2018 survey said that they had suffered mental ill-health as a result of caring; 61% said that they had suffered physical ill-health. Eight in 10 people who cared for loved ones said that they felt lonely or socially isolated. Can the Minister tell the House where carers can look for support and advice in these sorts of situations?
At present, people with a learning disability and/or autism can be admitted to an NHS in-patient unit under the Act, even if they do not have a mental health condition. Learning disabilities and autism are not mental health conditions, and the removal of this definition from the Act should go some way to reducing the number of people who are unnecessarily detained in in-patient units. Many noble Lords will remember the scandal exposed by an undercover BBC “Panorama” journalist at Winterbourne View Hospital. What happened there was criminal—and I do not mean that as a figure of speech; it was criminal. Six former members of Winterbourne View staff were jailed for the terrible crimes they committed against their patients, but the serious case review showed that there was a wider failure across the whole system.
There are still more than 2,000 people with a learning disability or autism trapped in in-patient settings, and the average time spent there is over five and a half years. People with either a learning disability or autism or both should be able to live with the support they need, where they want it, and be closer to family and friends. However, if the Government are truly committed to “transforming care” they must go further by getting the care right and ensuring that everyone with a learning disability or autism has their support needs met and can live where and how they want to.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this gracious Speech was interesting in part for what it did not contain, despite containing a large number of Bills. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Pitkeathley, have focused comprehensively on social care. I will address issues for the workforce in health, including the impact of the war in Ukraine, preparation for adulthood of children and young people with learning difficulties or autism, and the importance of kinship care and our need for an alcohol strategy.
The Government have stated an intention to build 14 new hospitals by 2030 and upgrade another 70, including by providing new beds, equipment and technology, and they plan to set tight targets for elective recovery. We have just passed the Health and Care Act, and each statutory instrument for its 160 delegated powers will need to be debated. But the Government rejected legislated workforce planning, despite the deficits in staff at every level, including in social care.
Our intensive care bed capacity must expand, with highly trained staff to manage complex elective surgery and recovery from life-threatening illness, as well as increasing organ donation by those who have lost their lives in catastrophic circumstances, usually accidents. Our high-quality ethical transplant programme is hampered by a shortage of facilities. Here I should declare my interest as chair of the Commonwealth Tribute to Life UK committee, which has produced a memorandum of understanding for shared learning as a legacy from the Commonwealth Games.
My Lords, the war in Ukraine has resulted in many UK students returning to this country. Some 600 of these are medical students who had been unable to secure places in British medical schools originally and therefore went to study medicine, taught in English, in Ukraine. Most planned to return to practice medicine here, having secured GMC registration. Yet we have a fixed number of places in our medical schools and the current thinking is that these students will have to go back to the beginning and reapply through UCAS if they cannot continue their courses in Ukraine. Surely the Government can find a negotiated agreement between the General Medical Council and our universities’ medical schools to assess the learning needs of these students, who are at different stages of the course, and find a way to integrate many of them. We need new medical graduates; these are motivated students whose life experience from the war will have undoubtedly broadened their vision.
Just as the gracious Speech was silent on workforce planning, so it was also silent on tackling the problems that alcohol is causing in our society. I declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm. Alcohol is linked to 27 types of cancer, suicide, abuse and obesity. The Government have ducked developing a comprehensive alcohol strategy to tackle harm by addressing the affordability, promotion and inappropriate availability of alcohol. Alcohol causes more working days of life to be lost then the 10 most common cancers combined, yet where is the strategy on alcohol? Without tackling alcohol, the Government’s strategy on mental health, on crime, on obesity and on increased pressures on the NHS are, I fear, doomed to fail.
Drugs and alcohol are frequent antecedents to crises and trauma in children who enter care long term. There is good evidence that kinship care has better outcomes overall for those 180,000 children who would otherwise enter the care system and be cared for by strangers, but over half these children have additional educational needs or disabilities. Kinship care needs to be defined in legislation so that carers are properly recognised and can access the support needed, particularly in education for all ages and support for legal costs. This could result in far better outcomes for these children.
I turn briefly to the draft Mental Health Act reform Bill, in which much remains to be worked through and debated. The detention of those with learning disabilities and autism in mental health institutions has not supported people to live their lives as well as possible and has denied them opportunities, particularly as they transition from teenage years to adulthood. I had the honour of chairing the National Mental Capacity Forum until recently and I welcome the Government’s recognition that people need support to empower them to make decisions for themselves and avoid the inappropriate detention of those with unaddressed needs.
We recently had the shocking Ockenden report into maternity services, and the Government’s recognition of an urgent need for maternal mental health services is welcome, but I return to the important question of the workforce and where these teams will be drawn from.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on mental health and I declare an interest as the independent chair of a panel advising the Department of Health and Social Care on the use of long-term segregation for detained patients with learning disabilities and/or autism. I welcome the main elements of the draft Mental Health Act reform Bill, including the intention to amend the definition of mental disorder, so that people will no longer be detained solely because they have a learning disability or because they are autistic.
Long-stay hospitalisation and warehousing of people whose needs are poorly understood was intended to end when the long-stay asylums were closed—the last one for people with learning disabilities closed in 2009—but a failure to develop adequate community support, including adult social care and meaningful life chances, has simply led to the creation of new psychiatric hospitals, often in the private sector. The lack of an adult social care Bill in the gracious Speech is concerning. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, mentioned the number of people being detained for unacceptably long periods, but around 100 of these are cared for in long-term segregation. Commissioners lack the skills, knowledge and foresight to stop this happening, and this has to change.
The proposals have a laudable aim: to ensure that fewer people are detained involuntarily and that more people get better care, closer to home. But legislation is not enough; we need a significant culture shift across the whole health and care system. The medical model works well for cancer or infectious diseases, with its emphasis on treating symptoms. Serious mental illness is different; a focus on the social construct of recovery is key.
Everybody wants to live a meaningful life in their own home and to belong in their community, and the public discourse in recognising the dangers of loneliness is getting ahead of the legislative framework. In some hospitals today, there are still examples of the dehumanising culture that we associate with the past. My own research with social anthropologist, the late Dr Jane Hubert, evidenced some of this in a mental handicap hospital in the 1990s. Even though government policy demands personalised care, it is little understood. There have been too many recent high-profile cases where in-patient care has failed people and their families, and the Covid backlog has worsened already unacceptable barriers in access to health and social care for people of all ages who live with learning disabilities and/or autism.
Research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership identified a disproportionate impact of the pandemic on families with disabled children. In a May 2020 survey, 76% of families with disabled children said that the vital care and support they relied on had stopped altogether, leaving parents and young siblings taking on all care responsibilities around the clock, and in June 2021, the majority of disabled children were still unable to access pre-pandemic levels of therapies and health services. The SEND Green Paper has the tagline “Right support, right place, right time”. Practically, this means addressing everyday social and relational issues and developing meaningful community-based mental health support. Mental health support is needed in all schools. A distressed child cannot learn and there is much to be distressed about.
The Mental Health Act was last updated in 2007, but in many ways it still maintains its roots in the original Act of 1959. Since its last update in 2007, other legislation also impacts on the treatment of those with severe mental illness, people with learning disabilities and autistic people, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Autism Act 2009, the Equality Act 2010, the Care Act 2014 and now the Health and Care Act 2022 and the Down Syndrome Act. I am hopeful about the impact of the commitments in the Health and Care Act to introduce a learning disability and autism lead for each integrated care board, and the requirement to make training mandatory for all health and social care staff on autism and learning disabilities. This reform of the Mental Health Act will also need to work hand in hand with the NHS long-term plan, and with the eagerly awaited “building the right support” action plan.
The reform of the Mental Health Act is an important opportunity for modernisation towards least restrictive practice that prioritises dignity and respect, while facilitating access to personalised mental health care in the community and, if admission is needed, ensuring that it has a clear therapeutic aim. The reforms announced in the gracious Speech have important implications for the freedoms and care of people with learning disabilities and autistic people, as well as people with serious mental illness.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked some searching questions. I too want to focus on health. I have had the privilege of being married to a medical practitioner for some 60 years, during most—in fact all—of her working life. She started her medical practice in Biggleswade and grew that into one of the largest practices in Bedfordshire, so I have been immersed in the medical world.
Additionally, it is right to point out to the House that I had the privilege of managing, as chairman, two public companies listed on the Stock Exchange. I mention that because, to me, one of the key issues that the health service faces is management. I am ashamed, quite frankly—and this is not party political—that our NHS, on the most common outcomes, and in contrast to Europe, comes 17th out of 18 countries. I am ashamed of that. But there is some good news, I think and hope, in the appointment of Sir Gordon Messenger to review the whole leadership of the NHS. My goodness, it needs it. It brings back immediately to me the 1984 Griffiths report. Noble friends will remember that that was the report that, in essence, removed clinicians from senior management and installed non-medical management. I suggest to your Lordships that that ought now to be reversed.
Issue number two has to be patients. Look at the original basis of the National Health Service: that it should be free at the point of need and the patient was to come first. Our objective, I suggest, must be the patient and not the system. That brings me back to GPs. Up to the point when Prime Minister Blair brought in his changes, your average GP worked for four full days—morning, afternoon, evening and a share of night calls—and every other Saturday. They worked pretty hard. Today, almost all that has gone. Today, many practices have perhaps one or two full-time GPs and perhaps five or six part-time GPs, and every day, we read in the papers about the challenges the patient finds in getting to their GP. Something is not working.
The third issue is medical school intakes; I have banged on about this a number of times. Ten years ago, there were 42,000 medical students—18,800 men and 23,365 ladies. Today, there are nearly 55,000 medical students, of which 21,000 are men and 33,500 are females. In my judgment, the policy should be roughly 50:50. While the vast majority of the men work full time, over half the women work part time. It is no good when you multiply it; there are not enough full-time equivalent GPs in the NHS. I suggest to Her Majesty’s Government something I have already raised several times: we should look long and hard at the Singapore scheme, whereby every medical student has to sign up for five years and promise to work in its national health service—in whatever discipline within in—and, if they do not, they pay back to society the cost of their medical education. I have given the details of that to the current Secretary of State.
The fourth issue is why the NHS has got itself into the situation of having the lowest numbers of diagnostic equipment. I suspect that the final issue is as crucial for others as it is for me: care homes and their improvement. On 21 April 2020, I asked HMG
“what has been the COVID-19 testing policy for hospital patients that have been discharged to nursing and care homes over the last four weeks”.
I received quite a long Answer from the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who basically said that all patients who moved from the National Health Service to social care would be discharged in line with current policy—et cetera—and that they would be tested before being discharged from hospital to a care home. We have seen the seismic judgment from the High Court that those 25,000 patients who were discharged from hospitals to care homes in March and April 2020 were not tested. The answer to that question is: if you set a policy, you should check the results of that policy.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, this year, even more than most years, we expected and deserved a better Queen’s Speech than the one we got. Today’s debate does include some welcome Bills, including the mental health Bill, but the Speech falls far short of what we should have expected in meeting the risks and challenges that our public services face. In today’s debate, we have an opportunity to identify some of those risks and to raise some questions: what value do we put on public services, and what do we have the right to expect from them?
In the short term, some of the risks were totally predicable: the impact of Brexit on health, care and construction skills. Some were of course much less predictable: the impact of the war and of the pandemic on living costs. Nevertheless, these come after years of underfunding. It is not surprising, therefore, that people are beginning to falter in their conviction that public services are fit for purpose. An exemplar of this is the meltdown we saw in the Passport Office. What is really painful about this is missing the opportunity that the pandemic created to revalue and rebuild our public services, and to recognise the vital role that the care sector and care economy play in supporting the entire economic life of the nation. In fact, what this Queen’s Speech does, as many noble Lords have said, is to flag up the absence of policies which are capable of addressing the long-term infrastructure problems in education, health and social services, and the continuing and grave failure to plan for the skills of the future so that we can manage the existential problems destabilising the whole of our society and economy: an ageing society, artificial intelligence and climate change.
Many noble Lords—notably my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley—have spoken powerfully about the crisis in adult social care and the doubling of the number of people waiting for an assessment or a review for care to begin. The number has grown to 500,000 this year. A bounceback in the service has not happened because those people feel that they are not valued. Some 170,000 hours of care were lost last year and there is now unrelenting pressure on families and unpaid carers, who themselves could contribute so much more if they were seen as skilled workers and as key partners within the triangle of care. We are simply not valuing or mobilising the assets we hold as a country. We have a vicious, not a virtuous, circle. Perhaps the Minister can give us some assurances this evening that adult social care will get a bigger share of the health and social care levy. Without that, there is no way that the NHS is going to meet the backlog of care, let alone its other ambitions. This is because the NHS, as we have heard again across the House, is short by 110,000 staff, and this includes one in 10 nursing posts. The last health workforce strategy was in 2003. Can the Minister tell me when the next will come?
Where does the education service fit into this? My noble friend Lady Morris gave a wonderful speech on this issue this evening. Despite the optimism of the Minister, whom I respect very much, there is nothing in this Queen’s Speech or in the policy which will close the attainment gap between poor children and the rest. School funding levels have simply returned to the levels they were at in 2010. However, the crucial failure is not to have put in place measures to strengthen and stabilise the early years and childcare sector. The costs of childcare in this country are horrendous; the sector is increasingly fragile. We predicted this with the childcare Act of 2017, and I am sad to say that we were right. It bears down hugely on families, who are now facing horrendous cost of living issues. All that is offered is a review of childcare ratios—it is shocking. Can the Minister explain how this is going to improve access to high-quality care or help for poor children?
One solution the Government have offered is to cut civil servant numbers by a fifth because of Brexit. The Times demolished that assertion on Saturday, saying that
“many of the new jobs were driven by the longer term demands of Brexit”
and that
“departments expanded to take on regulatory functions previously carried out by the EU. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs … has trebled in size.”
In plant health, Defra has had to create 20 committees to replace the EU regulatory framework. Brexit is going to be a burden on the public and Civil Service for years to come. We need a new social contract between the public services and public servants in this country to ensure that, in the future, we have the public services that we need and deserve.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to participate in this debate on the gracious Speech. As a working-class child growing up in the north of England, I never maximised my grammar school education and have devoted much of the last 35 years to levelling-up efforts on behalf of the younger generation. I have specifically helped the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and Outward Bound in their work to fill the gaps that even supposedly good schools far too often leave in their pupils’ skillsets.
Absolutely nothing matters more for the prospects, long-term outlook and opportunities of our nation than the correct, proper, appropriate, no-compromise, world-standard education of our children. However, none of it can be achieved unless we have the appropriate and quality institutional framework in place to ensure the delivery of the highest educational standards across the whole country. That is why I fully welcome the new, full, visionary and ambitious schools White Paper, as it introduces much-needed coherence and offers a clear plan to complete the schools revolution started by Michael Gove back in 2010. The current system is neither fully academised nor fully local authority controlled; it is neither one thing nor the other. Therefore, it is sensible, appropriate and right that every school should join—or at least be in the process of becoming a part of—a family of schools by 2030. We have seen and experienced, through participation and involvement, that such families of schools can work exceptionally well. That enables them to share all the very best practices and the most effective proven experiences and ideas.
The point of it all is to elevate standards, so the Government’s intention to set a target of 90% of primary school-age children reaching the expected levels in literacy and numeracy by 2030 is welcome indeed, as is their ambitious goal to increase the national GCSE average grade in both English language and maths. However, let us not underestimate the poverty gap and the long tail of underachievement in this country. It is encouraging that 24 priority areas, many in the north, have been identified in the White Paper for extra support—I thank the Government for that—but the underattainment of children from lower-income backgrounds is widespread and persistent and exists throughout most of the country. Clearly, if all schools can perform at the level of the best, we will achieve our aims and aspirations, but it will undoubtably require major committed resourcing and priority in public expenditure to enable this to happen. We have in the White Paper the design of a world-class system but, for this to become a reality, we will need world-class resourcing too.
One of the great advantages of the academy system is the freedom that it gives trust leaders to make decisions and be accountable for them. However, I am forcefully told by those working in the field that, in recent years, a plethora of regulatory bodies have started to eat away at these freedoms. Academies are accountable to the DfE, the Education Funding Agency, Ofsted and regional schools commissioners, often reporting to them on overlapping areas. Consequently, the Government’s proposal to undertake a regulatory review to simplify the system is to be greatly welcomed, but we also need to streamline regulation and introduce a risk-based approach, targeting regulatory resource where it is needed most. The state does not need to become involved in overregulating high-performing, low-risk academies and trusts. We all know from bitter experience that bureaucracy has an ability to spread itself perhaps rivalled only by Japanese knotweed, and the greatest care is needed to keep it under firm control.
Finally, I want to comment on the proposal to allow good schools, in exceptional circumstances, to request to move between academy trusts. This has the potential, if not handled with great thought and care, to undermine all the gains that successful academy trusts have already made and could achieve in future. The best academy trusts take in failing schools and improve them rapidly by committing resources to and investing heavily in them. Such trusts then leverage these much-improved schools in their turn to develop underperforming new joiners. However, this virtuous circle risks being broken if improved schools can threaten to vote to exit their academy trust if they are asked to devote their own resources to helping newly joined underperforming schools. Any legislative change that might incentivise such an outcome must be avoided at all costs.
I believe that this is a vital caveat but, having made the point, I conclude by reiterating my strong support for the basic principles of the White Paper and urging that the proposed reforms be implemented as speedily and urgently as possible. Our nation’s children deserve no less.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to make a short contribution to this debate on the Queen’s Speech. I declare my interests in the register, particularly as a trustee of both the Centre for Mental Health and the Prison Reform Trust and as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
I want to focus my remarks narrowly on the proposed publication of a draft Mental Health Act reform Bill, especially the parts of such a draft Bill that relate to the interface between healthcare and the criminal justice system. First, I want to make a general comment on the proposed draft Bill, which emanates from Sir Simon Wessely’s excellent independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983. I agreed completely with the Centre for Mental Health’s view in response to the Queen’s Speech when it said:
“The Mental Health Act needs to be updated to uphold people’s rights, minimise the use of coercion, put advance choice documents on a legal footing and ensure more people get access to advocacy. It needs to curb the use of Community Treatment Orders. The bill is a chance to enshrine children’s rights more clearly within the Act and to ensure that people in prison are not forced to wait for weeks and months for an urgently needed hospital bed.”
I ask the Minister, in closing this debate, to be more precise on when the draft Bill will be published and to confirm how this House will be involved in scrutiny of it.
Turning to aspects of the relationship between policing and the Mental Health Act, Sir Simon made a number of recommendations. They included:
“By 2023/24 investment in mental health services, health-based places of safety and ambulances should allow for the removal of police cells as a place of safety in the Act, and ensure that the majority of people detained under police powers should be conveyed to places of safety by ambulance. This is subject to satisfactory and safe alternative health based places of safety being in place.”
Crucially, he recommended:
“NHS England should take over the commissioning of health services in police Custody”—
a recommendation that I made in my independent report to the Government in 2009. There is no mention of these points in the commentary to the Queen’s Speech on the Bills issued by the Prime Minister, but I hope and expect that they will be included in the draft Bill for proper scrutiny.
Secondly, in relation to Sir Simon’s recommendations on patients in the criminal justice system, he made this clear:
“Prison should never be used as ‘a place of safety’ for individuals who meet the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act.”
I agree. Again, this must be included in the draft Bill.
Further, Sir Simon recommended:
“The time from referral for a first assessment to transfer should have a statutory time limit of 28 days. We suggest that this could be split into two new, sequential, statutory time limits of 14 days each”,
the first
“from the point of initial referral to the first psychiatric assessment”
and the second
“from the first psychiatric assessment until the transfer takes place”.
This is a far more elegant proposal than the similar one I made in my report. It is pleasing to note that the Government have responded positively to this proposal but the devil will be in the detail; these and other recommendations must be fully scrutinised by this House, then debated when the Bill is introduced to Parliament.
I welcome the intention finally to introduce a draft Mental Health Act reform Bill. I echo the words of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which rightly pointed this out in supporting the reforms:
“Understanding and being understood is central to all four of the key guiding principles of the proposed reforms … Therefore, the communication needs of people accessing mental health services must be identified and supported. This must include them having access to speech and language therapy where required.”
I also echo the words of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which stated:
“While RCPsych welcomes the proposed reforms to the Mental Health Act to improve patient care and increase safeguards, it cannot be emphasised enough that they are not deliverable without the required investment in the psychiatric workforce.”
The Government must continue to invest in stretched community services and ensure proper capital funding to fix the dilapidated, often unsafe buildings used for mental health services. They must also ensure that there are enough mental health staff to meet demand, equipped with the right skills and support. This will be the underlying challenge that the Government must face when we deliberate this proposed Bill.
Lord Etherton (CB)
The topic I wish to address is education, and in particular teaching about rights and responsibilities, and the constitution. I start with a question: what is it that binds the people of Britain together as a community? Yes, we have cricket, rugby and football, among others, as national sports. We have singers and entertainers of international repute and we have a wonderful National Health Service. Great Britain has a long history. None of these, however, can be said to be a defining feature of Britishness, in the sense of affecting and binding everyone in our community, whatever their background, ethnicity, cultural affiliations and personal outlook.
The one and only thing that binds us all is the collection of legal rights and responsibilities, and the institutions that together form or are derived from our unique constitutional settlement. They are the product of many things, including in particular the golden thread of our common law, the separation of powers between the legislature, the Executive and the courts, statute law and the international treaties to which we are a party. This is our unique heritage among the nations of the world, of which we should be very proud.
In December 2020 the independent review of the Human Rights Act, with Sir Peter Gross as its chair, was established by the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Sir Robert Buckland. The review’s report was submitted in October 2021 and was published in December 2021. The very first recommendation was that serious consideration should be given by government to developing an effective programme of civic and constitutional education in schools, universities and adult education, and that such a programme should particularly focus on questions of human rights and individual responsibilities. The report said that this was:
“A matter repeatedly and cogently emphasised in submissions and presentations to the Panel.”
The Government launched their consultation on Human Rights Act reforms and a Bill of Rights in December 2021, but they did not comment at all on that recommendation of the Gross review. That may be because such an educational programme requires interdepartmental co-operation between the Department for Education, the DCMS and the Ministry of Justice. The lead must surely, however, come from the Department for Education.
There is a high level of misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge among the general population, and indeed some public officials, about legal rights and responsibilities and our constitution. That lack of knowledge is a huge obstacle to public ownership of legal rights, which is what we should be aiming for in a properly functioning democracy. The Bar Council and the Law Society have promoted various voluntary educational initiatives, but what is in substance recommended by the Gross review, at least so far as concerns schools, is that there should be teaching about rights and responsibilities and the basic features of our constitution as part of the national curriculum in England. Discussions could no doubt take place with the devolved Administrations.
Will the Minister please say what is the Government’s response to the Gross report’s important recommended educational initiative and, if the Government do not yet have a view, will she give an assurance that the Department for Education will pursue the issue with such other Ministers and departments as may need to be involved?
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, one of the great things about coming this far down a long list of very distinguished speakers is that other people have done all the hard work. The only thing is that it has put considerable pressure on my editing skills—but we shall see.
I declare my interests as a member of the Middlesex Learning Trust and as a trustee of the Artis Foundation. I want to remind the House that the gracious Speech says:
“Reforms to education will help every child fulfil their potential wherever they live, raising standards and improving the quality of schools and higher education.”
It is pretty hard to argue with that as an aspiration, but what would it take for it to be fulfilled? Well, it might take a well-trained, well-motivated, well-rewarded and well-respected workforce. Do we have that? Statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests that we do not, and the recruitment and retention problems bear this out.
We might need students who are well supported outside the classroom, as well as in it, especially those with special needs or mental health issues, those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or all of the above. Do we have that? No, not nearly enough, despite upcoming new provisions for special educational needs and disabilities.
We might need a well-balanced, broadly based and flexible curriculum. I shall come back to that. We would need well-equipped, environmentally sound buildings and facilities, and I refer your Lordships to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on that subject. I do not need to add to them.
We would also need funding, both revenue and capital, sufficient to make these things possible. Do we have that? Well, numbers of people speaking in this debate have made it pretty clear that we do not, and that there is no such uplift in funding realistically in prospect. By the way, let us not forget the scandalously short shrift given last year to the Government’s own adviser, Sir Kevan Collins.
Does the Schools Bill focus on these issues? It does not, as my noble friends Lady Morgan and Lady Morris said so eloquently—and I genuinely have nothing to add to what they said about academies, so I will not say any more on that. On the curriculum, last year I had the privilege of serving on your Lordships’ Youth Unemployment Committee, which heard substantial evidence, a lot of it from employers and young people themselves, indicating, as the report says, that
“while the national curriculum plays an important role in guaranteeing minimum common provision and rigorous standards, it is too narrowly focused to ensure that it prepares all young people for the modern labour market … in particular for the creative, green and digital sectors.”
I, like many noble Lords, am particularly concerned about the drop in take-up of creative subjects, with music for example being dramatically down at both GCSE and A-level, despite growing evidence of the value to overall learning of engagement with these subjects, both within the curriculum and outside it. Does the Bill do anything to address that? No, it does not.
The Bill also brings in new provisions about teacher misconduct. Why is this necessary? I accept of course that teachers must be held, and hold themselves, to the highest possible standards, but what evidence is there that current arrangements are inadequate or that there is a newly significant problem about teacher behaviour? To choose this moment to focus on the small number of teachers whose conduct is unsatisfactory strikes me as frankly tin-eared when so much else is unaddressed.
Teachers and school leaders are under enormous pressure following the pandemic and most are working with extraordinary commitment to mitigate the effects on students of two years of disruption, including a massive increase in mental health issues. Now, more than ever, we should be reminding those in our education workforce how much they are valued, and offering them every possible support, not telling them off. That is what certain members of this Government—and I completely exempt the two noble Baronesses who are in charge of this debate, for whom I have great personal respect and affection—do best: tell people off. Not just in education but across most areas of public service, the tone from government is too often ungenerous and censorious. Civil servants have been told off, as have doctors, the police and universities, and, in my experience, you do not get the best out of people that way.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly as a non-executive director at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust and as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission. I wish briefly to highlight three areas today: mental health, carers and financial inclusion. I do not think that that last subject has come up yet.
Turning first to health, as we have heard, the main legislative plans are the long- awaited reforms to the Mental Health Act. However, the wider context cannot be ignored. Tackling the backlog of NHS care is a matter of life and death for many, or having to endure chronic pain, with growing waits for treatment, major workforce shortages and an unsustainable social care system following a decade of funding settlements that have failed to keep up with demand. Yes, these challenges have been accelerated by Covid, but they were leading to rising pressures on services well before the pandemic started.
I welcome, like others, the announcement of a draft Mental Health Act reform Bill; many of the reforms are urgently needed. I look forward to scrutinising the detail of the legislation relating to detention criteria, the offer of a mental health advocate for all in- patients, changing the definition of mental disorder so someone cannot be detained solely because they have a learning disability or are autistic, and a greater voice for all in-patients in detention in their treatment and care. However, I believe there are areas where the current proposals should go further, including by abolishing community treatment orders, addressing race inequalities and equity more comprehensively in the Act, and ensuring the reforms work for children and young people too. It is vital that the reforms are fully funded and that there is sufficient investment in mental health, particularly the workforce, to ensure that everyone can access the support they need when they need it.
Therefore, will the Minister answer the following questions, or perhaps write to me if that is easier? First, what is the timeframe for pre-legislative scrutiny, introduction of a Bill and implementation of the reformed Act? Secondly, are the Government proceeding with all the reforms included in the White Paper? Thirdly, will the Minister provide assurance that children and young people will benefit from the reforms at least as much as adults?
Of course, we also need a much stronger focus on preventing people reaching the point where they risk being sectioned. This means deeper and wider preventive mental health work in our communities, but the most important thing the Government need to do, as we have heard already, is to introduce proper workforce planning across both health and social care that is designed to meet both current and future demand for care, as so many of us argued for powerfully during the recent passage of the Health and Care Bill. What a pity those clarion calls went unheeded.
Like others speaking in today’s debate, I was particularly disappointed that the gracious Speech contained no reference to carers’ leave to help carers juggling work and unpaid care at a time when they most need it—not least because it was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment back in 2019. Responses to the Government’s consultation were positive, from carers and employers alike, with 53% of working carers saying they need unpaid leave in order to juggle work and care successfully. We are talking not about giving people leave so that they can sit in the garden, but giving carers the flexibility to ask for leave to attend medical appointments, provide short-term care and step in if care arrangements break down. Can the Minister explain the Government’s current position on carers’ leave and when we can expect to see proposals bought forward? Does she agree with me that support for carers is an integral part of both tackling health inequalities and levelling up?
I turn now to financial inclusion, which I see as a critical part of the levelling-up agenda. The financial services and markets Bill is potentially an excellent opportunity to redesign financial services regulation. It is a chance for the Government to ensure that both the financial regulator and the industry better serve the needs of consumers. However, I strongly believe that this can only be achieved by giving the Financial Conduct Authority a “must have regard to financial inclusion” duty as part of its overall remit. The soaring costs of living have only increased the importance of making sure that everyone has access to financial products and services that meet their needs; but low-income and vulnerable consumers still struggle to afford, are having to pay extra for or are unable to access appropriate services.
Finally, I turn to access to cash. Three years ago, the Access to Cash review warned that Britain was sleepwalking into a cashless society. This has been exacerbated by Covid. Recent research shows that 10 million people would struggle to cope in a cashless society. That is why I was pleased to see the announcement in the gracious Speech of the Government’s intention to legislate to protect access to cash, which is important to so many people. This must be seen as part of the levelling-up agenda.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president and former chair of the Local Government Association, and as a member of Beckfoot Trust, which is a multi-academy trust, and the Leeds Diocesan Learning Trust.
I thank the Prime Minister for showing that this Government are serious about levelling up all areas of the country, as this Queen’s Speech seeks to enshrine the 12 missions into law. These missions will all be crucial if we are finally to tackle the inequalities in our communities. As a former council leader, I would like to put on record that councillors are as ambitious as the Government are for the people and places they serve. Given councils’ role in providing more than 800 different services to local communities, local government will be vital to ensuring that we can deliver on our promise to the nation.
As a former teacher, I am also passionate about ensuring that every child and young person has the best start in life. The Schools Bill seeks to achieve this by introducing measures that will deliver a higher-performing school system. The Bill rightly recognises the important role councils play as education partners. I know that the Local Government Association has commended the Government for that. In particular, the measures to allow councils to set up their own multi-academy trusts have been welcomed. Councils have an excellent track record in providing a high-quality education, with the highest proportion of schools rated good or outstanding. The plans to introduce a home schooling register have also been welcomed by councils, which have been calling for these reforms for a number of years. This shows that the Government are in listening mode and take action when they hear that things need to change. With this in mind, I urge the Government to listen to the call of councils that want to be able to deliver safeguarding checks on home-schooled children and hold the powers to take action against illegal schools. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s views on this.
As the Government explore bringing the reforms in the SEND Green Paper forward, I urge Ministers to look at the complexities in the funding system that make it almost impossible for councils to transfer money for funding to the high needs block to best meet children’s needs.
I will briefly touch on the important issue of skills. Research commissioned by the LGA and carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies, published today, shows that in two-fifths of the country there are more vacancies than unemployed people. With the right powers, councils could do much more to ensure that everyone has access to targeted local support and the chance to learn new skills and find work. Locally led solutions are often the best way of fixing the national challenges we face. This is why I am pleased to see the Government introduce the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill so quickly after the Queen’s Speech.
The UK remains one of the most centralised countries in the democratic world, so it can only be a good thing that the Government are seeking to pass power to local areas. All experiences of previous rounds of devolution deals have underlined the value of local collaboration and consensus. I trust that the Government will approach these new deals in the same way. In the same spirit, I know that those of us who sit on the devolution all-party parliamentary group would welcome engagement on how we can ensure that the Government’s plans reflect the diverse needs and aspirations of communities across the country.
Finally, I would like to touch on the women’s health strategy that has been announced. This presents an important opportunity to improve women’s health outcomes, particularly if the strategy adopts a preventive public health approach. I would also like to put on record the significant health and care challenges experienced by men. We know that 75% of deaths by suicide are those of men. In Mental Health Awareness Week, the Government demonstrated the importance of tackling poor mental health through their commitment to reform the Mental Health Act. Will the Government commit to addressing the very real male health issues by bringing forward a men’s health strategy?
To conclude, I share the Government’s ambitions to level up all parts of the country and look forward to working with the Government to deliver the proposals in this Queen’s Speech.
Baroness Greenfield (CB)
My Lords, as a neuroscientist I welcome the consideration of mental health in the gracious Speech and declare an interest as the founder of a biotech, Neuro-Bio, working towards an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. However, in this capacity I was sadly disappointed that no mention was made of addressing the urgent issues relating to such a devastating health problem.
This debate is taking place during Dementia Action Week, so it is an especially pertinent time to highlight the needs of people living with this condition. Alzheimer’s is a neurological disease characterised by memory loss, disorientation and general cognitive impairment. It presents typically, though not exclusively, in older people: one in six over the age of 80 and as many as 70% of residents in care homes. The spectre of Alzheimer’s is one of the cruellest potential scenarios awaiting us in later life. While heart disease and cancer are serious, often disabling and sometimes terminal, you can still reminisce over old photographs and spend meaningful and precious time with your grandchildren. These life-enhancing moments are gradually closed off to an individual with dementia.
There are currently around 900,000 individuals living in the UK with dementia, a figure projected to rise to 1.6 million by 2040. The cost of care in the UK is currently £34.7 billion, and this is set to rise sharply over the next two decades to £94 billion by 2040.
Many noble Lords have spoken about carers, and this is particularly important with respect to Alzheimer’s. Imagine the impact of Alzheimer’s on the family, specifically the financial and mental health repercussions of giving up a job to care for a loved one—perhaps the love of your life—who then no longer even recognises you; that is a scenario I have heard described, on more than one occasion, as a living death.
Two other main issues could have been addressed in the gracious Speech and were omitted. One is the issue of obtaining a diagnosis. The reaffirmed commitment to invest £2.3 billion to increase diagnostic activity, with ambitions to roll out up to 160 community diagnostic centres, is obviously to be welcomed. However, this must include a specific commitment to improve dementia diagnoses. These are currently at a five-year low, with more than 30,000 additional people now living in England not formally diagnosed. The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that it would take four years to clear the current backlog without extra help. There are national strategies to deal with the backlog in elective care and cancer diagnosis, but nothing to fund or plan to deal with the specific backlog for Alzheimer’s. It will not go away on its own.
Memory assessment services are vastly overstretched due to the pandemic. This is largely caused by workforce pressures. Individuals are being referred to services, but the services cannot deal with referrals at the same rate. Memory services are seeing people come to them with much more advanced symptoms than previously. Just £70 million would allow the NHS to address the backlog in secondary care while making allowance for increasing primary care costs. Up to 65% of emergency hospital admissions for people living with dementia could be avoided if they had the right support.
The individual patient could then become more actively involved in personal decisions, including healthcare. They could use treatments more effectively, focus on what is important and make empowering choices. They could take advantage of resources and help advance research, perhaps by joining clinical trials. With more than 150 such programmes worldwide currently examining potential dementia treatments, it is more pressing than ever that we can identify suitable participants.
This brings us to the third issue: research and the development of new drugs. The Government need to deliver on their manifesto commitment and fund the dementia moonshot as soon as possible. As a scientist on the front line of research, I was saddened to see no mention of this in the gracious Speech, but such funding is urgently needed to deliver on our ambitions for dementia research and, crucially, to deliver new treatments. In parallel to increased research funding, the forthcoming national dementia strategy must set out a bold and ambitious approach from government to create new momentum and help push us over the finish line to the first wave of new treatments.
For example, Alzheimer’s Research UK is leading calls for the Government to apply lessons learned from the Covid-19 Vaccine Taskforce by establishing a dementia medicines task force. The task force would act as a catalyst to accelerate the development of new treatments. It would harness the existing strengths and leading initiatives in the UK, minimising gaps and tackling any duplication in current approaches. The goal would be to ensure that new treatments reach those who need them as soon as possible. It would drive progress in research and speed up clinical trials, as set out in the dementia moonshot manifesto. This would ultimately benefit current patients, while also creating a powerful offering for global life science investment.
Any one of us here could succumb to Alzheimer’s, and a significant number of us are likely to do so. It is one of the biggest health challenges we face, and as such it cannot, as it was in the gracious Speech, be ignored.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, the Queen’s Speech was described as thin on education and so has proved the Schools Bill, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox said. At a time when there is so much to do in and for our education service, a more wide-ranging Bill would have been appropriate.
Both the Queen’s Speech and the Bill have ducked significant issues. Clearly, insufficient has been done to date to address Covid recovery. Like much else in education, this is about funding. As proposed, the national funding formula is both an attack on local democracy and a failure to provide adequate resources. Funding is a significant problem for a huge majority of schools, with the National Audit Office reporting that money will be redirected away from schools serving the poorest pupils.
Primary class sizes are now the highest they have been this century, and secondary class sizes the highest since records began. Much of our school estate—our school buildings—is in a terrible state, frankly. Investment is urgently needed to make these buildings fit to provide education for our children and young people. Good, qualified teachers, supported by teaching assistants and the whole school workforce at school level, are of course the biggest factor in ensuring success for all our young people. But, alas, teachers are leaving the profession in very high numbers and recruitment to teaching is missing its targets—not to mention the contested market review of initial teacher training and education, with so many high-quality institutions no longer in this field, as reported yesterday.
Throughout the pandemic, Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box and praised teachers for their work. That was very welcome, but fine words butter no parsnips, and what we see in schools is that around a quarter of new teachers leave the profession within three years. The loss of experienced teachers is a problem too, with barely 60% remaining in the profession 10 years in. OECD research clearly suggests that a mix of experience levels is a prerequisite for good outcomes for students, especially in areas of high poverty, but all too many schools are starved on a turnover of early-career teachers who leave within five years—and not, I am afraid to say, to go to other schools.
Many teachers who leave cite workload as an issue. Where is the Government’s response to this? If the answer is the Oak National Academy, I really believe the Government need to think again. Of course teachers value good, high-quality resources, but teaching is a creative profession, one in which teachers should have autonomy, agency and the ability to collaborate with colleagues in relation to curriculum design and pedagogy—it is not a place for pre-packaged lessons to deliver a curriculum wholly centrally determined. When teachers cite workload, they generally mean Ofsted-driven activities arising from performance measures that, as professionals in classrooms, they consider unnecessary and often unrealistic. We should bear in mind that the number of hours worked by teachers in England is significantly above the OECD average of 41 hours per week.
As to academisation, the Government’s ideological position of academising all schools by 2030—or at least having them on the route to academisation—has not met with enthusiasm or approval from within the profession. This is unsurprising when research by both the National Education Union and Birmingham University contradicts in stark terms the claims made by government of the alleged benefits of multi-academy trusts. I genuinely look forward to a detailed discussion with the Minister on this, as it is clearly a contested area.
The ostensible reason offered some 12 years ago for the emergency legislation on academy status was the independence and autonomy that such schools would enjoy. While that may be debatable, what is true is that such independence will be significantly eroded by the 20 areas in the Schools Bill in which the Secretary of State may set standards by regulation, with one such area being salaries and pensions. If such regulation were to be drawn up following sectoral collective bargaining, I am sure that would be welcome—but I am sure that the Minister will tell me that that is not what is intended.
The Schools Bill is not what is needed in the face of the challenges facing our schools and children, including underfunding and the Covid pandemic, so I really hope that during the passage of the Bill we can make some significant improvements.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I too shall focus on education and skills, which are fundamental to the stated priorities of the gracious Speech and to the whole idea of levelling up. Education and skills should be a central part of any Government’s aims and aspirations, so it is encouraging that the Queen’s Speech includes both a Schools Bill and a higher education Bill. The Schools Bill focuses on funding, academisation and attendance, but the Bill on its own will not be enough to achieve the laudable goal of helping
“every child fulfil their potential wherever they live”.
I will briefly address some of the other activities that will be needed but which are not covered by this legislation.
The first is the long-standing challenge of improving the quality and status of technical education. I am encouraged by the Government’s commitment to T-levels, apprenticeships and other initiatives, such as those in the recent Skills and Post-16 Education Act, and the planned lifelong loan entitlement, the introduction of which will be enabled by the higher education Bill. Successful delivery of these will be crucial, but more work is needed both to ensure that all the pieces of the complex skills jigsaw fit together—that Kickstart, for example, leads to apprenticeships—and to convince not just students themselves but their schools, teachers and parents of the value of technical education, such that it finally achieves the long-sought parity of esteem with academic routes. There is also a need for effective provision to allow students to mix and match, combining both technical and academic elements in their studies. Languages, for example, are an important skill in many technical careers, and my own experience shows how valuable classics can be in developing computer programming skills.
Secondly, every young person needs to be aware of the range of jobs and careers available and the routes they need to take to further their own aspirations and abilities. This calls for continuing enhancement of careers information, advice and guidance in line with the Gatsby benchmarks, including contacts with a variety of different employers and workplaces, as well as work experience opportunities. The enhanced Baker clause in the skills Act, specifying the number of meaningful employer contacts students must have, should be embraced as an absolute minimum and enforced when necessary.
Thirdly, it is surely time for the Government to address the persistent concerns of employers and others about the apprenticeship levy, introducing greater flexibility to make it more fit for purpose so that more young people are able to become apprentices, including 16 to 19 year-old school leavers; more small and medium-sized firms are able to offer apprenticeships; and more of the skills that are most needed are eligible to receive funding from the levy.
Other issues include recognising digital skills as a functional skill of comparable importance to English and maths and, as other noble Lords have mentioned, restoring creative and arts education to its proper status as an essential part of the curriculum, as indeed it is in most independent schools. Again, that would clearly qualify as levelling up.
Education and skills are fundamental to the Government’s priorities as set out in the Queen’s Speech. I hope the Minister and her colleagues, as well as meeting their heavy legislative commitments, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, will find the time and energy to press ahead on the other issues I have highlighted. What matters most is not so much the quantity of legislation—we already have rather too much—but the quality of delivery.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, my contribution on the most gracious Speech, delivered by His Royal Highness Prince Charles on 10 May, will be very brief. I thank Her Majesty the Queen for her dedicated loyalty and send my warmest wishes to her on her Platinum Jubilee.
I wish to focus my contribution on the gracious Speech on education and the devastating impact of the global pandemic on young people’s mental health. The consequences of the pandemic have been vast and felt across society, but some groups, such as young people in education, have been affected more than others. Many noble Lords have spoken at length in this debate on the subject of education with more experience than I have, so I will not repeat what they have said. I will focus on Covid.
The Health Foundation’s Covid-19 impact inquiry draws on statistics from the young people’s future health inquiry, which focused on gathering evidence from a range of sources to understand the immediate and long-term implications of the pandemic for young people and thus the support needed as the UK moves through recovery.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, school closure restrictions during lockdown reduced young people’s participation in learning, which is an essential building block for a healthy future. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that secondary school pupils spent 4.5 hours per day on learning in the first lockdown, compared with 6.6 hours before the pandemic. There was also a substantial difference in who was spending the most time on learning, with the richest third of pupils spending more time than the poorest third.
One of the most significant impacts of coronavirus was the exposure of the digital divide that exists in the UK. Class differences and social mobility meant that some of the most disadvantaged children were deemed more likely to be affected by a lack of access to remote learning because of technological issues. In 2019, a study by the Office for National Statistics found that 60,000 children aged 11 to 18 did not have internet access in their home, and around 700,000 children did not have a computer, laptop or tablet with which to access online learning. Therefore, schools will never be the same after being enlightened by e-learning and their new-found awareness of disadvantaged students.
While schools reopened in autumn 2020, disruption to learning was still common and access to in-person teaching was not consistent. By mid-November, 51% of teachers in private schools reported being fully open to year 11 compared to just 33% in state schools. School closures put educational outcomes at risk throughout the pandemic, especially for disadvantaged students. Existing inequalities and attainment gaps are already being aggravated, as opportunities for early identification of emerging learning problems have also been missed during the school closures. I have always believed that education is the best gift to children as it dilutes boundaries and will take children, depending on their capabilities, anywhere in life. There is much more to say but I will limit myself to what I have already said.
As part of my role as a Peer in the House of Lords, it is both a duty and an obligation to focus on inspiring and encouraging young people—irrespective of age, race and background—to engage in various activities that promote inclusion and respect. Given the knock-on effects of the pandemic and the drastic change to the schooling system in response in recent years, and in line with the State Opening of Parliament and the Queen’s Speech, how do Her Majesty’s Government intend to reform higher education and the quality of schools, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the mention in the gracious Speech of the long-awaited draft mental health Bill, but that has been covered extremely well by my noble friend Lady Tyler and I agree with all the points she made, so I will go no further on that.
However, since the Speech, which followed quickly on the heels of the Health and Care Act, we heard at the weekend that the Government intend, with indecent haste, to backtrack on measures for which they have only just got Royal Assent. I refer to the planned restrictions on TV and online advertising of foods high in sugar, salt and fat. Before the ink is dry on the Act, the Government now want to defer implementation for a further year. Can the Minister write to me to say what representations the Government have received on this and from whom?
In Committee, I commented on government amendments to allow the Secretary of State to defer implementation beyond January 2023. I said:
“Given the notice the industry has already had about these measures and the fact that the Government have already deferred implementation, a year from now should be quite enough time. Why do the Government feel they need these further powers?”—[Official Report, 4/2/22; col. 1212.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who probably did not know what the Government were planning, said that
“the implementation dates for these restrictions none the less remains 1 January 2023.”
She said:
“Amendments 249, 252 and 254 separately introduce the ability to delay that implementation date via secondary legislation, should this be deemed necessary after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We have taken this decision to provide flexibility should emerging challenges mean that implementation from 1 January 2023 proves unworkable. However, I should emphasise that we currently have no plans to delay the introduction of these restrictions.”—[Official Report, 4/2/22; col. 1217.]
It seems I was right to be suspicious.
I ask the Minister: what sudden “emerging challenges” have made it necessary to give the industry a further year’s notice of the restrictions? I presume she meant challenges to the Government’s credibility or perhaps to the leadership of the Prime Minister. It can have nothing to do with the price of gas or a basic food shopping basket, and certainly nothing to do with the health of the nation.
I also asked the Minister some months ago if there was any truth in the rumour going around that the Government planned to ditch the ban on “buy one, get one free” offers on unhealthy foods. I was assured in the strongest terms that this rumour was untrue. Allowing someone to get two enormous bars of chocolate for the price of one will not help them pay their energy bill or buy essential healthy foods for their family. Henry Dimbleby, the author of the national food strategy, said on the radio yesterday morning that it would do nothing to address the nation’s obesity crisis. I also call in aid the noble Lord, Lord Hague, who says in today’s Times:
“These are not ‘good deals’ for our wallet or our health. The whole point of them is to get people used to buying more.”
He called the Government’s backtracking
“intellectually shallow, politically weak and morally reprehensible.”
I could not have put it better.
In the gracious Speech the Government said that they would
“fund the National Health Service to reduce the Covid backlogs.”
That is all very well, but other problems have not gone away. I refer first to the ambulance crisis. Doctors now believe that the wait times are endangering patients’ lives. The problem is the shortage of enough properly trained staff in the right places. The Health and Care Act 2022, as enacted, will not improve the planning and adequate provision of staff. The Minister may recall the all-party amendments for measures to assess and plan workforce needs properly, but the Government resisted. Figures were cited for a shortage of doctors and nurses, but today I give an example from an allied medical profession.
A hospital dietician, who plays a vital role in the treatment and recovery of patients, got in touch with me. Her pay rise has been consistently below inflation for some time. She has no other senior dieticians in her team as they are all off with stress and she is covering their work. She also has to cover for vacant junior posts. Because of savings targets, she must save 20% on her staffing budget. This will mean that she is unable to fill the posts needed for safe staffing levels. Can the Government explain why the system they have chosen for workforce planning is going to help in this situation?
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, like so many of us, I am appalled by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I will focus on the welfare of Ukrainian refugees, a subject no one has spoken about today. I declare my interest: the Loomba Foundation, of which I am the chairman trustee, has extensive experience of the impact of conflict in many parts of the world, particularly in driving up numbers of vulnerable widows and single mothers with dependent children and the massive upheaval this causes for families and communities. We have seen how this is the predominant feature of the Ukrainian refugee crisis today and we know the range of support that is essential for these mothers to create the stability they crave for their families.
I am deeply moved by the generosity of the British people, including those who have opened their homes to families from Ukraine. However, the current system the Government have put in place simply does not provide enough support for the vulnerable women and children arriving in the UK. In particular, those arriving on the Ukraine family visa scheme do not have enough protection. Some will have suffered terrible trauma and this may make it difficult for their families to cope.
We need to put measures in place so that, if their living arrangements break down, local authorities receive funding to match them with another family or provide alternative accommodation. We also need funding from central government to provide pastoral and mental health support for these refugees. We know that children, as well as adults, who have suffered trauma need the right help as early as possible so that they can start to build a new future in the UK.
The Loomba Foundation and other charities are doing what they can to fill the gaps and meet immediate needs. Barnardo’s, of which I am vice-president, told me about the case of a woman who arrived in the UK from Ukraine heavily pregnant and with just what she and her husband could carry. They came to live with family in the UK but did not have the basic things they needed for their new baby. Fortunately, Barnardo’s was able to give her all the things that new parents need, including a cot, nappies and clothes. Afterwards, the mother emailed Barnardo’s to say thank you. She said: “In this world there are more good people than bad. Thanks to you we are safe and have our little baby.”
As this example shows, charities can make a difference to the lives of vulnerable women and children arriving from that war-torn country, and we are currently finalising a partnership scheme whereby the Loomba Foundation will fund vouchers for Ukrainian refugee families to obtain essential items from any one of Barnardo’s nationwide network of more than 630 shops. Important as such measures can be for individual families, we cannot rely on charities alone to support the Ukrainian families and their British hosts, and I call on the Government to engage with us to help define the wider support that is needed and to provide due resources for it.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, in the time that is available to me, I wish to make a wide-ranging and cursory review of our education system, comprising secondary education, further education and higher education. There is distress at all levels, which is quite apart from the effects of the pandemic.
In secondary education, there are ongoing disruptions caused by the policy initiatives of the Government and the Department for Education. These are occurring against a backdrop of a severe decline in the levels of remuneration of teachers and a crisis in teachers’ morale. A recent survey has shown that over the past decade, teachers in secondary schools have lost 9% of their real income. They are leaving the profession in large numbers to seek more gainful employment. More than 30,000 teachers are leaving the profession each year. The number of male teachers in secondary schools in England and Wales is the lowest on record. Whereas one might welcome the advancement of women in this profession, the changing sex ratio is symptomatic of greater male mobility, which allows men to leave the profession more readily. Older teachers who are leaving are being replaced by new recruits to the profession, who are often employed in the guise of supply teachers who struggle to achieve permanent placements. Young teachers have thereby become part of the gig economy. This is threatening the future of secondary education.
In further education, there are clear symptoms of distress. Colleges of further education have traditionally fostered the skills that are required by industry and commerce. However, the available funding has not allowed the colleges to adapt to the changing demands of industry and commerce, and the numbers of students completing their courses have fallen drastically in recent years. The decline of the further education sector has gone hand in hand with the expansion of universities. Since 2012, the universities have been allowed to recruit students without limits. Every recruit carries with them a fee income. This contrasts with the funding system of further education, where the numbers are effectively capped at the level of the previous year’s recruitment.
The implosion of the further education sector has also been a consequence of the reforms of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. This removed polytechnics and colleges of technology from the control of local authorities and allowed many of them to become second-tier universities. Instead, they should have been recognised as equal but different. In the process, they have changed their mission. They have forsaken technical education in favour of degree courses. There is a hierarchy of qualifications in the UK, which is topped by bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees and doctorates. The technical and industrial qualifications fall below these levels.
The rules in England for the financial support of students largely disbar persons who have achieved higher qualifications from seeking support thereafter to study technical subjects at lower levels. Thus, a university graduate is disbarred from adding a technical qualification to his or her university degree. Compared with other countries, our funding arrangements drive students and providers away from higher technical education. This is prejudicing the nation’s economic prospects.
Universities have barely profited from their freedom to compete for students. The desire to attract students has led to what has been described as an “amenities arms race”. Campuses have been refurbished to include additional and often lavish facilities for students. This has led many universities into financial difficulties. Funds have been diverted from salaries and, over the past decade, academic salaries have fallen by more than 10% in real terms. The universities pension scheme is in dire financial difficulties, and swingeing cuts to retirement benefits have been imposed. This has given rise to angry industrial action.
Since the 1950s, academics have been subject, at the behest of successive Governments, to an increasingly burdensome audit culture that requires them to demonstrate performance on a set of criteria that are manifestly in conflict with each other. They face a research assessment exercise under the guise of the research excellence framework; they are assessed under the teaching excellence framework and a National Student Survey; and now they face the demands of a knowledge exchange framework.
The academic workforce has been casualised. There is no longer any notion of academic tenure, whereby a lecturer could benefit from job security. Increasingly, they are employed on short-term contracts. It requires a considerable educational investment to become an academic, which entails a lengthy deferment of earnings. Given the job insecurity, the poor remuneration and the even worse retirement prospects, it is doubtful whether anyone should be encouraged to aspire to an academic career—unless they believe that prospects will soon be greatly improved.
The prospects for our university sector are not good. In consequence of Brexit, the sector has lost many of its European academics, who have returned home and will be difficult to replace. Universities have lost the research funding of the Horizon Europe programme, and the prospects of collaborative research with our European neighbours have been prejudiced. This is occurring at a time when the Prime Minister is proclaiming Britain as a scientific superpower that is set to become a high-income economy. This rhetoric flies in the face of reality. Unless we can repair our educational system, we will be destined for economic failure and poverty.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her heartfelt introduction to our debate on the gracious Speech and acknowledge the committed remarks of my noble friend Lady Wilcox, a compatriot from our homeland, the lovely land of Wales. I further acknowledge her fine record of leadership in our local government. It is good to follow the speech from the noble Viscount, a masterly campaigner.
Prime Minister Tony Blair’s best speech was his shortest: “Education, education, education”. If our communities are to experience levelling up, we need ever more successful schooling for the many underprivileged children of the north. We do not know when HS2 will reach Crewe and Manchester, but we do know these children are only young once. They have but a decade to get by. As the great Lady Plowden said 50 years ago in her historic report, for the young it is “time irredeemable”.
If you strain the children, you strain the teachers. There are always consequences. RA Butler enacted his historic Education Act 1944, and for Prime Minister Attlee, a determined Ellen Wilkinson developed it. On my paper round, I read the left-leaning New Statesman, edited by mischievous poltergeist editor Kingsley Martin. He had Rab profiled under the heading, “Rab the Apostle of Inequality.”
British Labour’s guru, he of the future of socialism, CAR Crosland, put the Butler Act asunder. It was the beginning of the end of the network of grammar schools. However, it was also the end of those secondary modern school classroom networks that taught technical drawing, the entry card to the then real apprenticeships, when Britain still had a significant manufacturing base. Incidentally, Tony Crosland had his New Statesman profile with the equally insulting headline of “Mr Gaitskell’s Ganymede”.
The comprehensive came forth for equality, and perhaps Mr Blair’s next speech should be equally short: “Skills, skills, skills”. His son Euan would surely approve. As a young Minister, I asked the inspectorate, and likewise directors of education, to give more attention to the less academic, and one held regional conferences to push the issues. With the octogenarian’s glorious hindsight, I do not think it was a success. When one was dumped from office, the initiative died also.
To this day, the challenge remains. Still, thousands of girls and boys leave high school with very poor prospects. Few employers want them. The pool of real jobs for northerners—of high-class apprenticeships, pensions, security and status—diminishes. Our civilisation can put persons on the moon but we do not crack this problem, and yet we know the name and address of every girl and boy underachieving. It is very wrong. I think it is unjust and unforgiveable. We need better. Our teachers are worthy of a better salary structure and better status. If Finland can do it, Britain can. Levelling up requires a bigger, more self-confident teaching force—and the sooner the better.
Lastly, every Government since that of Mr Attlee in 1945 have expended huge sums of our national treasure on the schools service. All the same, it is clear that inequality of opportunity remains, and this is the fundamental challenge to the concept of levelling up. The great queen, Elizabeth I, Gloriana—and surely Elizabeth II is a great monarch—was told by her first Privy Council, “Your Grace, north of the Trent men know no princes but Nevilles and Percys”. The divide remains and, alas, there is no time to tell of how the tyrant Henry VIII annexed summarily my nation Wales.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I too am delighted to speak in a Motion on the humble Address. I need to declare several interests. First, I am chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I want to caveat that by saying that I am speaking in a personal capacity. The only reason I need to say that is because the remit of the EHRC is so wide that one falls into the trap of saying something that impinges on its remit, so I had better get that in. Since I will be speaking on higher education, I also need to declare that my husband is a working academic and I myself have an affiliation with the Policy Institute at King’s College London.
I am extremely pleased that we are finally starting to see some of the recommendations of the Augar review come into play; that is very welcome. I particularly note the Government’s proposals for a lifelong loan entitlement, which will be taken forward in the higher education Bill. I also welcome the emphasis in that on social mobility, as well as the opening up of funding for a greater variety of skills-based training. As someone who completed her last degree when knocking 40—note I do not say my final degree, I just say the last one—I think the principle must be upheld that, as our economy changes, so too must the skills of the workforce.
Far too many people do not have an opportunity for on-job training and recent figures show that this is most marked among people who are not graduates, are ethnic minorities or are older and disabled. We also know from the popularity of online courses that people do indeed want to improve their credentials throughout their lives as a means of personal advancement. But currently, only those able to pay are able to do so. Of course, it is grossly unfair that taxpayers in the workforce are penalised when they wish to take up further learning later in life as a means of changing skills, perhaps towards a different career.
I also support the Government’s aim to retain the UK’s leading role in global league tables, but in this area I associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on the careers of junior academics in particular.
While our higher education institutions are undoubtedly benefited by their autonomy, it is fair to say that students in those institutions have been rather let down by the paltry offering they have received during the pandemic. To burden students with the same level of fees for such suboptimal learning—which still continues in some institutions—is to be deeply regretted. I hope that the Office for Students has taken note of this breach of the contract between the provider and the consumer. Autonomy should not mean a freedom to rip off students when so much public subsidy from taxpayers is involved.
I want to say a word or two about the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill as well. I too share the Government’s overall concern that free speech is being increasingly impinged upon in our academic institutions. I was not alone in being troubled by the treatment of Professor Kathleen Stock by the University of Sussex in its handling of her case. She was attacked simply for exercising her academic freedom, although Sussex did belatedly try to repair the damage she suffered. I am also aware that she is not alone and that other academics in different disciplines self-censor or avoid challenges in areas where their work might not conform with the existing consensus. I broadly support the principles of the Bill but note that we have heard concerns in the other place that the Bill might go too far in its permissiveness of what I think has been described as “hate speech”.
I want to briefly clarify that point. Hate speech does not have legal meaning, although it is generally understood to be forms of expression that incite violence, hatred or discrimination against other groups or people. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights delineates the law on freedom of expression. Whether or not hate speech falls outside the protections of Article 10 and is unlawful will depend on the context of what is said and when. I would not be overly concerned about measures to protect academic freedom and free speech on the basis that it will be a licence for other types of unwanted behaviour, such as harassment, as those protections will continue to be extant under the Equality Act 2010. As ever, I hope that detailed scrutiny will lead us to a balance, and I accept that competing rights will be engaged in this Bill, and so we shall have to look at it very carefully. On that note, I have to say that I broadly welcome these two pieces of legislation.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and my noble friend Lord Jones, who gave me quite a lot to think about. I wish I could find as many good quotes as he did. Five minutes is quite a challenge without hesitation, repetition or deviation—as one of my favourite radio programmes says—so I will focus on just a few issues.
On welfare and universal credit, I say that this House always feels we can never pay tribute. Six million extra universal credit claims were dealt with by the DWP. That is an enormous achievement, and it was done because we have a digital system and achieved because it was led by a dedicated person, Neil Couling, who has enabled this to take place. It is a huge achievement and we just do not pay tribute to it. Is it perfect? No: no system is, but just look at some of the things it is doing. There are 13,000 extra job coaches. What is their purpose? To get people back into employment. We have the lowest unemployment rate for—I do not know—30 years or more. Is that something to celebrate? I would have thought so. Maybe it is me; maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick.
Getting single parents back into work is of life-changing importance. Where generations have not experienced employment, getting somebody into a job changes the whole nature of what goes on in a family. It will mostly be mothers, and children will recognise that going to work is important. I say only one thing to the Government on this that I hope they will take into account: the cost of childcare makes this a challenge. I hope that they will address that.
You could spend two or three minutes on healthcare. We had an unbelievable healthcare Bill. Sometimes the House of Lords is wonderful, but on that Bill I started to despair. We seemed to want to discuss anything but healthcare—modern slavery, organ transplants. The most important things about healthcare are the people who work in the industry and delivering a quality service, where people’s lives are not put at risk as they were in some maternity hospitals. I want a health service where people are following best practice. There are huge opportunities to improve the efficiency of the health service. How can we possibly be in a situation where A&E people are waiting with a patient for hours on end and we cannot solve the problem? Do you think this would have happened in wartime? We would have found a way around it by now. We would have got volunteers in there or something. We would have used our imagination to crack this problem. The Healthcare Minister is not here, but he knows my views on this.
On education, I sometimes despair of the idea that things need to be one way or the other. I am in favour of variety. There are some excellent academies out there that have saved a number of badly failing schools. We have to recognise that. In fact, we did as a Labour Government when it was going on in London, so I do not know why we suddenly think academies are bad and maintained schools are good. They are both good; they both have a role to play, as do free schools. I have not got time to carry on with that.
It is a false debate to say that it is apprenticeships versus degrees. We want both, but I want to improve the status of apprenticeships. I want to be able to go into a school and see an honours board that says so-and-so got their degree and so-and-so graduated with their apprenticeship. We need to reform the apprenticeship levy. We need to fund FE colleges much better than we do at the moment, and some really good points on that were made by my noble friend behind me—I am having a senior moment and cannot remember his name; he will never forgive me.
Nobody has got student loans right. We have not. We have said we are going to abolish them; it will cost us a lot of money if we are. Following the Augar review, that one is not going to work either. What we should be doing is making it part of income tax. It is the fairest thing to do. And if you really have £19 billion or £20 billion to spend, spend it on early years. We know that if we get it right in early years, when those people leave school, hopefully they will be both literate and numerate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, inspired me to finish on another point when she said that the gay conversion therapy Bill needed to have transgender included. Oh no, it does not. I must congratulate the Government on supporting the Cass review. At last someone has looked into this and realised that giving out puberty blockers as though they were sweets to young people from the age of 11 is the wrong thing to do. I support the Government on that, I thank noble Lords for listening and hope I have given you something to think about.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate on the humble Address and draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly those in relation to nursing. I welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s commitments to publishing draft legislation to reform the Mental Health Act. The White Paper sets out proposals to amend criteria for detention under Section 3, excluding people with a learning disability and people with autism unless detention is for treatment of a co-existing mental disorder.
Efforts to reduce detention and so-called warehousing of people with a learning disability have received broad support—understandably so given that, in March 2022, 57% of in-patients with learning disabilities and/or autism had been in hospital for more than two years. However, we need assurance from Her Majesty’s Government that, when the Act is reformed, the rights and needs of patients detained under Section 3 without a diagnosed mental illness will be protected and that, in the absence of safe discharge, continued holding in hospital will not simply be transferred under the frame- work of the Mental Capacity Act.
The Queen’s Speech made fleeting reference to supporting the NHS, and none to supporting social care to manage already pressured services. However, greater investment is absolutely essential. The White Paper proposed a duty on commissioners that requires
“adequate supply of community services”.
Such a legal requirement must be accompanied with sufficient resource to support the mobilisation of service and development of workforce.
The need for improved community support spans different populations, including people living with dementia, which leads me, like others, to ask: when do the Government intend to publish the national dementia strategy? Briefings received from carers’ associations are questioning whether the Government intend to ensure carers’ rights to a minimum of one week’s unpaid care leave. Other noble Lords have spoken on this more eloquently than me. My important point is that supporting carers will reduce unnecessary admissions to hospital and be cost effective.
Leaders in the NHS have made it clear that investment in community services is vital, both to reduce the unsustainable pressures on in-patient services and to provide dignified care in people’s homes. I believe that a minimum wage for social care workers delivering personal care is essential. Do the Government intend to introduce a national minimum wage for personal social care workers and to fund time for travel between their clients’ homes?
Coming, as I do, from a rural village near Tavistock on Dartmoor, it is almost impossible to plan a care worker’s rota without at least 20 minutes of travel between their clients. Central government allocations to local authorities from the levy should have sufficient resources to let contracts that enable payment for travel time.
The new health and social care levy is widely supported by the population. This is in effect a hypothecated tax that the public expect to improve seamless health and social care. Recent reports about standards in some independent care providers where NHS contracts are delivered cause particular concern. Can the Minister advise the House what requirements there will be for ILACS to monitor contracts it lets—for example, in mental health—in addition to CQC monitoring and inspections? It is necessary to take a whole-systems approach that recognises the pressures all areas of care are suffering from and focuses on reducing inequality in delivery. How will the Government ensure a fully funded workforce plan so that we have sufficient competent staff to meet demand for care?
I will speak briefly on the issue that my noble friend Lord Laming wanted to raise. What are the Government’s intentions on tracing the estimated 135,000 “ghost children” who have not returned to school after lockdown? If every child matters equally, there is a child protection issue at stake here. How do the Government intend to ensure the regular attendance in school of all children to promote equitable opportunity for lifelong success?
It is vital that young people going to university who leave with significant debt feel valued in the workplace. We must stop hammering our young. I reiterate a previous request: will the Government consider writing off student fee debt for at least five years for graduates who work in a range of public services where face-to-face contact is essential? These graduates appear to be at significant disadvantage compared with those in the independent sector, where salaries have risen to reflect the cost of regular student loan repayments.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to the Labour Front Bench, and to offer my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who was excellent on the Front Bench: sincere, genuine and hard-working.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was absolutely right when she said that all the work had been done by others: as people spoke, I crossed out parts of what I was going to say. All noble Lords have made amazing contributions—you just wish that people had more time—but there were some stand-out moments for me which resonated with some of my own thinking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, kicked off the debate, reminding us about British Sign Language and how important it is. Of course, it was the subject of my good friend Rosie Cooper’s Private Member’s Bill in the Commons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said virtually everything that I was going to say, which I found a bit difficult, but she raised the issue of dentists. I can remember when children in school would have a regular—yearly—dental check. What a pity that does not happen any more. Surprisingly, she also said that the Opposition would hold the Government to account with late-night sittings. I hope the votes are more successful at those late-night sittings than they have been in recent months.
My noble friend Lady Brinton rightly reminded us of the difficulty that many families are facing, and again highlighted the need for some sort of emergency Budget or action—particularly, perhaps, on VAT—a windfall tax and other measures to help many families facing very difficult circumstances.
I was quite taken with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who talked about AIDS. He commented how wrong it is to say that nobody dies when in fact, in the UK alone, 700,000 people die every year.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley talked about the delay in the obesity strategy and, rather than the Minister writing to her, I hope she might raise it here. I too read the piece by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, in the Times on the U-turn on the obesity strategy: “immoral”, “shallow” and “weak” were his comments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who I always have time to listen to, quite bravely raised the issue of academic freedom. There is a problem—she is right—and how we deal with it will be the issue. She mentioned teacher retention; currently, 44% of teachers polled say they will leave the profession in the next five years. I really wanted to take up the point about academies, but I do not have time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about medical students who went to Ukraine to train and the barriers they faced. My goodness, we need them. I do not know whether anybody has tried to phone their GP; I phoned my GP today, it took me 101 recall presses to get through and when I got through to my GP, the receptionist said, “What’s the matter with you?” —whatever happened to doctor-patient confidentiality?—and said they would call me back. The doctor called me back and was excellent; the problem is a lack of GPs and we need to sort that out.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, talked about government action on skills. He was encouraged by progress on apprentices and T-levels and quite rightly asked how it all fits together. He talked about the importance of careers education and said we need to develop a programme of work experience. I could go on. I just want to mention the noble Lord, Lord Jones. Every time I listen to him, I get enthused. I loved the comment that Tony Blair’s shortest speech was his best: “Education, education, education”.
I want to start my contribution by repeating the words of my noble friend Lord Shipley, who said in the debate on levelling up last week:
“I say to the Minister that you do not level up places without levelling up people first.”—[Official Report, 11/5/22; col. 36.]
I want to say to the Education Minister that we do not level up schools without levelling up the opportunities for all children. We spend so much time talking and legislating about structures and the type of schools we want. I personally do not care if it is an academy or a maintained, free, state or independent school. What I care about is that all the children, to whatever school they go, get a first-class education; that they all have the same opportunities and support they need to grow and develop. Yet the Government seem obsessed with school types.
The first three pages of the Bill are entirely dedicated to implementing new standards for academies, yet remarkably manage not to specify what these standards will be. And by the way, after years of ruthlessly dismantling the maintained sector schools, we now find that schools that do not convert to academies are more likely to achieve higher ratings from Ofsted.
I care about the quality of teachers and teaching in our schools. I was interested that somebody mentioned Finland. To be a teacher in Finland, you have to have a master’s degree—and, by the way, you are respected and paid a really good salary. We all remember those special teachers, whether in primary or secondary school, who were able to ignite our imagination, so we should be providing our teachers with the best possible training and with first-class continuing professional development.
Our schools and school pupils have, through Covid, had the biggest shock to the system probably since the Second World War. We must do absolutely everything to help pupils catch up—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. Yet we have heard time and again as we emerge from the pandemic that schools, parents and pupils are struggling with a lack of catch-up funding. The Sutton Trust found that the vast majority of school leaders are struggling to help children due to this lack of catch-up funding. The Queen’s Speech missed an opportunity to invest in our children’s future. We are calling on the Government, as was proposed by their very own “Catch-up Tsar”, Kevan Collins, to urgently provide the full £15 billion for the catch-up programmes that schools so desperately need.
Let us remind ourselves that virtually every child has been affected during the pandemic, with almost 1.8 million children missing at least 10% of the last autumn term and 122,000 children missing at least half of school time altogether. The pandemic had a huge effect on the well-being and mental health of our children and, indeed, some teachers, yet the Queen’s Speech failed to mention the mental health crisis in our schools. The legacy of the pandemic cannot be a severe mental health crisis that goes unchecked across vast swathes of the country. According to our own NHS, one in six children is currently experiencing a mental health issue—one in six—yet, despite this, there was no more help provided in this year’s Queen’s Speech than in last year’s. We need urgent investment to provide a dedicated and qualified mental health professional in every school or group of schools. No parent should be struggling, as is now the case, to get meaningful and immediate access to mental health care for their child.
The Minister knows that I have highlighted time and again the problems of children missing from our school system, which the pandemic has exacerbated. I do not really understand the issue about daily registration because a register was always marked in the morning and the afternoon. As my noble friend Lady Brinton pointed out, if a child was absent for health reasons you put an “H” with a circle around it in the register and pupils had a particular number. That might be by the by, but the solution is certainly not to punish parents for their sons or daughters not attending. It is to understand and identify the reasons why a child is not in school, including addressing inclusion, mental health and special educational needs challenges. We welcome the fact that councils will be encouraged to adopt a case-by-case approach to absenteeism, rather than a blanket policy of fines. The Government’s zero-tolerance approach to school attendance perhaps makes for a good tabloid headline but risks antagonising parents of children with a medical condition-based anxiety, for whom getting their children out of the front door to school is often a major achievement in itself.
The environment that our children and young people work in is important. In 2010 Michael Gove, as Secretary of State for Education, axed the school-building programme, saying that Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme was not as efficient as it could have been. We urgently need now to increase the number of school rebuilding programmes from 50 a year to more than 300. As part of their weekly update to the ministerial team, senior officials have cited the problem of deteriorating school buildings. They say that
“the deteriorating condition of the school estate continues to be a risk, with … funding flat for … 2022-23, some sites a risk-to-life, too many costly and energy-inefficient repairs rather than rebuilds”.
Can the Minister urgently advise the House what action the Government intend to take?
Finally, this year the BBC celebrates 100 years of broadcasting. During those 100 years, its contribution to education has been enormous. As a young primary schoolteacher, I well remember Harry Armstrong’s TV science lessons, as well as “Movement and Drama” on the radio. Bitesize increased by 40% across 2021-22, with three out of four secondary schools using it. Tiny Happy People is supporting parents and carers post pandemic in developing the communication skills so desperately needed. The BBC provides outreach and training to schools and FE colleges—not forgetting the 1,000 apprentices, of whom nearly 30% come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Bill was the opportunity to broaden the offer of the academic achievement and broader life skills that parents and employers want. It was an opportunity to address widespread well-being problems for children and young people, as well as to give them the support they need to recover lost learning. The Bill has addressed none of these issues, choosing instead to tinker around the edges of the management of schools. Children need catch-up funding, not more upheaval. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, we will certainly be holding the Government to account on many of these issues. We will be supportive at times but very robust as well.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I am grateful to him for welcoming me to my first time speaking in this place on these issues of education, public services and health. It is a real honour to be asked to do this.
Today’s debate has addressed some of the reasons that brought many of us who have contributed into public life in the first place. Your Lordships could really sense that passion across the Chamber all afternoon and into the evening. My noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport and other noble Lords, including—this is not an exclusive list by any means—my noble friends Lady Morgan, Lady Morris, Lady Andrews, Lady McIntosh, Lady Lawrence, Lady Blower and Lady Warwick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate made well-informed contributions. So many women in this debate did so and it has been a pleasure to hear them all. However, they all set out the deficiencies in the Government’s plans for education, welfare, health and public services.
What we needed was a Queen’s Speech that rose to the challenge of rewarding the devotion of families, teachers, pupils, patients and carers over the pandemic. It offered none of this, just short-termism and distant promises, with no sense of the urgency or appreciation of the scale of the task that we face.
The tone of this debate has been constructive, but the unmet ambition and frustration with the Government is palpable. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, to be fair to him, wants to close the attainment gap and I applaud him for that. However, I gently point out that the Government’s leadership in priority areas has so far been nowhere near that implemented in the London Challenge led by, I believe, my noble friends Lady Morgan and Lady Morris, although there were no doubt many others involved. The Government could step up and deliver for areas like mine in the north-east.
As my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport set out so well, the Government’s legislative plan—or lack of—for our children simply does not recognise the urgency of the action that UK schools and universities need. As she said, it is only though world-class skills, training and sustained investment and by changing the way that we think about vocational training—as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and my noble friends Lord Hanworth and Lord Jones said—that Britain can compete in the 2020s and 2030s. The Prime Minister’s rhetoric on lifetime skills is all very well, but the reality so far is very different, I am afraid.
All the evidence suggests that it is in a child’s earliest years that interventions make the most difference, so it is utterly damning for the Government that half of all children starting reception are deemed to be not ready to start school. We will judge the Government on their record and not on their rhetoric—inadequately small measures and token gestures, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Morgan, and no proper recovery plan. We need sustainable policy and investment, she said, and I agree.
Even when the Educational Endowment Foundation is warning that Covid may have led to a 17% increase in the already vast educational attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers, there are no proposals to support children’s pandemic recovery. Equally astoundingly, there are no proposals to improve teaching and tackle the exodus of school staff from our classrooms.
Labour would use this opportunity to support every child’s recovery from the pandemic with new opportunities to learn, play and develop, through our children’s recovery plan. We would end the unfair tax breaks for private schools and spend the money on improving education for all our children. By delivering 6,500 new teachers and professional careers advice and guidance for every child, we would provide a brilliant education for every child to equip them with the skills they need for work and for life.
“This is an empty Bill and a discredited catch-up programme,” said my noble friend Lady Morris, calling for standards not structures. You know why the Government are doing this? Because they are out of ideas; they are tired, distracted and unable to champion the needs of our children.
We heard a thoughtful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on dyslexia and technology, so what about a Bill to look at services for children with those additional needs, to support them, their educators and their parents? New ideas, imagination and a determination to deliver excellence for all children is what we want from the Government—they would have our support—but what we have is an all but empty Bill.
On health, there is only one small Bill. After a decade of Conservative underfunding, the NHS went into the pandemic with record waiting lists and 100,000 staff vacancies. There are 6,400,000 people currently waiting for treatment and 1,600,000 million people waiting for mental health support. The Government’s response? No legislation, no new funding, no details and no timescales. A failure to act for a decade was bad enough, but a failure to act after the pandemic is nothing short of an insult and a ticking time bomb. As my noble friend Lord Young said, we need to find a way.
I should just like to mention to the Minister somebody called Ian Weir. He lived in Darlington and died when he was, I think, 43 years old from a heart condition. He had been waiting for treatment for about a year and a half and died while on a waiting list. It was his death that led the then Health Minister, Alan Milburn, to introduce national service frameworks for heart conditions to impose targets and obligations on providers. Those decisions, that energy, that commitment and that determination to do something are still saving lives to this day.
However, we are now going backwards. Female life expectancy in the north-east is getting shorter, for example. That is shameful. More shameful still, however, is the Government’s passivity in the face of this preventable disaster. As my noble friend Lord Bradley explained, the Mental Health Act has long needed an overhaul. However, as he said, we do not currently have a sustainable, long-term workforce plan, which is necessary for the reforms to work properly. The Government are silent on this critical fact, whereas we would bring in an additional 8,500 new mental health staff to treat more patients and drive down waiting lists. It should please the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who made a well-informed and thoughtful speech, that we would guarantee mental health treatment within a month for all who need it and place specialist mental health support in every school, resulting in over 1 million more people receiving support each year and saving money in the long run.
Nearly two years on from the Government promising, as they put it, to fix social care, all we heard in this Queen’s Speech was that
“proposals on social care reform will be brought forward.”
I should hope so but, so far, that simply is not good enough. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is right: we are missing an opportunity to support carers and their families. She made some practical suggestions that would help. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, appealed to the Government to act and to rethink how young carers are themselves cared for by local authorities and schools. Too many fall through the cracks at present. The Government could and should act.
It is clear that the Government just do not have an ambitious, coherent strategy to revitalise health, education, welfare and public services. This is a mid-term Government with a huge majority. They should be making bold, difficult choices but are simply not meeting the scale of the challenge, with the UK facing crisis upon crisis in terms of the cost of living, mental health treatment, waiting times and educational attainment. Britain deserves better. We on these Benches want to form a Government. We have the energy, ambition and creativity needed but, until that time, we will use our role as parliamentarians to probe, push and negotiate our way to the better legislative package that our public deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be here to close today’s debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. I pay tribute to Her Majesty for her gracious Speech and her 70 years of service in this jubilee year. I thank your Lordships for their thoughtful remarks and contributions throughout this debate; I also thank my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott for her introduction.
Before I go any further, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for his tough but fair work as the opposition spokesman for education. I also warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to her role; I very much look forward to working with her on these issues.
In politics, there are some principles that stand the test of time. To paraphrase our greatest leader, Winston Churchill, this Government want
“to draw a line below which we will not allow persons to live and labour, yet above which they may compete with all”
their strength. As he said:
“We want to have free competition upwards; we decline to allow free competition to run downwards. We do not want to pull down the structures of science and civilisation, but to spread a net over the abyss.”
It has been 67 years since Churchill was Prime Minister but his words are as resounding today as they were then because this Government’s legislative agenda, from education, health and public services to economic growth and levelling up, is essential to provide a good standard of living for all and a sense of opportunity for everyone in the 21st century. It is this aim that lies at the root of the legislation we are taking forward, which will benefit the country and all the people who live in it.
Education is one of the Prime Minister’s top priorities, but nobody in this Government is under any illusion that improvements do not need to be made. Too many children still do not get the start in life that will enable them to go on and make the best use of their talents and abilities. Too many children leave primary school unable to read, write or understand mathematics at the required standard. Disadvantaged students are still less likely to achieve the standards we expect for them. As the noble Baroness opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, highlighted so eloquently, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic was greatest on our most disadvantaged children.
This Session, we have already introduced a Schools Bill to deliver a stronger school system that works for every child regardless of where they live and to bring forward essential safeguarding measures to allow more children to receive a suitable and safe education. The Schools Bill will level up standards and give parents confidence in their children’s education by strengthening the academy trust system, supporting more schools to join strong trusts, reforming attendance measures and delivering the long-standing commitment of a direct national funding formula. I thank my noble friend Lord Lingfield for his welcoming words regarding these measures.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Morris, Lady Blower and Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, all challenged our approach to academisation, and we will of course have time to explore this in detail when we come to debate the Bill. However, I cannot stress strongly enough that our starting point was not an ideological one. Rather, we started by asking our ourselves how we reach the aspiration that all of us in this House share for our children. The results from the most successful multi-academy trusts are substantially better for our children at primary and secondary level, and particularly for our disadvantaged children.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about the fragmentation in the system. We absolutely acknowledge that the system is fragmented at the moment and we very much hope that, with a focus on quality, we can drive a more coherent system that maximises outcomes for our children. My noble friend Lord Kirkham highlighted some of the strengths of multi-academy trusts. In fact, he took at least a minute or two out of my speech, thanks to his remarks.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—along with many other noble Lords including the noble Baroness opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—talked about the importance of excellent teachers for every child. To address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower: we are investing in training and professional development for teachers at every stage of their career, and we share her ambition that this should be successful.
I turn now to the questions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, regarding citizenship and education. The curriculum already contains content on human rights, the UK legal system and international law, helping people to understand—as the noble and learned Lord put it so clearly—their rights, duties and responsibilities. That curriculum is compulsory at key stage 3 and key stage 4 as part of the national curriculum.
My noble friend Lord Kirkham made a point about the care to be taken when exploring the possibility for individual schools in exceptional circumstances to leave a multi-academy trust. I reassure him that this is exactly the approach that we will be taking.
In relation to teacher recruitment, as the House knows, we are raising salaries to £30,000. We have 20,000 more qualified teachers in our schools today than there were in 2010 and 50,000 more teaching assistants. As noble Lords reflected on, we are also introducing legislation to have a register for children who are not in school. I really hope we will have time, when we come to debate the Bill, to set aside the misunderstandings. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, used the phrase “naming and shaming parents”, which is the last thing that we plan to do.
We absolutely recognise a parent’s right to choose the approach to education for their children, but equally we need to know where the ghost children are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, said on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. There is an estimate that those figures increased by about 30% during the 2020-21 academic year and that is just not acceptable. To reassure my noble friend Lady Eaton, there are substantial measures in the Bill to address illegal schools.
Turning to universities, as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott mentioned, we will bring forward further legislation to ensure that our post-18 education system really promotes genuine social mobility, highlighted as so important by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. It must also be financially sustainable and give people the skills they need to meet their career aspirations. I will need to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, about work with universities but I am sure that will be part of the approach. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for acknowledging the importance of this area.
Our aims, which sit at the root of the Bill, are to make sure that we offer individuals the best post-18 options for them and that they can take pathways which offer really high-quality routes, be those technical or more conventionally academic. I hope that addresses some of the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth.
We also want to meet our manifesto commitment to challenge the restriction of lawful speech and academic freedom. I thank both the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Falkner, for their support for the Bill, which we hope will directly address gaps in the existing law, including the lack of a clear enforcement mechanism.
Turning to health, the issues raised by your Lordships were extremely broad-ranging, from social care to the sharing by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, of his expertise in and insight into the continuing issues around HIV and AIDS. The long-term impacts of medical failures were highlighted by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, the role of volunteers by my noble friend Lord McColl and the Singapore scheme by my noble friend Lord Naseby, while elements of the obesity strategy were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. This is not to mention refugee mental health, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and community health workers, referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. We will need to write to address many of those points.
A number of your Lordships focused on issues around social care. As the House is aware, the Government are implementing a comprehensive reform programme of adult social care, with £5.4 billion of investment over three years from April 2022, funded by the health and social care levy. This issue was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Pitkeathley. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, rightly focused on the importance of a culture shift in mental health, which I remember debating with her when I first arrived in this House. Hopefully things have moved a little in that time.
Modernising the Mental Health Act is a crucial part of the work we are doing. As your Lordships know, the Mental Health Act allows for the compulsory detention and treatment of people with severe mental illness who would otherwise present a risk to themselves or others. We will shortly publish a draft mental health Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, all asked about the timeline. We are on track to publish the draft Bill this summer and expect pre-legislative scrutiny to begin in the autumn, although timings are obviously a matter for Parliament.
The Bill will take forward the majority of Sir Simon Wessely’s recommendations in his 2018 independent review. It will contain draft measures that will allow for greater patient choice and autonomy and help us address racial disparities that exist in the Act by enhancing patient voice and representation. We are already piloting new culturally appropriate advocacy approaches that take proper account of a person’s background and needs. Importantly, it will make it easier for people with learning disabilities or autism to be discharged from hospital—something the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, raised.
More broadly, there were a number of questions about staffing in the NHS and social care, including from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Andrews. As the House will know, there are record numbers of staff working in the NHS, but retaining that experienced workforce is an absolute priority for the Government. Our people plan has a range of actions to improve staff retention, with a stronger focus on creating a more modern, compassionate and inclusive NHS culture.
A number of your Lordships raised the issue of unpaid carers and carers’ leave. We know it is disappointing that the Queen’s Speech did not include an employment Bill for the third Session of this Parliament, but the Government remain committed to carers’ leave and will bring forward legislation on this when parliamentary time allows.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Greenfield, and my noble friend Lord Goodlad, talked about our dementia strategy, in particular in relation to Alzheimer’s. We want every person to receive high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis to the end of life. This year we will set out our dementia plans for England for the next decade. There will be four planks, which I hope address at least some of the requests of the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, in relation to diagnosis, risk reduction, prevention and research.
In relation to women’s health, the sex-based health disparities that were highlighted in the debate today will be addressed in England’s first ever women’s health strategy which we will publish this year. In response to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s request, my noble friend Lord Kamall would be delighted to meet her. The Government are committed to improving patient safety and prioritising resources to improve future medicines and medical devices. We would be glad to continue the conversation with my noble friend.
Turning to welfare, which is another issue that your Lordships have touched on today, the Government are reforming the special benefit rules for people who are nearing the end of their life and providing fast-tracked access to certain benefits. The rules being changed in the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill have been in place, unchanged, since 1990. As my noble friend the Minister highlighted, the Bill will change eligibility so that those expected to live for 12 months or less will receive this vital support, as opposed to the current six-month rule. The Bill will ensure that thousands more people nearing the end of life can access benefits sooner without needing a face-to-face assessment or waiting period, with the majority of individuals receiving the highest rate of those benefits.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, about speeding up the PIP assessments and payments, we are focused on transforming the PIP claimant journey overall to make sure it is more streamlined and more user friendly by using a range of channels including online and by telephone. My noble friend the Minister would be delighted to meet the noble Baroness if that would be helpful to discuss this further. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, for his generous comments acknowledging the hard work of colleagues in the department and what they have achieved.
Finally, turning to public services and, in particular, procurement, meeting all these ambitions will require us to look at how and where public services are delivered. We believe that the procurement reform Bill will replace the bureaucratic and process-driven EU regime with a simpler and more flexible commercial system that better meets the needs of our country while also complying with our international obligations. Public sector buyers will have more freedom and flexibility to negotiate and design the buying process with suppliers. The Bill will also make it easier to exclude suppliers who are unfit to bid for public contracts.
I will write to all noble Lords where I have not been able in the time available to touch on the important issues raised. I will also link in with colleagues in other departments in response to the questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Warwick of Undercliffe.
I have heard many times this afternoon and this evening the ambition that we all share in this House for this country and for the public services that are so important in its success. I know that I can speak for all my ministerial colleagues in saying that we look forward to working with all your Lordships as we focus on how we implement and refine the legislation in the gracious Speech and make it a reality to address the issues that people in this country face.