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
Before we begin today’s business, I want to welcome back all Members and make a short statement. I know you want to be updated on the protest incident in the Chamber on Friday, and to be reassured that steps are being taken to minimise the risk of a reoccurrence.
On 2 September 2022, four groups of Extinction Rebellion activists came on to the estate as ticket holders on paid tours. One of these groups superglued themselves to one another around the Speaker’s Chair. The Parliamentary Security Department and the Metropolitan Police Service worked closely together to ensure that all Extinction Rebellion protesters were removed safely and as quickly as possible from the House of Commons. Eight individuals were arrested and have since been released on bail.
A police investigation into the incident is now taking place in close liaison with the Parliamentary Security Department to establish the full circumstances of this incident. Given the number of protests and campaigns planned over the coming fortnight, and drawing on the events of Friday, the Parliamentary Security Department and the MPS have adjusted their posture accordingly. You will all understand why I cannot go into detail on what processes have been put in place.
As I wrote in my notice to you on Friday, it is a real shame that visitors who made arrangements to join the tours of the Palace of Westminster on Friday had their visit disrupted and cancelled. The right of protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy, but the right of peaceful protest does not extend to unlawful activity and I reassure all of you that the Parliamentary Security Department and the police will take appropriate action to deal with any such acts on the parliamentary estate in future.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Welcome back, Mr Speaker. I endorse everything you have just said. We enjoy the right to lawful, peaceful protest, but we enjoy the right to open democracy as well. Those who behave in this way should feel the full force of the law.
Before I answer these questions, I will briefly remark on my three years as Home Secretary under Boris Johnson’s prime ministership. A written ministerial statement in my name was tabled this morning—[Interruption]—shut up—outlining the work of the Home Office over the last three years to meet our manifesto commitments, which include some of the biggest reforms on security, migration and public safety, about which Mr Speaker has just spoken. I am proud to have served in this Government, and I thank the Prime Minister, Home Office Ministers past and present, and a wide range of officials.
Drugs are a scourge on society that destroys lives, blights communities and fuels crime. There is no safe way to take dangerous drugs, so I do not support legalising drugs. Importantly, the drug strategy led by this Government will tackle drug supply, reduce demand and provide world-class treatment to those in need of help.
Rachael Maskell
Tragically, York saw a number of deaths over the summer caused by substance misuse. There were 4,859 drug deaths in England and Wales last year, up 6.2% on the previous year, and Dame Carol Black’s second report highlighted that intervention services are not fit for purpose. It is important that we see change based on evidence. Will the Government look again at the impact of overdose prevention units and pilot them in places such as York?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady makes a very important point about the tragedy of drug deaths, and she highlights the incredibly important work of Dame Carol Black. I pay tribute to the work of Dame Carol Black, including everything she proposed on the drug strategy and treatment programmes. She also highlighted where funding needs to come together across the whole of Government, and a great deal of work is taking place on that.
The hon. Lady is correct. Not only does more work need to be done, but we need to have bottom-up solutions. Dame Carol Black has presented some strong proposals to the Government, and the Prime Minister and I have backed and supported them. It is right that that legacy continues, as it will help to save lives and re-establish rehabilitation programmes across the country.
Anne McLaughlin
Last week I spent an evening in Glasgow with families who, like me, have lost someone to drug addiction. They and I accept that the ideal situation is that people will conquer their addiction, but does the right hon. Lady accept that they can do that only if they do not die first? Does she also accept that, for those who continue to use, we should enable them to do so as safely as possible and as close to medical assistance as possible? The Royal College of Nursing supports drug consumption rooms. Will she support them? And will she support the families and the memory of all those who have lost their life to drugs? Will she give the go-ahead for just one pilot project?
Priti Patel
I totally recognise and understand not only the hon. Lady’s remarks, but the scale of drug addiction and drug deaths—we have discussed this many times before in this House and it is tragic. Conquering addiction is not easy, which is why I stand by the work of Carol Black. It is pivotal in terms of putting forward long-term treatment programmes, because long-term treatment is really required. My views on drug consumption rooms, in particular, are known, but there are no easy solutions to this, because people who are addicted to drugs have taken drugs for a wide range of reasons. It is important that we seek to support them to conquer addiction and help them to rebuild their lives.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Tom Pursglove)
The Government take a dual approach, combining tough enforcement with programmes that steer young people away from crime. Since 2019, we have invested £170 million in the areas worst affected by violence to boost the police response. In those same areas, we have also invested another £170 million to develop violence reduction units, to tackle the root causes of violence. Those programmes have prevented 49,000 violent offences in their first two years.
Tom Hunt
Over the summer we had two very high-profile knife attacks in Ipswich. We know that this is inter-gang violence—it is often members of each gang who are targeted—but it often erupts in a public space and has a chilling effect within communities. I am pleased that we have secured extra funding from the safer streets fund and that we are getting our uplift to the 20,000, but does the Minister agree that our UK shared prosperity fund bid to get even more police presence during the day would help to tackle knife crime? Does he also agree that it is right that we look at the national police funding formula in order to provide long-term fairer funding for Suffolk police?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who pays laser-like attention to crime and policing issues in his area. He was at the forefront of arguing the case for the safer streets bid, which has, fortunately, been successful. It is very welcome that his area is seeing £8.9 million of additional police funding and we have seen 114 extra officers recruited. Building on the work that is already happening, those resources will come together to help to continue to drive down crime in his area. That is a priority for this Government, as it is for him, and I know he will continue to follow this closely.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Last February, a constituent of mine, a young man, was attacked in the street by a man wielding a machete. There have been a number of further incidents since then, including last month on the streets of Leeds, where video shows two gangs squaring up to each other and holding these weapons. Why on earth is it still legal for anyone over the age of 18 to go into a shop and buy a machete?
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important to note that since 2019 we have seen 72,000 weapons taken off our streets, but we cannot be complacent on this, which is why Ministers are looking at this issue of serious weapons, with a serious weapons review. I will want to see its conclusions as quickly as possible, but he can be absolutely assured that our drive and determination is to get these weapons off our streets wherever possible. It is not acceptable to have any life lost to crime in this way.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Deterrence is more important than almost anything else, and the Minister knows well of the tragic case in my constituency of Ellie Gould, who was murdered by a knife-wielding boyfriend. People there are rightly of the view that we must find ways of improving and increasing the sentences for knife murder if we can. So what discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who are currently looking at guidelines for sentencing? When can we expect the results of that consultation to come out?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We do have Ministers who are joint between the Home Office and the MOJ, which means that we have been able to look at some of these issues in the round. What I hope can give him some reassurance is the fact that, through serious violence reduction orders, which we are introducing through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, we are seeing a greater likelihood of people being caught, of being before the court and of receiving a custodial sentence. I think the whole House can welcome that.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
It was alarming enough to find out that foreign intelligence played a role in the trafficking of Shamima Begum and other British children to ISIS, but to find out that our Government were aware of this is incredibly disturbing and raises questions on the decision to revoke her citizenship. So will the Home Secretary tell us exactly when—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, but that is not linked to the question; this one is on knife crime.
Mr Speaker
I know. That is why you cannot ask the question. In which case, I will now call the shadow Minister, Sarah Jones.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The current Home Secretary says that her “record…speaks volumes”. On her watch, far more people are a victim of crime, far more criminals are getting away with it, nine in 10 serious violent offenders never see the inside of a court, police officers are forced to use food banks, and the police have declared no confidence. What does the Minister think the Home Secretary is most proud of: criminals laughing in our face as they get away with it, or thousands more people across this country blighted by crime?
Tom Pursglove
I think it is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I believe has done a sterling job in the role, can be proud of seeing burglary down by 24% nationally, neighbourhood crime down by 33% and vehicle offences down by 28%. We have got 72,000 weapons off our streets since 2019. Leicester, which I visited a couple of weeks ago, has a hugely successful violence reduction unit that is driving down criminality, steering young people away from that course. Some 49,000 offences have been prevented nationally, with a return that means that in the round we are seeing benefits to society: violent crime is not happening, because it has been prevented by the work that my right hon. Friend has done.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The UK Government rapidly created the UK visa scheme to support Ukrainians seeking refuge from Putin’s barbaric invasion, each for a three-year period with full access to work, public funds and services. The Ukraine family scheme was the first of its kind to be operational anywhere in the world, and we should be proud of the role that our country has played in helping.
Paul Holmes
The UK was the first country anywhere in the world to operationalise its Ukraine visa scheme, welcoming thousands of people to this country. May I congratulate the Home Secretary and her officials on this feat, which was undertaken in a matter of days back in March? May I ask her to reaffirm that this country will continue to offer the support needed by Ukraine and its brave people, as she has always shown during her time at the Home Office?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are consistently working hard to maximise the number of people in sponsorship schemes, as well as those coming through the visa routes. It is also worth noting that there has recently been an uptick in the number of people applying for these visas. That is because the scheme is not only successful, but generous, and is helping people who are in need of support right now.
Mrs Murray
I recently met one of the many refugees in my constituency. He was full of praise for how the system has worked for him, but concerns were raised about the lack of affordable housing in the south-west. What work is the Department doing with other Departments to ensure that there are no issues down the line?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: housing remains a challenge, as we have always found through all the schemes that we have run, particularly the resettlement and refugee programmes. Work has taken place across other Departments, particularly the Cabinet Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for housing. I think that reflects the fact that the sponsorship scheme has worked because of the generosity of the British public, who have been housing Ukrainian nationals. Of course we hope that the scheme will continue to be as vigorous and strong in that sense.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Many six-month placements under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are coming to an end. For many reasons, not least the cost of living crisis, lots of them will not be extended, yet the Government have not set out a clear plan for what happens next. Families risk being placed in temporary accommodation miles away from where they have begun to rebuild their lives. Will the Home Secretary take urgent action to ensure that host families are properly supported and that measures are put in place to ensure that where a placement cannot continue, families are assisted into decent rented accommodation or accommodation with another host family?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady is absolutely right—there is no dispute there whatever. Other Departments are involved in housing, working with local authorities and ensuring a smooth transfer and transition. The Homes for Ukraine scheme, clearly, was there for six months; the transition period is taking place now, in many cases. A whole-of-Government effort is being co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office, working with other Departments. I think we should always reflect on and recognise the generosity of the British public, but also how Departments and local councils in particular have been providing support to make sure that that continues.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Prior to the implementation of the UK family visa scheme, to which the Home Secretary has referred, some concern was expressed by the Government that there needed to be additional checks because not everyone coming from Ukraine could be relied on. Can she give us an update on how those checks have proceeded and how many people coming from Ukraine were identified as fraudulent?
Priti Patel
Those checks are there for very good reasons—there is no question about that. When we look at the volatility and the instability in the region and many of the national security concerns, we can see that that those checks are absolutely legitimate. The record is clear in terms of the number of Ukrainian nationals who have come here. There are people who have been refused on legitimate grounds involving national security concerns, which we do not discuss publicly.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Stephen McPartland)
Antisocial behaviour is a menace to society. This Government have committed to stamping it out everywhere that it occurs. In our communities, we have already ensured that local agencies have the flexible tools to tackle it through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Of course, people are not just subject to abuse offline; despicable instances such as the racism online following the Euro 2020 final are why this Government will also tackle harmful content online through the Online Safety Bill.
Stephen Morgan
Portsmouth police go above and beyond to keep communities safe as I saw at first hand when I joined them on patrol at the Camber and the Hotwalls last month. However, they face an uphill battle following a 10% drop in the region’s police community support officers and police officers since 2015. Will the Minister confirm today when the Conservatives will finally get tough on crime and give my local force the resources that it so desperately needs?
Stephen McPartland
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been very clear about ensuring that, with the police uplift programme, there are 20,000 more police officers, and that is making a huge difference. Local police and crime commissioners are responsible for working with local authorities to ensure that they tackle antisocial behaviour locally, so I think that the hon. Gentleman should direct his comments to his local police and crime commissioner.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The boundaries between antisocial behaviour, gangs, drugs, and knife crime are increasingly blurred. An unwelcome recent trend in my constituency of Gloucester is that of an increase in young people’s involvement. None of us wants to see children criminalised, but we need to act, not least in order to protect other young people. Can the Minister arrange a meeting where best practice on how to tackle this growing problem can be shared with many of us in this Chamber who have similar problems?
Stephen McPartland
I know the work that my hon. Friend has done to try to reduce antisocial behaviour within his own community, and I know that he has been working hard. He supports violence reduction units. There is a huge amount of money and investment going into sharing best practice among forces to ensure that we also protect these individuals. We know the huge problems that county lines are creating up and down the country, and there has been a massive investment in breaking county lines on which this Government have been leading the way.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
While the Conservative party has spent the summer infighting, our country and our communities have been left fearful about the plight of antisocial behaviour that is rife across Britain. Because of a lack of legislative support, families and the most vulnerable in our communities are left suffering from fireworks and nuisance into the early hours of the morning without any help, including in my constituency of Bradford West. Car theft has gone up, burglary has gone up, individual theft has gone up, car crime has gone up, and dangerous driving has gone up, and all the while families are feeling unsafe to walk the streets of Britain. The Government have simply gone and are nowhere to be seen. Can the Minister explain why, after 12 years in Government, the Conservatives have failed so badly?
Stephen McPartland
I am astonished. The reality is that antisocial behaviour in the year to March 2022 is down 37%. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends may also be intrigued to hear that, nationally, burglary is down 24%, neighbourhood crime by 33%, and vehicle offences by 28%. That has been made possible by the commitment the Government have made to increasing police numbers by more than 20,000. Perhaps the answer is that Conservative police and crime commissioners deliver for their communities.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Tom Pursglove)
Through our drugs strategy, we are investing up to £145 million in the county lines programme to tackle ruthless gangs harming our communities. That includes providing specialist support to victims of county lines exploitation and their families. Since 2019, police activity funded by the programme has resulted in more than 2,400 line closures, 8,000 arrests and 9,500 individuals engaged through safeguarding interventions.
Jonathan Gullis
Over the summer recess I was proud to join our brave Staffordshire police officers on a drugs raid of a suspected county lines operation, sweeping the scrotes and their drugs off the streets of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. Sadly, we have seen an increase in filthy drug thugs peddling their dirt on our streets. It is because of this that I ask my hon. Friend to join me in supporting the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) to have monkey dust reclassified as a class A substance and increase the prison sentence on the parasites who plague our community.
Tom Pursglove
I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to talk about this issue in more detail. Monkey dust is a street name for certain cathinones. The Government recognise the harm of cathinones, which is why they are controlled under class B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The penalty for supplying a class B drug is 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. There are no plans to reclassify those drugs, although the Government keep drug classification under review and will seek to take account of any new evidence of harms.
Helen Morgan
Over the summer I met residents and parents in North Shropshire who are concerned about the presence of county lines drug networks in our market towns. Our local police force has done a superb job in breaking up some of those lines, but more needs to be done. The Government promised an additional 311 police officers in West Mercia, but at the moment we are only at 165—far off target. Can the Minister reassure me that those additional police officers will be recruited into West Mercia to tackle the ongoing county lines problem, which exists in rural areas as well as urban ones?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Lady for approaching this issue so constructively, because the matter of county lines gangs is of huge concern to communities both urban and rural, as she alludes to. The team in the Home Office will work very constructively and intensively with her force to ensure that we see the uplift programme through, so that her constituents feel the maximum benefit of the highest number of officers possible out on the streets, catching criminals and deterring crime.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Thanks to the work of the Home Office, British Transport police are working alongside Hampshire Constabulary to help tackle the appalling problems we have with county lines in north Hampshire. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that is a project that he continues to see moving forward? I have seen at first hand that it is an essential way of tackling the appalling movement of drugs from different parts of the south-east into my county of Hampshire.
Tom Pursglove
I thank my right hon. Friend for the way she approaches this issue and her positive advocacy for that initiative, which we are committed to. It is about continuing to roll out the county lines programme, with £145 million over the next three years, to tackle what is the most violent and exploitative distribution model yet seen. It is about safeguarding vulnerable people from being exploited, arresting and charging those running the lines, and stopping them exploiting people.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Local police have told me that they have seen a worrying rise in teenagers going missing, and there is inevitably an increase in county lines activity. Given the huge issues with county lines drugs gangs exploiting vulnerable children, will the Minister confirm whether the Government will be implementing the definition of child criminal exploitation in law and assessing whether police have the resources on the ground to deal with this terrible issue?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that what is happening in London is a considerable increase in police officer numbers, running at nearly 3,000 already recruited through the uplift programme, as well as additional funding in the millions and millions of pounds. The Mayor of London has the resources he requires to tackle these issues and this criminality. It is important that the hon. Lady has strong dialogue with him on that and, of course, the Home Office will continue to monitor progress on the issue.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
We live in a vibrant, open country, where we all enjoy the right to lawful, peaceful protest. However, I, the public and, no doubt, my hon. Friend are increasingly incensed by the attention-seeking antics of a small band of publicity-hungry lawbreakers intent on causing disruption for the law-abiding majority. We have a proud tradition of upholding the rule of law, and those who trespass and cause criminal damage should face the full force of the law.
Harriett Baldwin
As the Home Secretary says, the right to protest is fundamental to our democracy, but this new activity of gluing oneself to parts of our national infrastructure—indeed, gluing oneself to your Chair, Mr Speaker—is absolutely unacceptable. Does the Home Secretary need to give the police more powers to deter such activities?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises some really important points, and this comes back to your opening remarks, Mr Speaker, about the season of protest that seems to be taking place, which has actually become an annual thing, particularly with Extinction Rebellion and others. First and foremost, she asks about police powers. I give credit and pay tribute to the police, because they use specialist skills to de-glue or de-bond. But had we not seen the measures introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 earlier this year thrown out by Labour Lords, the police would have had the powers to deal with these types of protests. Of course, the Public Order Bill, which is going through the House right now, will absolutely double down and reaffirm those powers.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Our new laws, brought in through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, mean that we have legislated to introduce long-term solutions and to address legal entry into the UK. Of course, that means tackling the number of people coming over in small boats, but also introducing tougher criminal sentences. As my right hon. Friend will know, all these measures were opposed by the Labour party.
Mr Davis
In view of the uncertainty as to who will fill the Government Front Bench in the coming days and weeks, I will break the rules a bit by asking the Home Secretary to accept my thanks for her robust management of the most difficult Department of State. That is not to say that we always agree on everything, particularly on Rwanda, but we do agree that we must take back control, or keep control, of our own borders. The Australian experience demonstrated that pushback works, and we can learn from that. We can learn from the necessary increase in surveillance, we can learn from the increase in control and command by both the Australians and Frontex, and we can learn from the application of international maritime law. If we do all those things, I have no doubt that pushback will work with Belgium and France too.
Priti Patel
Despite the chuntering from the Opposition Benches, my right hon. Friend speaks a lot of common sense on these issues. This is important, primarily because when it comes to tackling channel crossings, we have specifically reviewed the whole Australian model, which, for the benefit of Opposition Members, is called Operation Sovereign Borders. That is effectively what the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was built upon, including the proposition of pushbacks at sea—something that has been developed by the Home Office but has not been operationalised by the Ministry of Defence—surveillance tactics and many other measures.
Finally, for the benefit of our colleague on the Opposition Benches, there is no single solution to this issue, which is why, as my right hon. Friend pointed out and as I have said at the Dispatch Box many times, it takes multiple solutions to come together, including reform of the asylum system, deterrents and criminal sanctions, which the Opposition completely voted against.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I agree with the Home Secretary that it takes multiple ways of looking at the problem of channel crossings. In July, the Home Affairs Committee produced our report on channel crossings. We were very keen to discuss the report with the Home Secretary but, sadly, she cancelled her appearance before the Committee. However, we hope that she will, in whatever capacity she holds in the coming weeks, attend the next Committee hearing in September to discuss her time at the Home Office. One of our key recommendations was to pilot providing UK asylum assessment facilities within France, enabling the juxtaposed consideration of claims in the same way that we already have juxtaposed immigration and passport controls in Dover and Calais. I wonder whether she might say what her solution to the problem would be.
Priti Patel
I would be very happy to attend the right hon. Lady’s Committee. I think the date of 21 September has been set, although I am not sure whether that has been shared with her.
This is all about collaboration and working with our French counterparts—
Priti Patel
They are our friends. In fact, I spoke to my French counterpart last week. In that conversation, as ever, a range of issues on UK co-operation were discussed. Those discussions continue right now, including on work on deterrence and interceptions—points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) would support. A range of issues, such as processing, are always under discussion.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Instead of the cruel and utterly failed Rwanda policy, or resurrecting impossible and dangerous pushbacks, we need safe legal routes, investment, asylum and modern slavery processing, and, as the Home Secretary has alluded to, close co-operation with our French allies. On that note, will she join me in stating clearly that President Macron is very much a friend rather than a foe, and will someone have a quiet word with the incoming Prime Minister about how important it is to work with France and avoid unhelpful, attention-seeking and counterproductive comments about our allies?
Priti Patel
With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, we clearly have a different stance on the policies and tactics. We debated these issues—and accommodation, refugees and so on—many times during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. I have worked closely with my counterparts in the French Government for three years, and I restate for the record that, on the basis of the discussions I had last week, of course they are our friends. It is important to say that in international co-operation on anything to do with migration—particularly illegal migration, at a time when 100 million people around the world are on the move because of global migration pressures—it is always right that we work in a united way with our international colleagues.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Over the last calendar year, I have overseen the enforced removal of more Albanian nationals than any other nationality. We regularly return Albanian criminals and immigration offenders to Albania via chartered flights, a process that is aided by the returns agreement that I have signed with the Albanian Government.
Mr Hollobone
Recent reports suggest that despite passing through many safe countries en route to the UK, when the very large numbers of Albanians who have been crossing the channel in small boats in recent weeks land on our shores, they claim not only asylum, but modern slavery protection. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to reform our modern slavery laws to prevent an increased abuse of our good will?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is correct that over the summer the majority of arrivals in small boats from France—about 60%—have been Albanian nationals. He will be delighted to hear about the work that I have led on reform of the national referral mechanism, a key component of the reforms to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which has been committed to within this Session of Parliament.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Our United Kingdom has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those in need through our resettlement schemes. The new plan for immigration will ensure that our resources can be focused on those in most need of resettlement around the world, including in Afghanistan, rather than on those who can pay a people smuggler.
Deidre Brock
Does the Minister share my concern regarding the findings of nine expert groups last month, including Humans Rights Watch, which found the UK Government’s resettlement schemes to be “unjustifiably restrictive”, and that it is deeply concerning that the UK Government are not offering a safe route for many Afghan women and girls, or to oppressed minority groups?
Kevin Foster
Well, I look at our record, which includes last year’s evacuation—the largest since the war—to bring people to safety here in the United Kingdom, and at the work we are doing week in, week out with colleagues, particularly in the Ministry of Defence, to bring more people to safety. We need to focus our efforts on those who need resettlement and safety and are under threat in Afghanistan, rather than on those who prefer to be here than in another safe and democratic country.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the Government still hold in a special place in their priorities those Afghans who assisted the British armed forces when they were present in Afghanistan? May I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for the work of those in the specialist hub, whether in Portcullis House or remotely, who have done outstanding work in enabling MPs on both sides of the House to help people fleeing from persecution?
Kevin Foster
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the work that has been done by Home Office teams via the hub. Those people who worked with UK operations, particularly the military operation in Afghanistan, would liaise primarily with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, who hold the records and will do the relevant checks under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. We then look to work with them to facilitate the relocation of those people to the UK, where that is deemed appropriate.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
We owe loyal-to-Britain Afghans a debt of gratitude and honour, yet with 10,000 of them still stuck in bridging hotels, at huge cost to their mental health and a cost of £1.4 million a day to the taxpayer, it looks as though Operation Warm Welcome has become operation cold shoulder. It is little wonder that the Minister for Refugees resigned yesterday in despair. Further still, the Government have broken their promises to vulnerable Afghan groups such as women judges and LGBT activists. Can the Minister therefore tell us why, if British Council employees and Chevening scholars can apply for asylum in the UK from within Afghanistan, pathway 2 of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme does not allow women judges and LGBT activists to do the same? Does he accept that these failures put Afghan lives at risk, bearing in mind that the Taliban have already conducted at least 160 reprisal killings?
Kevin Foster
I know that whoever takes office this week can look forward to plenty of attacks but few alternatives from the hon. Gentleman. We are proud of what we have done. As I said, last year we arranged one of the biggest evacuations since the war years and a rapid process to bring people here. About 7,400 people have moved into new homes since the first ARAP flight in June, which is an unprecedented pace of resettlement. Yes, there is more work to do; we are working with local authorities to do that and to find more homes, but we have to be clear: it is about working with local communities, particularly given the size and scale of accommodation, particularly family accommodation, that needs to be provided across the country.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I have secured a world-first migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda, and our innovative partnership means that illegal migrants will be relocated to Rwanda to build a new and prosperous life there. The number of people who can be relocated there is unlimited, and they will have support and care while their claims are considered.
Tony Lloyd
Does credible evidence of the use of violence and torture by the Rwandan security authorities not give the Home Secretary any pause for thought?
Priti Patel
First and foremost, as well as all our work with the Government of Rwanda—even prior to the announcement of this policy and the work that went into this partnership—plenty of in-country work has been undertaken. That is part of our country report and planning work, and all the advice that is taken in-country and across Government. With that, however, it is important to recognise that this partnership is very clear in terms of standards, the treatment of people who are relocated to Rwanda, the resources that are put in, and the processing of how every applicant is treated.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
There are various reports—not all of them accurate—about the limit on the number of people who can be processed under the partnership agreement with Rwanda. What action is being taken to increase capacity in Rwanda to accept more asylum seekers so that the full benefits of the partnership can be realised?
Priti Patel
It is important to emphasise again that the number of people who can be relocated is unlimited and, importantly, they have the support and capacity in-country—that is part of the resources that we have put in, and part of the programming approach that has been developed directly with the Government of Rwanda.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amanda Solloway)
Every domestic abuse-related death is a tragedy, leaving too many families in grief. This is why, in the tackling domestic abuse plan, we committed to significant reforms of the domestic homicide review process to ensure that lessons are learned, victims are supported appropriately and deaths are prevented in the first place. The Home Office is also providing £250,000 in funding to the charity Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse to deliver specialist and expert advocacy to families affected by domestic homicide, domestic abuse-related suicides and unexplained deaths linked to domestic abuse.
Kate Osborne
The Government’s latest domestic abuse plan confirms the stark truth that action on domestic abuse is getting worse, with fewer domestic abusers being prosecuted. Three in four recorded domestic abuse cases are closed due to evidential difficulties or because the victim is unable to continue. I hope the new Prime Minister takes the issue more seriously than she did as Minister for Women and Equalities. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward plans to support victims taking action and introducing a domestic abuse perpetrator register?
Amanda Solloway
I commend all the work that has been done on domestic abuse, and all the issues we have to face are not taken lightly. A central count of domestic abuse fatalities is crucial to building the evidence base for effective interventions and preventing future tragedies. This Government have been counting all domestic homicides, domestic abuse-related unexplained or suspicious deaths, and suspected suicides of individuals with a known history of domestic abuse victimisation since March 2020.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
On 20 June, I stood at this Dispatch Box and asked the then Minister, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), where the Government’s response to the domestic homicide sentencing review was. I said then that 105 women had been killed during the period of delay to that response. The then Minister—to be fair to the current Minister—assured me that she would write to me on the issue; she did not. Since I asked in June, there have been 18 more victims of femicide counted by the organisation Counting Dead Women, which will not account for the cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) because those are not as well known. May I ask what exactly is causing the Government such delay in responding to the QC-led report? They have had it for months and have promised the grief-stricken families of Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey Waterhouse that it will be delivered. Does the Minister wonder how many other women will have died by the time they finally respond?
Amanda Solloway
Such cases, whenever we hear of them, are always a great tragedy. There has been no delay, but I do give my commitment that we will get a response to the hon. Member—[Interruption.] We will get a response to her. I give her my guarantee.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amanda Solloway)
We have published our tackling domestic abuse plan, which invests more than £230 million to tackle this heinous crime, and launched the “Enough” national communications campaign, which educates young people about healthy relationships and ensures victims can access support. We have been driving transformation in how the police and the Crown Prosecution Service respond to rape cases, with 19 forces participating in Operation Soteria, and we also continue to fund the specialist helplines that supported over 81,000 people in 2021-22.
Clive Efford
On 17 September, it will be one year to the day since the brutal, sexually-motivated murder of Sabina Nessa in my constituency. In the year she was murdered—to the end of March 2022—an astonishing 70,330 rapes were recorded, which is up from 16,000 in 2010, yet we have a charge rate of just 1.3%. Does the Minister not think that we owe it to the memory of people such as Sabina to improve those figures?
Amanda Solloway
These are all tragic circumstances, which is exactly why we are working on the reforms. Tackling violence against women and girls is a Government priority, and it is unacceptable that this preventable issue, which blights and limits the lives of millions, is allowed to continue.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Together with our colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities we provide a range of support in accessing public services including essentials such as school places for children and housing. Around 7,400 people have moved, or are in the process of being moved, into new homes since the first ARAP flights in June 2021, an unprecedented rate of resettlement.
Sarah Olney
Of those who have arrived in the UK, around 10,000 Afghans remain stuck in hotels up and down the country at a cost to the public of £1 million a day. Most of them have been there for a year now, left in limbo due to the Government’s failure to work effectively with local authorities. Will the Minister commit to opening up safe and legal routes so that those in Afghanistan who are at risk can come to the UK? That also requires working constructively with local authorities so that Afghans in this country can finally start their new lives properly, in a home rather than a hotel room.
Kevin Foster
We are working constructively with 350 local authorities to ensure people get the accommodation they need. Given the cohort, that is clearly a challenge as there are large families and a balance needs to be struck with local authorities meeting their housing duties to local people. This also involves working with others, but we are grateful to see the number of local authorities taking part; their reaction is far better than that of the Lib Dem leader of my local council who initially, until he made a U-turn, refused to take part.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Tom Pursglove)
As I said earlier, data to 30 June shows that 2,952 additional officers have been recruited by the Metropolitan Police Service as part of the police uplift. In addition, City of London Police has recruited 60 additional police officers as part of this unprecedented recruitment drive.
Julia Lopez
In his most recent letter to me, Mayor Khan admitted that the Met police now has more officers than at any time in its history thanks to the national uplift under this Home Secretary. He has also confirmed that he will push ahead with plans to sell Hornchurch police station, the only base for officers in my constituency. Since a major review is now under way into the Met on his watch, will the Minister encourage the Mayor to use this moment to reflect on his own performance and whether he is doing enough to make sure every part of the capital has bases from which officers can operate?
Tom Pursglove
It is welcome that the incoming commissioner has a 100-day plan. As my hon. Friend set out, the fact is that the Mayor has 3,000 new officers in London over and above what he had previously as a result of the uplift, and his resources are up by £164 million compared with 2021-22. The bottom line is that he has the resources to get on and do it and it is time for the Mayor to show up and deliver.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Since I became Home Secretary in 2019 I have pursued the people’s priorities: backed the police with a record £17 billion; expanded stop-and-search powers; better equipped the police; and introduced a police uplift programme that is well on the way to putting in place 20,000 additional police officers. Harper’s law is in place, as is the police covenant and the support the police need to make our streets, transport network and our public safe both publicly and online. We have taken back control with a new plan for immigration that rewards talent, welcomes refugees, allows EU citizens to settle here, makes it easier to remove foreign national offenders, attracts businesses and deals with the issue of people smugglers.
I have also overhauled the Windrush compensation scheme and fixed the outdated nationality laws, supported law enforcement and the security services in fighting terrorism, including through the superb National Security Bill, and worked with our Five Eyes partners, the G7 and our international allies. In addition, we have collectively been combating the evils of violence against women and girls and changing the laws on trespass. But keeping our citizens safe is the Government’s first duty and it has been my privilege to do so, serving in this Government but also in my service to our country.
Caroline Lucas
This Government are planning to remove refugees to Rwanda who sought sanctuary in the UK from torture and trafficking. This is a new and despicable low even from this Home Office. Can the Home Secretary confirm whether she has read the medical analysis from the charity Medical Justice, and will she find some moral backbone, immediately release from indefinite immigration detention all those targeted with removal to Rwanda and finally abandon this shameful policy?
Priti Patel
Absolutely not, because the immoral aspect is the role of people smugglers and the criminal trade that facilitates people smuggling. Not only is the migration and economic development partnership the first of its kind, but it is being looked at by other countries around the world. Our processes are not only legitimate but show that a deterrent factor can be achieved through this policy. It is absolutely right that we ensure that people are detained on the basis that they will be removed to Rwanda at the soonest possible opportunity.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Simon Baynes)
The rise in dangerous channel crossings is unacceptable, as my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, there is a push-back policy in place. Not only are these crossings an overt abuse of our immigration laws, but they risk the lives of vulnerable people who are being exploited by ruthless criminal gangs. Our new Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is breaking the business model of these evil criminals. We have introduced tougher sentences for those who facilitate illegal entry into the country, with 38 people already arrested and facing further action since the Act became law.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
As this may be the Home Secretary’s last question time, may I recognise the unseen work that she and all her predecessors have done on national security and on warrants, which often goes unrecognised? I also join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to Oliva Pratt-Korbel, Thomas O’Halloran and the other victims of devastating knife and gun crime, which has escalated this summer.
Stabbings are now 60% higher than in 2015, yet the number of violent criminals caught is at a record low.
“There is a serious problem in this country with gun crime…with gangs…with knife crime”.
Those are not my words, but those of the incoming Prime Minister, so why have successive Conservative Home Secretaries allowed it to get this bad?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well the Government’s record over many years in boosting police funding—which neither she nor the Labour party supported—including the work under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which has all the right deterrents in place to go after criminals and ensure that they are given the right kinds of sentences, supports serious violence reduction units, and extends the capabilities of stop and search. Those are the very tools and tactics that the police have, and it is this Government who have supported them every single step of the way—not just by backing, equipping and empowering them to go after criminals, but by working with the criminal justice system to ensure that the right sentences are given out.
Yvette Cooper
But the Conservatives have cut the funding for policing and they have brought in lots of legislation that has not worked. Stabbings are up by 60%, and over 90% of violent criminals now get away with it. That is way higher than it was just seven years ago. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has said:
“Detection and charge rates for a range of crimes have fallen over the past five years. This has been impacted by austerity and the loss of thousands of police officers and staff…and…backlogs in the court system.”
That is a damning reflection on 12 years of Conservative policies on policing and crime. On her last day in the job, will the Home Secretary tell us whether she thinks that 43 police chiefs are wrong?
Priti Patel
It is this Government who have delivered over 13,000 additional police officers. That is 69% of the 20,000 target that we have set to meet by March 2023. Not only that, but it is our Government who have been committed from day one to reducing serious violence by putting an end to tragedies. We have invested over £130 million in tackling serious violence, including £64 million for violence reduction units. It is important to remind the House, the public and the right hon. Lady that at every single step of the way, she and her party have voted against every single law enforcement measure that this Government have brought in, including our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. Quite frankly, I suggest—
Mr Speaker
Order. I need to step in now. We have to get through some topical questions: at this rate, we will not get any further. Can we get back to what topicals are meant to be—short and quick, both asking and answering? Anna Firth is going to give us a good example.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. You have missed the point—[Interruption.] You have to sit down. It was meant to be a short question, not continuing. Who is answering?
Priti Patel
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend because she has been very strong on this issue. She is right: there is a great deal of work taking place. I would like to thank Essex police in particular for dealing with this issue in her constituency.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
We were all shocked by the horrendous shootings in Liverpool and on the Isle of Skye over the summer and send our condolences to all who were affected. While our gun laws are comparatively robust by international standards, is it not now time for another comprehensive look at both policy and practice, to see what more can be done to stop guns getting into the wrong hands?
Priti Patel
There are two points that I would like to make to the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely correct. First, the introduction of safety and security declarations, to which the Government are committed, will help with that, by tracking fast parcels that come into our country, often containing goods and materials such as firearms. Secondly—and it is a point of assurance—there is a force-by-force review of firearms licensing taking place right now.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Miss Sarah Dines)
As of June 2022, the latest data for hospital admissions for under-25s for assault with a sharp object—our primary metric for measuring serious violence—was down 17% in London compared to June 2021. This financial year, we have provided £12 million of funding to the London violence reduction unit, which brings together key partners to tackle violence, and £8 million in Grip funding for the Metropolitan police service’s response to violence.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are working constructively with councils. To be fair, I have to say that Glasgow is stepping forward, as always, to find accommodation. It is about finding suitable accommodation, not just any accommodation for them. We have also had constructive discussions with the Scottish Government—credit where it is due to Neil Gray—about where we may be able to go further in creating housing, particularly in Scotland, to accommodate many of those families; we all want them to be found accommodation in a permanent home.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Will the Minister help me get more alley gates, better CCTV and more street lighting to tackle the scumbags who blight alleyways across Stoke-on-Trent, dealing and shooting up drugs and fly-tipping all over the community?
The Minister of State, Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Of course, as well as the additional police funding that has been made available for my hon. Friend’s force area, and the additional officer numbers through the uplift programme, it is fair to say that one of the important pieces of work that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been progressing is another round of the safer streets fund, which I am sure his area will be interested in.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Kevin Foster
I am happy to pick up that with the hon. Lady outside the Chamber. She will appreciate that we do not discuss individual cases on the Floor of the House.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Last year, 28,526 people arrived illegally via small boats. So far this year 26,000 have done so, and it is clear that the previous record will be surpassed. Will the Home Secretary join me in asking the new Prime Minister to make tackling this issue a national priority so that we can finally take back control of our borders?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is well aware of my views, so I do not need to add much more on that. This absolutely is a priority, on the basis of the new plan for immigration and making sure that is delivered, along with the legislation on reforming the national referral mechanism and the many other approaches we have spoken about.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Tom Pursglove
The bottom line—I know the hon. Gentleman does not like it very much—is that we have recruited over 13,500 new police officers as part of the uplift, and the fact is that his party has not been supportive of those efforts. We are putting more police officers out on the beat, catching criminals and deterring crime.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
We are seeing the sinister rise of the vegan militia, which is seeking to hold to ransom families and farmers across the country. When the Public Order Bill comes forward, does my hon. Friend agree that we should legislate for farming sites, abattoirs and food production sites to be sites of national infrastructure?
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, and I know that she has been engaging proactively in her constituency of Rutland and Melton. I can say that the local police forces have been working with the sites affected to mitigate the risks of these protests, and we will of course keep under review the measures we introduce as part of the Public Order Bill, which is an important step change that we are going to bring forward.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Priti Patel
I am going to correct the hon. Lady on this, because the top four forces for the percentage of adult rape charges received—Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire—are leading the way, along with much of the work of Operation Soteria, of which she will be well aware. My team and I would be happy to discuss that with her, because these schemes are very successful in working with the CPS and getting charges brought.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I would like to thank the Met police for its very professional policing of the Notting Hill carnival. In the last week, my constituency has seen two murders and at least six stabbings. Can my right hon. Friend update me on what conversations she has had with the Mayor of London to really get rid of this epidemic of violent crime in London?
Priti Patel
All-change is coming in London with the appointment of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and I have been working with him on his 100-day plan. My hon. Friend and her constituents can be reassured that the Mayor, in particular—through our dialogue during the recent work with Tom Winsor—will be held to account for delivery, and that the new commissioner will have a very forceful plan to deal with serious violence, including by ensuring that the application of stop and search continues and that more work is done to keep the streets of our brilliant city safe.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on this. Work is taking place with the Department for Transport very specifically on these scooters, and police forces—through the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council—are working on appropriate guidance to tackle not only the inappropriate use of e-scooters, but some of the criminality associated with them.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
In Ashfield, I have pensioners who cannot get to the local library or the post office because of a lack of bus drivers, but there is no lack of bus drivers in Kent, shipping illegal immigrants to their four-star hotels. Is it not time that we declared a state of emergency?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is well aware of the Government’s work to deal with illegal migration. That continues to be robust, with our removals policies and the removals agreements that I have with countries around the world—not to mention Albania, which I have touched on. He mentioned the lack of bus drivers. If I may, I suggest that he makes representations to the Department for Transport, because that clearly requires more training and the issuing of more bus driver licences.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary look at my ten-minute rule Bill on joint enterprise, which I will present tomorrow? Is it not a scandal that thousands of young people are in prison without a route for anyone to look at their case?
Priti Patel
I will, and I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary’s extensive and robust work to tackle the number of Albanian economic migrants arriving in small boats. However, what more can she do to keep our country safe?
Priti Patel
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her diligent and professional work in the Home Office, where she championed the safety of women and girls. She is absolutely right about the safety and security of our great country, and when it comes to the checking of illegal migrants, she is well aware of the detailed work taking place, much of which we cannot speak about publicly for security reasons. That robust work will continue.
Business Statement
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
With permission, Mr Speaker, it may help if I inform the House that, following the election of the new leader of the Conservative party, the business managers have agreed that the Government will not move the Second Reading and other motions relating to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill today to allow Ministers to consider the legislation further. The remainder of this week’s business is as I announced on 21 July.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. The phrase “the remainder of this week’s business is as I announced on 21 July” will be interesting to follow, and I will watch closely. I hope that he had a good break, but the Government do not seem to have got their house or their business in order. This is the first day back, and the Government are already pulling their own business. Even though the data Bill fell well short on ambition, it was supposed to unlock growth and business opportunities. What do the Government have against those things? As if we needed more evidence of a zombie Government and a party divided, they will not even carry on with a pretty uncontentious Bill.
Why has this important Bill been pulled? Does the Culture Secretary not support her own Bill any more? When will it be rescheduled? Are the Government planning to drop it completely? Are the Government planning to drop any other legislation? Vital Parliamentary time is being scrapped this evening, and we could have used it to legislate for Labour’s plan to freeze the energy price cap, which would stop families paying a penny more on energy this winter. Our soon to be Prime Minister said she wants to take “immediate action” on the soaring energy crisis, but where is the plan? We could have been doing that this evening. Will the Leader of the House give us any idea at all of when this Government or the next Government, or any Government, are going to get a move on and bring forward legislation to tackle this Tory cost-of-living emergency?
Mark Spencer
Mr Speaker, I am very much aware of your desire to move quickly and for us to keep comments to a minimum. The hon. Lady is aware that there will be ample opportunity to debate such things. We have three statements this afternoon on very important matters that happened over the summer, including in the health service. The Government announced a huge £37 billion investment earlier this year to support people with the cost of living. Once the new Prime Minister is established, I am sure that she will come forward rapidly with her plan, and the shadow Leader of the House will see a united Conservative party that is firmly behind the Prime Minister delivering for the people of this country.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
There are two things that we could have been discussing this evening that might have been helpful for the whole House. First, the interviews for the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards were held months ago, and everything has been agreed by all the various bodies, so I do not understand why we could not have discussed that appointment today. Secondly, why can we not implement the new code of conduct, which the Committee on Standards recommended in the summer?
Mark Spencer
Those are two important matters that I expect to come rapidly to the Dispatch Box in the very near future.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
My question relates to today’s business. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that at the end of the summer term you granted an urgent question on the issue of infected blood compensation payments. The Government then announced, in August, that £100,000 would be awarded to some of those infected, but not to all. Today a written ministerial statement has been tabled, which offers no opportunity for us to question the Government about the groups who are not included in the scheme, which was announced in August, not to the House, but in my view could have been made in July. I wonder when the Leader of the House might arrange for a statement to be made to the House so that we can question the Government on the infected blood scandal.
Mark Spencer
As the right hon. Lady will know, business questions will take place on Thursday, and there will be an opportunity then to discuss the future business as presented.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is nice to see you in your place, Mr Speaker, and it is nice to be back.
I understand the reasons for the postponement of tonight’s business, but my constituents tell me that they consider the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill to be a welcome development, given the current conflicting theories about how the existing terms should be interpreted and the associated difficulties. They are worried about that. May I ask the Leader of the House when we will have the Bill before us?
Mark Spencer
I know how important this issue is to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity, at some point in the future, to debate the Bill. Business will be announced, in the usual way, on Thursday morning.
Ukraine Update
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
It is good to be back after the summer recess, and it is good to see you in your place, Mr Speaker.
I want to update Members about progress in Ukraine and UK support to date since the House rose for the recess. On 29 August, Ukraine embarked on a counter-offensive in the south of the country, around the city of Kherson on the west bank of the Dnipro river. As part of the shaping fires, Ukraine has inflicted serious damage on a range of river crossings with the aim of restricting Russian logistical support. That has had considerable success. I can report to the House that the Ukrainian forces have made real progress, assaulting on three axes, and especially on the advance to the south of the city of Kryvyi Rih. The grinding fight in the Donbas continues, but with Russia making few substantive gains in the east over the past two months. Since June, Ukraine has struck more than 350 Russian command posts, ammo dumps, supply depots, and other high-value targets far back from the frontline. Many of those have been with longer-range weaponry supplied by international partners, including the United Kingdom.
As of today, the Ukrainian army is engaging with Russian forces using both artillery and brigade-level operations. It is making real gains, but understandably, as we have seen elsewhere in this conflict, the fighting is close and hard, and Ukraine is suffering losses associated with an attacking force. My thoughts, and the Government’s thoughts, are obviously with the men and women of the brave Ukrainian forces who are fighting to uphold our values as well as theirs, and to defend their land. However, Russia continues to lose significant equipment and personnel. It is estimated that to date more than 25,000 Russian soldiers have lost their lives, and that, in all, more than 80,000 have been killed, have been casualties, have been captured, or constitute the reported tens of thousands of deserters. This will have a long-lasting impact on Russia’s army and its future combat effectiveness. Russia has yet to achieve any of its strategic objectives, and we are now on day 194 of what was expected to be a month-long campaign.
I know that Members will be worried by reports about the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is the biggest nuclear power station in Europe. On Friday 1 September, the United Nations International Atomic Energy Authority visited the plant accompanied by Russian media. No other international media were allowed to attend. Under the IAEA, an inspection was carried out, and the agency has left a team behind. It has already drawn attention to the violation of the plant’s “physical integrity”, and the United Nations remains gravely concerned about the dangerous situation in and around the plant. We will continue to monitor it, and ensure that we engage with Ukrainian partners to ensure that no one’s safety is put at risk.
Earlier in the month, Turkey, Russia and the United Nations came to an agreement on grain exports from Ukraine; the so called “Black sea initiative” was put in place. This has now seen over 2 million tonnes of grain exported, with another 100 ships waiting to embark with grain from Ukraine’s ports. I want to place on record the Government’s thanks to both the United Nations and the Turkish authorities for facilitating this—it was no mean feat. We have offered the Turkish military any support they require; to date, the Turkish Government have not requested any support, but we stand ready to do that. The United Kingdom continues to gift military aid to the Ukrainian armed forces to help resist the illegal invasion. Since the end of July, when this House rose, we have gifted a further three M270 guided multiple-launch rocket system platforms, and accompanying missiles. We are now working on an additional package of support. The total funding committed to this support is £2.3 billion.
In June, I recognised that training is as important as military hardware, which is why we embarked on establishing a network of training camps in the UK to train 10,000 Ukrainians. That was accompanied by specialist armed training across a number of countries in Europe. So far, we have trained 4,700, and I am delighted that over the summer we were joined by forces from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Lithuania, Canada, Holland and New Zealand; they are all now in place alongside British military personnel delivering that training. The training cycle is now in its third iteration and, after lessons learned, we have now extended it to a five-week syllabus. We are already seeing this make a difference to the combat effectiveness of Ukraine, and we are evolving the course and feedback to make sure that the experiences do exactly what the Ukrainians need.
Support for Ukraine goes beyond the here and now. Being able to plan for the medium and long term requires international funding. So at the beginning of August, at the invitation of our Danish friends in the Danish Government, I co-chaired with them a conference in Copenhagen. So far, we have amassed pledges of up to €420 million of support, including through an international fund for Ukraine. We are working through the governance of the fund with our international partners and we hope to add to it when I present more details this week to the Ukraine defence contact group convened by the United States in Germany on Thursday. The fund will be used hopefully to support a range of measures, including ammunition production, to ensure that there is a sustainable supply over the long term in Ukraine.
I would like to place on record my appreciation of the Prime Minister’s enduring support for Ukraine throughout the process, without which a lot would not have been possible. I am grateful, too, for all the support of all the parties in this House for the action we have taken. That allows us to lead on the world stage with determination and a focus on all the things that are right about Ukraine’s defence from an illegal invasion and on the fact that we share such common values of freedom, and respect for sovereignty and the international rule of law. I hope all of us in this House do so—I know from experience that we do so. This Government’s commitment to Ukraine remains unwavering and enduring, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State, John Healey.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome this statement on day one after the recess and on day 194 of Russia’s brutal illegal invasion of Ukraine. I thank the Defence Secretary for the regular briefings he has given during this period to those in all parts of the House and on all sides. On behalf of Members on all sides, may I say that we trust that he will remain in his post in the new Truss Cabinet?
I say on behalf of my party that we now stand ready to work with the new Prime Minister to maintain the UK’s united support for Ukraine and united determination to stand up against Russian aggression. President Putin expected Ukraine to fall within six days. Six months on, the massively brave Ukrainian resistance, military and civilian alike, is stronger now than it was in February, and all the Government’s moves to provide military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian help to Ukraine will continue to have Labour’s fullest backing.
We strongly support the UK’s training programme for new Ukrainian army recruits, which the Labour leader and I saw for ourselves on Salisbury plain. I am humbled by the fact that those brave new recruits whom we met last month are now on the frontline, fighting in Donbas. I thank the Defence Secretary and Brigadier Justin Stenhouse for organising our visit. Will this training under Operation Interflex be extended beyond the initial commitment of 10,000 troops and beyond the basic soldiering skills currently covered?
We also welcome the extra long-range missiles and unmanned air systems announced over the summer. What is the strategy behind our military assistance? Is it designed to help Ukrainians hold current ground or take back more territory from Russian forces? What action has been taken to replenish our domestic stockpiles? How many new contracts have been signed? Has the production of replacement NLAWs—next generation anti-tank and anti-armour weapons—now finally started?
The war is entering a critical new stage, with Russia unable to deploy the overwhelming force needed for a decisive breakthrough and Ukraine well on the way to sapping the will of the Russian army to fight, hitting ammunition dumps, command posts and airfields deep into Russian-held territory. With the Russian military leadership under increasing military pressure, does the Defence Secretary agree that we are approaching another turning point, where Putin is likely to step up efforts to persuade the west to lean on Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire and negotiations? What are the Government doing to counter such activities?
What are the Government doing to explain to the public that the energy crisis and supply disruptions are not a result of Russia’s war, but an essential part of Russia’s war? Russia is fighting on the economic battlefield, not just the military battlefield. What action will the new Prime Minister take to help the country with escalating energy costs, rapidly rising food costs and the highest rate of inflation in this country for 40 years?
On the subject of the new Prime Minister, before the Tory leadership campaign, the Defence Secretary and Defence Ministers said that the invasion of Ukraine proved the integrated review right. They said:
“if more money were made available, there are other things that we would do more immediately than regrow the size of the Army.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 688.]
Then, towards the end of the leadership campaign, the Defence Secretary wrote of the new Prime Minister:
“I welcome her plans to update the integrated review, reconsider the shape of our forces, and increase defence spending.”
I welcome his conversion to the arguments that Labour has been making for well over a year, but what does he believe now needs updating in the integrated review? Will he halt his plans for Army cuts? Will the £1.7 billion cut in day-to-day MOD spending now be replaced?
Finally, very few people believed Ukraine would still be fighting Russia’s invasion six months on. We now know that Russia’s aggression will go on a lot longer. Will the Government set aside individual announcements and instead set out a grand strategy of long-term military, economic and diplomatic support, so that we can help ensure Putin’s invasion really does end in failure?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman and his party on Ukraine. I apologise to him that he did not get my statement earlier. I changed it at the last minute—I was taking a bit of time as I wanted to give the House as many facts as we could and declassify some material.
It is my ambition that Operation Interflex—the training of Ukrainian forces in the UK with the international community—goes on as long as necessary, for now. We set a target of 10,000 troops, but through this pipeline I envisage that we will continue to train as many as are sent by Ukraine, to ensure that we are providing forces for them during the offences they are engaged in. Last Thursday, I again visited Yorkshire and met some troops who had come back. I met one man who had been injured by shrapnel and another man who, not long after leaving, had used a British NLAW to destroy a Russian tank. The scheme has a double benefit: we are learning as we go and improving the curriculum to ensure they get the very best training—they already want to learn more about some things and less about others—and our own troops are learning on the latest battlefield what our enemy does and how we deal with it. That is incredibly important, and we will continue to supply and support them as long as possible. When they arrived for the first curriculum I went to visit them, and some of those guys were getting off the plane in their tracksuits, training in uniforms and then having to hand them all back. They now leave here with 50 pieces of uniform—equipped, ready to go, with much better battle training and so on—to go into the next phase of their training in Ukraine. We will continue to supply that.
How many are trained, again, is in the hands of the Ukrainians, but we already know that they will want more specialist training. That is where I often convene our international partners, because they might want to do that closer to Ukraine than in Yorkshire or wherever we are delivering it. Those are the two phases, but the training is still going strong. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman came to visit, and I am happy to facilitate the leaders of the other parties or their Defence spokespersons to come and visit it as it progresses. I notice we have all the Vikings—the Danes, the Swedes and the Finns—all in the same camp, so come October time they will be able to teach us about working in the cold. That is very good.
Our strategy is to give the Ukrainians the absolute best chance either to negotiate, when they wish to, from a position of strength or to defeat Russia in their own country—to hold their position, to push back the Russians and, if necessary, to defeat Russia within Ukraine, to ensure that Russia comes to its senses and withdraws from its military and illegal action there.
We signed off last week on more replenishment of the high-velocity anti-air missiles, which are made in the same factories as the Thales NLAWs, to ensure that they are replaced. Right across the western industries there is a challenge with replenishment. Many of the supply chains have been dormant, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will know—as I think either he or the Leader of the Opposition made a visit to Belfast—that it is not as simple as switching on a tap. I have been very clear that we will place the orders, but we need to encourage the arms industry to invest as well.
It is not just for us to effectively pay for manufacturers to double their production lines; those lines will be full of customers, and we would like to ensure we get the balance right. Nevertheless, I will not sacrifice our readiness and our stocks to do that. The industry has letters of comfort from the accounting officer in the Department to say, “We will be placing orders, and you should start to proceed.” I met the head of BAE recently, who said it is already starting to expand its production, so that is on track.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne is absolutely right about the energy crisis. It did not come out of nowhere; some of it was about peak demand post covid, but President Putin is weaponising energy. He has weaponised a lot of other stuff over the years: he has weaponised cyber, political division in our countries, misinformation and corruption, and energy is just another plank in his arsenal. It is important that we communicate to our constituents that some of the deeply uncomfortable times that we all face are driven by a totalitarian regime in Russia that is deliberately setting out to harm us and trying to test whether we will sacrifice our values for our energy costs. That is very important.
For what it is worth, President Putin is sowing the seeds of the end of energy dependency, not only for Russia but around the world. We must all work on putting investments into renewables, which many Governments have talked about—I have been in this House under both Labour and Conservative Governments—but diversity of supply is also important. In the long term, Putin has put Russia in a weaker position. Switching off the pipeline instantly will just persuade Germany even more that it has to invest in something else, and I think that is a good thing.
I am delighted to join the right hon. Gentleman on a commitment to more defence spending; I wonder whether he will join us in our commitment to 3% of GDP on defence spending by 2030. I have always been very clear that as the threat changes, we should change what we do and how we invest. The Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), has made the point that it is not as simple as taking whatever extra money we get and doubling or increasing our troops; the lesson of Ukraine, as I have often said, is that history shows that when people spend lots of money on lots of new platforms and on certain numbers, they can hollow them out and not actually produce medium, small or large perfectly formed units.
If we have more money, I can assure the House that we will ensure that our soldiers and sailors are less vulnerable than they are today, that they have the 360° protection they need and that we invest in the enablers to make sure that the frontline is properly supported. All the vulnerabilities that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown—across the western armies, not just in the United Kingdom—will be fixed. At the same time, we will make sure that we fix the forces we have with better maintenance, better spares and everything else, so we can be more available and readier.
It is always tempting at these times for people to come out with ideas that are like going back to the steam train. Some people still want to go back to the steam train. There is always a tendency to want to suddenly mass up, but if we mass up without the appropriate funding, we will be in a mess in 10 years’ time. I do not want to repeat that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Although the commitment to 3% of GDP on defence is welcome, 2030 is further away in time than the entire duration of the second world war. It would be nice to see that commitment, which the Select Committee on Defence originally called for about six years ago, implemented a little sooner than the new Prime Minister plans. Can the Defence Secretary confirm that the extra expenditure on replenishing the arms supplies that we are giving to Ukraine is being met with extra funds from the Treasury reserve? What steps are we taking to ensure that the Russian people get the same message about the failure of Putin’s campaign that the rest of the world can clearly see?
Mr Wallace
On the latter point, in one sense it is sad, because it is people’s lives, but in Russia they cannot ignore the long and continued train of bodies to their loved ones and families. It was not missed by Soviets in the Afghan conflict. The terms “boys in zinc” and “load 200”, which are now in the Russian vocabulary, refer to the planes that brought back the dead bodies: zinc was what they used to wrap them. That is clearly before people in Russia. It is not helped by the misleading, dishonest and manipulative state information that tries to say that these people died fighting Nazis. The only people who are displaying a fascist tendency in Ukraine are the Russian regime; it is not in any way being extolled by the Ukrainians defending their soil. But we obviously do our best.
On the increase to defence funding, some of that £2.3 billion is replacing gifted equipment from our own stocks; that is already being done. We were able to release the GMLRS M270 because we received some others from another country, which we are refurbishing. We will continue to keep pace and make sure that we do not sacrifice too many of our own stocks. At some stages, there are also opportunities when our stocks come out of life or approach their sell-by date and are perfect for gifting, because they will be used. We have already planned to replace them. Some of the NLAW orders are actually quite old, because we knew anyhow that they were coming out of date; they were a 2003 weapon, so we had already started that process. I think it is NLAWs, but I can happily write to my right hon. Friend about the exact weapon system.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the update that he has given the House. Like many, we have been watching over the summer period as Ukrainian forces take back their territory. In one sense, although we would rather none of this were happening, it is heartening to see that weapons being supplied by this country are being used so successfully on the battlefield. Let us be clear about what that represents and what arming Ukraine’s armed forces represents: it is, by definition, an act against fascism and war to support those who are the victims of a campaign of genocide.
It is also heartening to hear of the training by UK armed forces and partnered armed forces that is taking place. I think my office is in the process of organising an opportunity for me and the leader of the SNP here, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), to witness it at first hand.
One thing that definitely worries me—we are starting to see it happen across Europe—is that the unity that we have all maintained over the past six months or so is starting to crack as winter arrives. We saw that in the massive demonstrations at the weekend in Prague and, I think I am right in saying, in Cologne. That is something that we must—absolutely must—stand against.
The single best way to end this war is for the Kremlin to recall every single Russian troop on Ukrainian soil. All the calls to end the sanctions now, as though that would somehow help to end the conflict in Ukraine, are a falsehood, but that takes us to another important aspect of the war, which is the information war. As winter bites, as bills go up, as the effects of the conflict start to appear in people’s bank accounts, and as an obvious information war from Russia takes place in that respect, can the Secretary of State assure the House, or outline to the House—this is similar to what the shadow Secretary of State asked—how he will ensure that we are fully equipped to withstand that information war? Standing with Ukrainians is the right thing to do, and that is something we need to communicate well.
Mr Wallace
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, to not stand would be infinitely worse in a decade’s time. If we do not stand together and deal with them now, these threats will not go away on their own. To the people in Prague or Cologne, I say that if someone gives in to the drug dealer or the guy that gets them hooked on heroin, he will be back for more in a good few years. We should not forget that, sadly, this is an opportunity to diversify our supply, and that will be better for everyone in the long run as well.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman will come and visit; if he has any problems, he should let me know. It was 3 Scots doing the training. I saw a lot of bemused Ukrainians, because the battle order that the 3 Scots wear in the field is a kilt. I saw them being piped through the battle runs. It was curious: I could tell that some had developed a love of the pipes, but that others had not. I will give them some more battle inoculation; that will be much better. It is incredibly important.
Again, there is a danger of the media narrative that people are losing interest crowding out the action. Chancellor Scholz recently announced another €500 million. President Macron said that we pay “the price of freedom”. At the conference in Denmark that the Danish organised, there was no shortage of international attendees. In total, we pledged €420 million and I am hoping for more; the Dutch, the Danish, the Swedes and the Norwegians have all pledged money. Our actions are the opposite of the narrative of “Isn’t everyone bored?”—I do not think they are; I think the international community is strong.
Of course, people in Members’ constituencies will feel it and respond, but again, I ask everyone in the House to make it clear to their constituents that part of the extreme gas prices that we are facing is a direct result of President Putin.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning Turkey’s role in getting the grain out. Indeed, Turkey remains a valued and vital ally in the NATO alliance. I am sure that he, like the rest of the House, will have been horrified at the footage that emerged over the summer of the mutilation of prisoners of war through having their genitalia removed by scalpels, which was filmed and put out there. Those war crimes must be prosecuted. I ask him to reiterate the support that the United Kingdom is giving to the investigations into those terrible war crimes.
Mr Wallace
On the investigations, as Defence Secretary, I am not entirely on top of that relationship, but I know that the Attorney General visited Ukraine a few months ago and worked closely with the international prosecutor. We are assisting countries such as Canada in gathering evidence to submit to the International Criminal Court. Like my right hon. Friend, I was appalled by the crimes that we have witnessed. We saw the castration and heads on spikes. The reported number of people killed in Mariupol is in the tens and tens of thousands—it is unverified, but I saw 87,000 in an open media source yesterday. People should not forget the scale of the war we are witnessing. I never thought in my generation we would see such actions from Russia—directed from the top—on the edges of Europe. The tragedy is of history repeating itself.
I pay tribute to Lord Harrington, who has resigned today. He been an excellent member of our Government, who managed to smooth the way when it came to refugees and settlement. I am informed that the Ukrainian refugee scheme has been the largest resettlement scheme since the war, with 120,000 Ukrainians having settled here. I will do all I can to ensure that scheme is extended to keep people in this country. The fact that so many people have come here is a symptom of what is going on in their country, and we are determined to ensure that brutality does not win the day.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
That was going to be my exact question: on the next step of the scheme. None of us wishes to see Homes for Ukraine become homeless Ukrainians on our streets. Perhaps some other Departments are not as enthusiastic as the Defence Secretary and need to be rallied to provide a follow-on scheme—particularly given the meltdown in the private rented sector and the lack of a deposit scheme for the second phase—so that we can play our part in helping the 9 million refugees created by this vile conflict.
Mr Wallace
Although the scheme has some imperfections, as it was done in a rush, I think it is absolutely brilliant. I will be urging its extension and I know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), is keen for that too. I cannot speak for the here and now, but I will do what I can to extend the scheme. It has worked. It does work. Many of us will have met Ukrainians in our own communities. It is good to welcome them and do anything further that we can.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I first echo the comment of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), about how fitting it is that this should be the first statement the Government make on our return to Parliament?
So many Members on the Government Benches hope for the Secretary of State’s continuity in his role in the new Administration, so that we can press our efforts as effectively as possible. May I just press him on something he admitted to about dormant supply chains? Our conventional armed forces are an important part of our deterrent posture, but dormant supply chains are no deterrence at all. What lessons are being learned about the future—not just for this conflict—about how to give real credibility to our deterrent capability through our conventional forces with active supply chains that can sustain a long period of warfare if necessary?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes a point about one of the consequences of a hollowed-out armed forces. Those who save money in the areas no one notices—such as hollowing out ammunition stocks—because they are always spending on something nice, shiny and brand new, pay for it. Industry will not just keep supply chains open for nothing. One lesson is to ensure that whatever we put in the field and whatever military we commit to, we equip it properly, support it properly with the right logistics and ammunition, and create the relationship with industry so that it knows when we are going to top up or keep it at the right level.
It is also incredibly important to ensure that we invest in the skills base, which in some parts of the country is well invested in by the Government and the primes. Last week, I went to Barrow-in-Furness to see 1,000 young people starting in the submarine and shipbuilding skills academy to learn the skills needed to equip our armed forces and engineering capacity into the future.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I get very angry when I hear people such as Mick Lynch of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers suggest that it was the EU that effectively led to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and that there were lots of people who were fascist and Nazi in Ukraine. That infuriates me, so I am glad to hear what the Secretary of State has said today. It also infuriates me when I hear people suggest that this has only been going on for six months; it has been going on since 2014, and we in the west did not take it seriously enough. The most shocking statistic of all is that 10 people who have now been sanctioned by the UK were given tier 1 visas to live and work in this country. When are the Government going to honour their pledge to publish their review of the tier 1 visa scheme?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right. Actually, to be honest, the writing was on the wall for many of us in 2008. I remember his experience as a member of the all-party group. On our watch—all of ours—Russia has turned from a country that we had hopes for into, effectively, an authoritarian, intolerant state that is oppressing its own people. Let us not forget that accompanying this Ukraine invasion is a mass oppression of its own people. People who disagree with Russia, or even criticise it, go to jail. We should all put our hands up to say that none of us did enough back in 2008 onwards. [Interruption.] I am not the Home Secretary, but I would be delighted to see that published—[Interruption.] I think I will go back to the Back Benches. Look, when I was security Minister, I had deep concerns about all of those things. We did some work on tightening up the first time round, but there is always more to do.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I welcome the news that we have trained nearly 5,000 Ukrainians through Operation Interflex. What assessment has my right hon. Friend had from Ukraine about the effectiveness and usefulness of the training? May I also ask him about the capacity of training: are we training the numbers that Ukraine wants us to train and is he seeking further partner nations if this capacity could be expanded?
Mr Wallace
There are two parts to the training. First, can Ukraine release enough training population? It obviously needs people for it to carry out the fight—we can only train what we get. We are always pressing to do more, and we have plenty of capacity to do more. If Members have a training camp near them, or in their constituency, I urge them to go and see it. The dedication from Ukrainians of all ages, including the hours they put in, is phenomenal. I met a man in his 60s who had joined up and was being put through it. We have a lot more capacity. It is also great that our international partners have joined us, because that means they can take a share as well.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I know the Secretary of State will have had a good reason for mentioning 3 Scots, but I hope that he recognises the contribution of the Irish Guards in the training. Over the summer, I was talking to a friend who was very proud of the role that the Irish Guards were playing.
I thought that Olena Zelenska made a very powerful contribution yesterday. There are concerns about boredom, lethargy and support right across the western world as this conflict drags on. Her juxtaposition between counting the pennies as opposed to counting the pennies and counting the casualties powerfully spoke to many of us who want to ensure that our support is enduring and lasts as long as it needs to last. I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind that there are supporters right across this Chamber who want to ensure that the public do not lose interest and continue to recognise the goal that we all seek.
Mr Wallace
Yes. I understand—and the hon. Gentleman, from the part of the world in which he lives, will also understand—the cost of standing up for freedom, the rule of law and doing the right thing. They do not come easily and at no cost. To be fair, I think the British public know that. Apart from one or two emails in my inbox, I have not found many people who have remotely swayed from the opinion that we are doing the right thing in Ukraine. That applies to all parties. In my constituency, it does not matter whether they are voters from my party or not—[Interruption.] I notice that I have just had a missed call from the Foreign Secretary, so I hope that I am not being sent to be the Home Secretary after that—I hope she was not ringing me about that. We still have a united population, which is a good thing.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I commend the continued leadership that the Secretary of State and his team have shown over the past few months. It is particularly important to help stiffen the resolve of our European partners because we are in this for the long haul. On that basis, there has been speculation by recently retired generals that, given that this could drag on and that Putin sees little prospect of winning, he may resort to using battlefield nuclear weapons. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of that possibility and what does he think the response of NATO would and should be?
Mr Wallace
We do not hide from the fact that Russian military doctrine involves the use of tactical nuclear weapons under certain conditions—that is public knowledge. The conditions are not remotely met for that, but we have nevertheless seen President Putin evoke nuclear weapons in public more than 35 times, I think, in the last six months. Of course we are mindful of that and, as I have said all along, it is incredibly important that we calibrate everything we do in the west to make sure that this is about Russia in Ukraine and saying that Russia must fail in Ukraine. It is not a threat to the Russian state. The west and NATO are not organising against the Russian state; the international community is organising to help Ukraine defend itself. That message is loud and clear. The consequence of the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be global condemnation of Russia by all countries, including countries such as China, and I think President Putin is well aware of that.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The jury is not out. Our friends are our European allies, and our foe is Putin’s regime and the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Maintaining western unity is really crucial, but each western country is facing the same economic problems of rising inflation and rising energy costs. What is the Secretary of State’s strategy for maintaining that unity in the many years ahead?
Mr Wallace
All of us have come together more times in the last six months than we probably have in the last four years, and I have said that I am off to the US airbase at Ramstein on Thursday to meet some 40 nations that it has convened on many occasions. What I would say is that the political body of Europe is pretty solid. Yes, there are a few stragglers, but fundamentally it is strong.
The hon. Lady mentions rising inflation, which is considerably driven by rising energy costs. The rising energy costs are the result of President Putin using energy as a weapon. The reality for us on both sides of the House is that we can take some measures to take the edge off the energy prices for our constituents, but the global price is driven partly by a man in the Kremlin who is determined to use it to try to punish us. The British, just like the French and the Germans, are tough enough to make sure we will not be bullied by that. What we have to do is work together to either mitigate it or find alternative fuel sources to try to reduce prices. In the meantime, we have the political challenge from the Opposition on how we will help our constituents.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I heard the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on nuclear weapons, but is he aware that President Lukashenko recently announced that he has completely refitted the Belarus air force to be able to carry nuclear weapons? What effect does the Secretary of State think that will have on the Ukraine war?
Mr Wallace
Yes, I saw those statements by the President of Belarus. He has been remarkably canny in not entering his own forces into the war, although we have often seen Russian munitions launched from the territory of Belarus. I think it is inevitable that he will try to escalate that by saying that the Russians could give nuclear weapons to Belarus and that his planes could carry them, but that is why NATO has a nuclear deterrent and why Britain provides that nuclear deterrent. Somewhere out there in the Atlantic is one of our patrol boats, which never stop patrolling, to make sure that the nuclear deterrent is capable and ready. As much as that is not what some people wish, I am pleased that we have it now.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
During my time as my party’s defence spokesman, the Secretary of State and his ministerial team have treated all my questions and inquiries with great courtesy. I thank them for that, and I wish them all the best for the future. Equally, last week, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) had an excellent briefing from the MOD as the handover between him and me takes place. Will the Secretary of State pass on our thanks to his officials as well?
Napoleon’s Grande Armée and Hitler’s Wehrmacht fell foul of the Russian winter, and the rest is history. Will the Secretary of State explain what we are doing to help our friends in Ukraine to train for a brutal and severe Russian winter? It can have a massive impact on tactics and strategy unless we are prepared for it.
Mr Wallace
The first thing to say is that the Ukrainians are as tough, if not tougher. A Ukrainian winter and a Russian winter are pretty similar, and their history shows that they are pretty good at dealing with them. We are in constant discussions with our Ukrainian counterparts and have already made provision for winter warfare clothes, and we will ensure not only that they are supported with that, but that it brings an advantage.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Will the Black sea initiative, which the Secretary of State spoke about, allow materials such as ammonia to come out of Ukraine? I gather from reporting that the initiative will only be in place for 120 days if all parties agree. Is there a contingency plan for ensuring that in the depths of winter there is a secure food supply?
Mr Wallace
I will have to write to my hon. Friend on what individual cargoes are available, but he is right that there is currently a time limit on the initiative. That is why working with our Turkish friends is so important to try to keep that going. It is also why it is important that, with 100 ships waiting, we make sure we get that grain out as quickly as we can.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us on the Opposition side of the House were a bit worried that he might have become leader of the Conservative party? I congratulate him on his determination to remain Secretary of State for Defence, and he will certainly have the support of many of us for the way he has handled that job in recent months. First, I wish to press him on the role of the BBC World Service in getting good news out around the world. It is a vital component and should be encouraged. Secondly, is the Royal Navy playing a full part? He mentioned it in passing, but we recently had the embarrassment of one of our new aircraft carriers breaking down, so is everything all right with the Royal Navy and is it able to play its part?
Mr Wallace
In the next few days HMS Queen Elizabeth, the other carrier, will depart to fulfil the duties of HMS Prince of Wales, which shows one of the benefits of having a second carrier. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments; I do not know what to say in response, but that job was not for me. Some people are braver than I am when it comes to that type of job, and I am lucky in this House in that I feel fulfilled, and there are not many people in politics who get to make a difference. As far as I go, I am delighted—but who knows; I might be off to the Home Office. We will carry on, working across the House, to make sure that we look after not only our troops and our people, but the people of Ukraine.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the Defence Secretary for his outstanding response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; he has set an example that every other western Defence Minister should follow. The Royal Navy’s naval mine counter-measures capability is world class, completely outstanding and second to none. Have we been able to share any of that expertise with the Ukrainian navy to help guarantee the exports of grain shipments from Ukraine across the Black sea?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right to observe the unique, often global, expertise of our mine-clearing capabilities. We have Ukrainians being trained in that right now in Portsmouth, and at the same time we are working with other Black sea nations in the same space. Obviously, with the Montreux treaty being invoked by Turkey, we cannot put military ships into the Black sea, but we are teaching and supporting Ukraine and our other colleagues in the Black sea.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
There has always been strong cross-party support for our military assistance in Ukraine, and I am sure that will continue. Like the shadow Secretary of State, I clocked the commitment that the incoming Prime Minister made on 24 July to update the integrated review in response to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State say a bit more about what preparations are being made to do that and, critically, whether in the interim there will be no cuts to capability, including personnel?
Mr Wallace
The size of the Army currently stands at about 79,000. There has not yet been a reduction from the 82,000 as such. In fact, I think it is higher than when I first started as Defence Secretary, so my record is in the wrong direction at the moment. We will obviously look at the issues around vulnerabilities. The integrated review identified Russia as our most pressing adversary, and I do not think that anybody is going to need to change that observation. If we receive more funding—I think the first preparation for battle will be with the Treasury, to make sure that we get the profile that makes the difference—I will of course be delighted to have a much wider conversation with all Members of the House about where they envisage us spending that money in order to make our armed forces the very best they can be. We have a role to play not just in Ukraine and Europe, but globally. That is one of our differences and I would be delighted to explore more with hon. Members.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
History can be a double-edged teacher. We know that the Soviet Union lost out in Afghanistan because public opinion among the people of the Soviet Union turned so firmly against it. Are we able to do more to make sure that real information is getting through to the Russian population, particularly older people who are dependent on state-controlled media, about what exactly is happening to their sons in Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
There are two parts to that. Obviously, we do our best to make sure that the people of Russia understand what is going on, and I would be delighted to arrange a briefing for the hon. Gentleman, if he would like one. On the wider issue, we should not forget that, although this is not getting out of Russia, the Russian people are feeling it themselves. It is not possible to ignore the cemeteries, with lines and lines of graves, the exodus of international companies, or the fact that the standard of living is starting to drop in some parts. The problem is that, in a country whose Government do not really listen to, or care much about, their own people, I am not sure that has a major effect on the decision makers, but we need to never stop telling the Russian people what is actually going on.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Following the International Atomic Energy Agency visit to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, Mr Rafael Grossi, the agency’s head, spoke out very strongly about the risks to the integrity and safety of the plant from the fighting that is taking place around it. We understand that the report will be out in a week or so, but what is the Government’s plan—indeed, what is the international community’s plan—to take forward the report’s recommendations? Does the Secretary of State think that the Russians understand the risks that are being taken with the safety of the plant through what has been going on, or does he feel that they do not care?
Mr Wallace
This is a personal view. Do I think Russia cares? Not really. I do not think it cares about anything that it is seeking to capture. It has destroyed Mariupol and killed and brutalised everyone who seems to get in its path. One of the anxieties of the Baltic states is that, historically, the defence plans were to hold an invading Russia and to try to get there in a number of weeks and push them back, but the Estonians and the Latvians will say, “We don’t have a couple of weeks, because look at what they do.” It is no accident that we saw, on the Chernobyl site, Russia deliberately using its forces to frighten, to demand attention and to potentially use it as a hostage.
I am pleased, to be fair, that they let the UN inspectors turn up. I am pleased that they were allowed to leave people behind. Of course, as I said in my statement, the fact that no international media were allowed to accompany them is obviously a worry, and that relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about the BBC World Service, which is one of our best soft power tools globally. It is highly respected. I am of an age to remember the late President Gorbachev—who, we should not forget, was a significant force for change in Russia in his time—saying that he listened to the BBC World Service during the short coup when he was captured and it was the only place he got news from. In these days of social media, the BBC World Service can be a rock in a storm.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the major flanks drawing the international community into one place—there has been a focus on countries such as India—is the need to stop dependence on Russian energy, yet the energy crisis makes that ever more difficult. Will the Secretary of State say more about how he is holding the global community together to oppose Russia’s ongoing assaults, particularly its weaponisation of energy in this conflict?
Mr Wallace
I know that the hon. Lady is keen on environmental issues. Some of this starts at home, because we can all ensure in our countries that we do not just talk, but get on and invest both in renewables and, I would say, in more nuclear and alternative energy supplies. The United Nations General Assembly is coming up soon, and I noted that some of the G7 communiqués referred to capping Russian oil prices to send a strong message. We must ensure that all these international forums, which are now coming even more to the fore, are used to remind Russia that its actions are completely unacceptable. I urge India to be more strident in that space.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the head of the British Army said recently that the Army must be prepared, working with our allies, to successfully confront the Russian army. In that context, will the Secretary of State at least commit to examining whether it is appropriate for the Government to cut our Army by 10,000?
Mr Wallace
Obviously, it is for Her Majesty the Queen to appoint the next Prime Minister, but the new leader of the Conservative party has committed to more defence spending. I will absolutely look at how we can populate our armed forces to give us the best readiness and the best availability of equipment, and at how to ensure we can be more persistently present around the world, and that will involve considering force laydown and the required size of our forces. For example, we simply do not have enough long-range artillery, and we do not have any ground-based, long-range, anti-air capability. That will come with more platforms and equipment, and it will come with more people, but not remotely as many people as an infantry battalion would. We should look in the round at what capabilities we need and at what that means for the number of people needed to man them.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
As it becomes accepted that Russia has failed in all its objectives, and as the public accept the success of the Ukrainian defence, the risk is that that will lead to complacency about the dangers facing the Ukrainians and that public interest will start to wane. The Secretary of State spoke powerfully about the counter-offensive in Kherson and about the risk of increasing Ukrainian army casualties. Has our training and support for the Ukrainians had to change as they move from a purely defensive posture into starting to retake land? What further support might we need to give in this next stage of the conflict?
Mr Wallace
First, the curriculum has become less defensive and more offensive as we teach the Ukrainians how to assault positions and so on. As for what more we could do, I will give a small but important example. Historically, when a soldier was injured on the battlefield, they were evacuated to a company battalion or company aid post. However, owing to the existence of modern, cheap drones that can drop grenades, the Ukrainians are having to treat their people where they fall for longer before they can move them in, for example, armoured ambulances. That means they need more tourniquets, because securing the blood supply is more important than ever, given that the casualty will not get to an aid post as quickly. Those are the sort of the things that we look for in the training and feedback, and we then immediately try to buy it, source it or seek donations to try to help the Ukrainians on the battlefield. We were there back in 2015 training Ukrainians under Operation Orbital, and we have been there all along with the Canadians, the Swedes and the United States. It pays dividends in our relationship that we know what they need in the here and now.
The hon. Gentleman is also right about Putin’s longer-term strategy, and I think he is counting on two things. The first is the international community getting bored, not sticking around and splitting up, and he may just say, “I thought it would take three months, but it only took six.” Secondly, he is counting on the fact that his brutality is how to win a war, and we must not let that message be successful, because if Putin is successful, all our adversaries and all those around the world who think that brutality and breaking international law are the ways to win will take succour from that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State for his strength of character and for putting, with gentleness, a bit of backbone into some of the other colleague countries, which were perhaps a wee bit hesitant when it came to replying and supporting Ukraine. Well done, Secretary of State. As of early this afternoon, it has been revealed that the Russian occupation authorities in Ukraine’s southern city of Kherson have postponed their referendum on joining Russia; it would seem that Russia has perhaps seen the writing on the wall, to use a biblical story. What immediate steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that Ukraine can maintain its full independence from Russian forces? Will he continue to garner the western countries to defeat Russia’s illegal military action?
Mr Wallace
The best message we can send to Russia and our friends in Europe is that this House is unified—that is a really important step along the road. On the other issues of Kherson, a fake referendum was postponed, allegedly for “security” reasons, and I think we all know what that means. As for the steps we can do to make sure that that does not happen, we can help Ukraine retake Kherson.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on the Ukraine update and for answering questions for a smidgeon under an hour.
Urgent and Emergency Care
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our support for urgent and emergency care. I know that this is an issue of great concern to right hon. and hon. Members, and I wanted to update the House at the earliest opportunity on the work that has been undertaken over the summer.
Bed occupancy rates have broadly remained at winter-type levels, with covid cases in July still high, with one in 25 testing positive—that compares with about one in 60 currently. This is without the decrease in occupancy that we would normally expect to see after winter ends, and ambulance waiting times have also continued to reflect the pressures of last winter, although I am pleased to see recent improvements. For example, the West Midlands service is meeting its category 2 time of less than 18 minutes.
I would like to update the House on the nationwide package of measures we are putting in place to improve the experience of patients and colleagues alike. First, we have boosted the resources available to those on the frontline. We have put in an extra £150 million of funding to help ambulance trusts deal with ambulance pressures this year. On top of that, we have agreed a £30 million contract with St John Ambulance so that it can provide surge capacity of at least 5,000 hours per month. We are also increasing the numbers of colleagues on the frontline. We have boosted the national 999 call handler numbers to nearly 2,300, which is about 350 more than we had in September last year, and we have plans to increase this number further to 2,500 by December, supported by a major national recruitment campaign. By the end of the year we will have also increased 111 call handler numbers to 4,800. As well as that, we have a plan to train and deploy even more paramedics, and Health Education England has been mandated to train 3,000 paramedic graduates nationally each year, which is double the number of graduates that were accepted in 2016.
Secondly, we are putting an intense focus on the issue of delayed discharge, which, as many Members know, is the cause of so many of the problems we see in urgent and emergency care—I think that is recognised across the House. This is where patients are medically fit to be discharged but remain in hospital, taking up beds that could otherwise be used for those being admitted. Delayed discharge means longer waits in accident and emergency, lengthier ambulance handover times and the risk of patients deteriorating if they remain in hospital beds too long—this is particularly the case for the frail and elderly. The most recent figures, from the end of July, show that the number of these patients is just over 13,000—these are similar numbers to those for the winter months. We have been working closely with trusts where delayed discharge rates are highest, putting in place intensive on-the-ground support.
More broadly, our national discharge taskforce is looking across the whole of health and social care to see where we can put in place best practice and improve patient flow through our hospitals. As part of that work, we have also selected discharge frontrunners, who will be tasked with testing radical solutions to improve hospital discharge. We are looking at which of these proposals we can roll out across the wider system and launch at speed. Of course, this is not just an issue for the NHS. We have an integrated system for health and care and must look at the system in the round, and at all the opportunities that can make a difference. For instance, patients can be delayed as they are waiting for social care to become available, and here too, we have taken additional steps over the summer. We have launched an international recruitment taskforce to boost the care workforce and address issues in capacity. On top of that, we will be focusing the better care fund, which allows integrated care boards and local authorities to pool budgets, to reduce delayed discharge. In addition, we are looking at how we can draw on the huge advances in technology that we have seen during the pandemic and unlock the value of the data that we hold in health and care, including through the federated data platform.
Finally, we know from experience that the winter will be a time of intense pressure for urgent and emergency care. The NHS has set out its plans to add the equivalent of 7,000 additional beds this winter, through a combination of extra physical beds and the virtual wards which played such an important role in our fight against covid-19. Another powerful weapon this winter will be our vaccination programmes. Last winter, we saw the impact that booster programmes can have on hospital admissions, if people come forward when they get the call. This year’s programme gives us another chance to protect the most vulnerable and reduce the demand on the NHS. Our autumn booster programmes for covid-19 and flu are now getting under way, and will be offered to a wider cohort of the population, including those over 50, with the first jabs going in arms this week as care home residents, staff and the housebound become the first to receive their covid-19 jabs.
Over the summer, we became the first country in the world to approve a dual-strain covid-19 vaccine that targets both the original strain of the virus and the omicron variant. This weekend, the MHRA approved another dual-strain vaccine, from Pfizer, and I am pleased to confirm that we will deploy it, along with the Moderna dual-strain vaccine, as part of our covid-19 vaccination programme in line with the advice of the independent experts at the JCVI. Whether it is for covid-19 or flu, I would urge anyone who is eligible to get protected as soon as they are invited by the NHS, not just to protect themselves and those around them, but to ease the pressure on the NHS this winter.
Today I have laid before the House a written ministerial statement on further work that we have been doing over the summer, and I want to draw the House’s attention to one particular feature in that statement which has garnered interest in the House in the past. In November 2021, the Government announced it would make £50 million of funding available for research into motor neurone disease over five years. Following work over the summer between my Department and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation, to support researchers to access funding in a streamlined and coordinated way, we are pleased to confirm that this funding has now been ring-fenced. The Departments welcome the opportunity to support the MND scientific community of researchers as they come together through a network and linked through a virtual institute.
I commend this statement to the House.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and wish him and the ministerial team well as the new Prime Minister appoints her first Government. I also welcome what he said towards the end of his statement about the importance of vaccination and funding for motor neurone disease.
Emergency care is in crisis. After 12 years of Conservative Governments, the NHS can no longer reach patients on time. The outgoing president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said earlier in the summer that ambulance delays had got so bad that the NHS was now “breaking its promise” to the public that life-saving emergency care will be there when they need it. Twenty-nine thousand patients waited more than 12 hours in A&E in June, more than ever before. Ten thousand urgent cases waited more than eight hours for an ambulance last month. It is estimated that the collapse of emergency care that we are now seeing could be costing 500 lives a week. If the statistics did not paint a stark enough picture, no one can ignore the case of 87-year-old David Wakeley, whose family had to build a shelter around him as he waited outside for an ambulance, with broken bones, for 15 hours. What a shameful indictment on 12 years of Conservative mismanagement of the NHS.
There have been recent reports that the NHS will tell patients to
“avoid A&E as the winter crisis bites early.”
That was in August. The simple fact is that we have gone from no crisis in the system in 2010, to annual winter crises, to the situation we have today where there is a crisis all year round—the worst crisis in the history of the NHS. There is no point in the Secretary of State blaming the pandemic or, indeed, the extreme heat we saw this summer, although they do not help. The reality is that, before the pandemic, the NHS had not hit the 18-minute response time target for emergency incidents since 2017. Will the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government and his party, finally take some responsibility and admit what his colleague the Culture Secretary was honest enough to say, that the Conservatives left our health service “wanting and inadequate” when the pandemic hit?
The NHS needs Ministers to grip this crisis and work tirelessly to get patients the care they need, so where have the Government been all summer? It is almost as if, the moment the Conservative leadership candidates hit the road, the Cabinet turned on their “out of office” and hit the beach as the NHS slipped into the worst crisis in its history and the Government did diddly-squat on the cost of living crisis, which will also exacerbate people’s health problems.
I pay tribute to St John’s Ambulance for the vital work it does, and I am pleased it has now been formally commissioned to provide England’s ambulance auxiliary. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this capacity is being used by the system today? Perhaps he might have a word with his colleague the Secretary of State for Education, or his successor, about recruitment, because the shambles we saw on T-levels and the hand-wringing we saw from the exam boards is unacceptable and risks the pipeline of talent we need to staff the NHS.
Although extra capacity is important, let us be honest that it will not solve the ambulance crisis unless we tackle the delayed discharges that are causing logjams in hospitals. The Secretary of State talked about this, but let me be clear that one in seven hospital beds is occupied by someone who is medically fit to leave but cannot do so because there is no support available—some people are waiting up to nine months longer than needed. What is the answer to this staffing crisis? It has not been to pay care workers a decent wage so that we stop losing them to the likes of Amazon, and it has not been to provide a great career so that people in our country enter this important profession. The answer has been to pull the “immigration lever,” to quote the Government, and to recruit people from overseas on lower pay. How fitting that this Prime Minister’s Government ends with yet another broken promise. One year after promising to fix social care by hiking taxes on working people, where is the plan to tackle the work- force crisis without resorting to immigration every time?
Finally, the Secretary of State barely mentioned the cost of living crisis. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), has said the Government are worried that if people cannot afford to heat their home, more will lose their life to flu. Has the Secretary of State made an estimate of the number of people who could fall ill as a result of soaring energy bills? As this is rightly a concern, may I point out that there is a plan right in front of him to freeze energy bills, fully costed and ready to go, paid for by a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies? When will the Government stop dithering, delaying and talking to themselves and start acting for the country? Rising energy prices will also push care providers to breaking point, with some facing closure as they are unable to absorb increases of 500% or more. What plans does he have to prevent care home residents from being booted out this winter and to prevent care home doors from closing?
The reality is that this Government are now out of time. A new Prime Minister will be appointed tomorrow who has suggested charging patients to see a doctor. I did not think anything could be worse than fining people for missing appointments, but our new Prime Minister has somehow managed it. Public satisfaction with NHS services is at its lowest recorded level, and patients are struggling to access the care they need. Under Labour, patients could call 999 knowing that an ambulance would come when they needed it, but the longer we give the Conservatives in power, the longer patients will wait.
Steve Barclay
Let me start with the areas where the hon. Gentleman and I agree. The David Wakeley case was shocking, and we accept that there have been severe pressures, particularly linked to certain trusts; just 10% of trusts account for 45% of ambulance handover delays. His second charge was about what the Government have been doing on this over the summer. We have had a 100-day sprint with NHS colleagues, a taskforce has been set up and I have met those troubled trusts, particularly Cornwall, to look at how we better support them.
Some of the factors affecting ambulance delays are within the trusts’ control. Those include understanding why delayed discharge is much lower at the weekend, and things that they can do within the emergency department. However, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, some factors are beyond the trusts’ control, whether that is variance in performance on conveyancing by ambulance trusts, differences in hear and treat or see and treat, or the challenges in social care. We recognise that, as I said in my opening remarks, the heatwave and a covid infection rate of one in 25, compared with one in 60 now, created significant pressure on the ambulance system.
In addition to the taskforce, we have enacted a whole range of other measures. NHS England has tasked the system with putting in place an additional 7,000-bed capacity for the winter. We have been expanding emergency department capacity. One thing we funded in spending review 2020, when I was in the Treasury, was additional funding for trusts where there are emergency department constraints.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention mental health, but I know he takes an interest in it, so he will be pleased to know that over the summer we have particularly targeted action that can be taken in emergency departments and across the hospital estate in support of mental health, led by Claire Murdoch in NHS England. We have increased staffing by 16% and there is an extra £2.3 billion going into mental health next year compared with 2016. There is additional funding and workforce, because we recognise the pressures.
There is also bespoke action with NHS colleagues. Sometimes, relatively low numbers of patients—for example, patients needing palliative care, patients with dementia and patients with Parkinson’s—are particularly challenging in terms of delayed discharge, and their discharge may be delayed for an extended period of time. Although the quantum of patients may be modest, that leads to delay.
The hon. Gentleman recognised other things we have been doing over the summer, such as the St John Ambulance contract that has been put in place to help with auxiliary ambulances, the work on international recruitment—I do not accept that people are being paid less; that is bringing people in to work in important roles in our care sector—and the consultation on retire and return.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of living. He will know that the new Prime Minister has made it clear that she will have further things to say on that over the next week, and I know there will be ample opportunity to debate that further in the House.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that Worcestershire is at the sharp end of ambulance pressures; I understand that Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust is one of six trusts that he has met in recent days to discuss those pressures. Can he assure me that he will do everything he can to reduce delayed discharge and address capacity at our A&E, so that I no longer have to witness situations such as the one I saw earlier this summer, with more than 10 ambulances waiting at the door of the emergency department?
Steve Barclay
I know my hon. Friend is a strong champion for this issue; when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I remember him lobbying me about how a bridge from one bit of the hospital estate to another could provide additional capacity to meet the pressures his trust has faced. That is partly why we have been working intensively with the trusts that have the most severe cases of ambulance delays, looking through the work of the taskforce at best practice and what works best in those settings, and ensuring that the trust chief execs have the right level of support. It is important to recognise that the problem does not always manifest where it is caused. Quite often, challenges on the social care side, or further upstream in the conveyancing rate, put pressure on an emergency department and on the trust.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right about the abject failure in care that his Government have overseen over the past 12 years, but his statement did not refer so much to the pressures in A&E. It seems entirely wrong to me that if someone walks into an A&E department they are its responsibility, but if they turn up in an ambulance they are expected to sit in it for hours on end until the A&E is willing to take responsibility. Will the Secretary of State say more about dealing with the issue so that A&E departments realise that however someone arrives—whether they walk through the door or arrive in an ambulance—they should be the responsibility of the A&E, and the ambulance should be out fetching other people in the area?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Member makes a very fair point. Within the question he raises is the unmet need where an ambulance does not reach a patient in the community, as opposed to the known risk once the patient is within the hospital trust’s purview. On capacity in A&E, as I touched on in my statement, we put in £450 million at the 2020 spending review to upgrade A&E facilities at 120 trusts.
With respect to the hon. Member’s specific point, he may be aware of the letter that the NHS medical director Professor Stephen Powis and the chief nurse Ruth May sent at the time of the heatwave about where risk sits within hospitals. The taskforce has been doing further work on pre-cohorting, post-cohorting and observation bays so that we can better free up that ambulance capacity and get it back on the road.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the focus on retention, training and recruitment. Earlier this year, I met people from the excellent Chertsey Make Ready Centre. They told me about the challenges that they face with staff wellbeing and staff retention, which are compounded by the horrendous abuse that they receive almost daily. Sadly, it is not limited to our paramedic workers: I met staff at the Crouch Oak practice in Addlestone in my constituency recently, and we spoke about some of the vile messages and threats that they have received. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking our health and care service workers for their fantastic work and in condemning the vile abuse that, sadly, some of them receive from a bunch of miscreants?
Steve Barclay
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking the staff for their work and in condemning the completely unacceptable violence, intimidation and abuse to which people are subjected. There should be zero tolerance of that from any hospital trust.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
We know that 117,000 people have died waiting for treatment on the NHS waiting list, and what we are hearing now is that 500 people a week are dying waiting for ambulances. Can the Secretary of State give us a date by which he can guarantee that people will not lose their lives waiting for an ambulance to come and get them and care for them?
Steve Barclay
What I can guarantee is that, through the taskforce, we are prioritising how we get ambulances back on the road and how we speed things up to reduce handover delays. We are looking in particular at the 10 trusts in which the issue is most acute, because there is an unmet need in the community if the ambulance is not there.
On the hon. Member’s point about the backlogs with electives, we announced over the summer, as part of the work that we have been doing, a whole series of surgical hubs and community diagnostic centres. We are working with the Getting It Right First Time team, under Professor Sir Tim Briggs, on different patient pathways. A whole range of work is being done to reduce waiting times, which is why we have already cleared the longest waits—the two-year waits—and are now turning to the 18-month waits.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
National headlines do not often reflect the hard work of those in our local hospitals. Although there will be—indeed, there have been—cases of unforgivable waits, will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all the hard-working paramedics, first responders and emergency department teams who serve Medway, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells hospitals, supporting my constituents in their time of need? Will he update the House on any conversations he may have had with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about major planning applications that have progressed without the appropriate healthcare facilities being provided?
Steve Barclay
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking the paramedics in Medway, in Maidstone and beyond for all their fantastic work, especially given the pressures the system has been under during the summer. As for levelling up, a number of Members have raised with me the need to ensure that developers are making a sufficient contribution as part of their housing plans, and I shall be happy to draw that to the attention of my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is right to talk about the back door rather than focusing on the front door when it comes to the crisis in social care. About a quarter of the patients in our hospital in York are experiencing delayed discharges. However, if we do not pay care staff, we will never resolve the issue. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to putting those staff on a national pay scale, using “Agenda for Change” as a model?
Steve Barclay
This obviously involves debates with Treasury colleagues about pay—not just on the social care side, but in respect of the NHS and the interplay with pensions—but it is not just about that; it is also about ensuring that we have the right data, and through the integrated care systems we are acquiring much better data to improve our ability to join up what is being spent on delayed discharge within the NHS with what is being done in the social care setting. I am sure Members will agree that not only is it often very damaging for frail elderly patients to spend a long time in hospital, but hospital is usually the most expensive place in the system for them to be. It is not just a question of having more money, although that is often the default; it is a question of thinking about how to get flow into the system in a way that will deliver not only patient care, but a more efficient service.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On checking my website, I saw that it was in late 2005—not a period of Conservative government—that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), the then Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Romsey and I were complaining about the closure of in-patient beds in small community hospitals. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a role for such beds in enabling appropriate discharge from the larger hospitals, thus dealing with one of the main causes of people being stuck in ambulances without being able to be given a bed?
Steve Barclay
That, I think, relates to the point that I just made about the need for flow in the system and an appropriate step-down capacity. Sometimes patients are not yet ready to be discharged to their homes, but some additional physio or other support may enable them then to go home, which is where they usually want to be. This is all part of taking a much more integrated approach, and part of that must be improving the quality of data in relation to the activity that takes place within community settings.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
In July, the average wait time in London for an ambulance needed by someone describing the symptoms of a stroke was more than an hour—more than three times longer than the target time. Many of my constituents have told me that they are living with genuine anxiety and fear that if they or a loved one were stricken by illness or involved in a serious accident, the emergency help that they needed would not arrive in time. The Secretary of State has announced some measures today, but what my constituents want to know is when we can expect the time targets in London to be met once again, so that they can rest easy in the knowledge that if they need an ambulance, it will be there.
Steve Barclay
One of my reasons for going out with the London Ambulance Service—among others—over the summer was to answer the charge about what Ministers were doing, and to observe at first hand the challenges that the service had been facing. As the hon. Lady will know, performance has improved since the summer, but the service remains challenged. That is why we are considering a range of measures, such as boosting emergency departments, looking at pre and post-cohorting, looking at how we work with the taskforce, and looking at single points of access. One issue that paramedics emphasise to me is the need for, in particular, a better way for frail elderly patients to gain access to a single point for social care provision. We are working closely on that range of measures with colleagues in the London Ambulance Service.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In recent weeks I have been supporting a constituent who has complained to the East Midlands Ambulance Service. The complaint centred on the fact that it took nine hours and 26 minutes following a 999 call for an ambulance to arrive at the home of my constituent’s mother. When she arrived at Scunthorpe Hospital, it took another two hours and seven minutes before she was handed over to the hospital staff. I find it particularly disturbing that the letter from the chairman of the East Midlands ambulance service, after explaining the procedure and protocol that was followed, says:
“I can confirm that the 999 call had been responded to appropriately.”
Needless to say, my constituent, who is a retired senior police officer and well aware of pressures on the emergency services, would not agree that it was dealt with appropriately. If I forward the details to my right hon. Friend the Minister, could he follow up with the East Midlands ambulance service and come back to me? Hopefully, that will mean the service provided to my constituents by the ambulance service can be improved.
Steve Barclay
I am very happy to ensure that that specific case, which is obviously concerning, is looked at. As my hon. Friend will know from my earlier remarks, we are boosting the number of 999 call handlers—those numbers are up and there are around 350 more call handlers than in September 2021—and we are also training more paramedics. Numbers are going up, but obviously demand has increased exponentially as well.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
A nurse in Barnsley East wrote to me about the incredibly traumatic death of her mother. When her mum suffered a brain haemorrhage, her dad called the emergency services twice. They told him to call back as they did not have an ambulance or a responder to help. An hour and 40 minutes later, the ambulance arrived but it was too late for her to receive any treatment, and she later passed away.
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Our emergency services are in crisis. They are understaffed and under-funded. What are the Government doing to prevent tragedies such as that from ever happening again?
Steve Barclay
We are putting in additional funding, whether that is the additional £1.5 billion put into GP capacity in 2020, the £450 million to upgrade A&E facilities across 120 trusts, the extra £150 million specifically put into the ambulance service, the £30 million put into the St John Ambulance contract over the summer, or the further £50 million that has gone into call handling to boost the 111 service. Significant additional funds are going in as part of the support for the significant pressure that we recognise there has been over the summer.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for visiting Kettering General Hospital in July and for his subsequent confirmation in August that the hospital has won £38 million, as a 10% down payment, to start the redevelopment of the hospital. During his visit, he visited the A&E department, which is one of the most overcrowded in the country, and saw the ambulances waiting outside. What is his assessment of the current state of play at Kettering General Hospital and its prospects for the future?
Steve Barclay
First I acknowledge on the record the campaigning that my hon. Friend and colleagues have done for a new hospital at Kettering. They particularly demonstrated the urgency of addressing issues with the energy plant, so I was pleased that we were able to get that enabling work done. All A&E facilities have been under pressure over the summer, which is why we have announced the additional funding. It is about boosting capacity in call centres, looking at how we address variation in performance among ambulance trusts, particularly on conveyancing, and looking at how we get more flow into hospitals. That is why, along with the hospital, I also visited a care home in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in order to look at how we better address the issue of delayed discharge.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Can I bring to the Secretary of State’s attention the planned closure of the Preston ambulance station on Blackpool Road, Preston, and the closure in Broughton, just outside my constituency, which are to be replaced by an ambulance station 5 or 6 miles away on Sherdley Road in Lostock Hall? The decision was made by the North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust without consulting any staff or hospital heads, including the chief executive of the NHS Trust in central Lancashire, and without consulting trades unions and other stakeholders, including the councils. Will he look into this matter and see what has happened? It will add 26 minutes to a journey from the proposed site to the Royal Preston Hospital, which cannot be in the interest of any patient.
Steve Barclay
I am happy to draw that case to the attention of the relevant parties and ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a written explanation.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I think that the Secretary of State is aware of the acute problems at Southend University Hospital and of the fact that A&E capacity is the issue. We are waiting for capital funding that was promised years ago to be released. I know that Health Ministers have been working on this over the summer. There were 15 ambulances there yesterday. Our hard-working nurses and doctors would love news on that funding to be forthcoming.
Steve Barclay
As I said in my statement, additional funding has been put in to boost A&E capacity. There was some £450 million of funding in the spending review in 2020, which has been applied across 120 trusts. Of course, the ICSs will look at the commissioning priorities in particular areas, and the NHS England taskforce is looking at trusts where there is acute pressure.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I am concerned that people across England and Wales, including in Shropshire, have died as a result of the ambulance delays we have seen for a long period. I have raised the issue a number of times in this place. I welcome the improvement in the response times of the west midlands ambulance service, but I am worried that the regional data masks huge differences between rural areas such as Shropshire and densely populated urban areas. Will the Secretary of State consider the Ambulance Waiting Times (Local Reporting) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) tabled earlier this year, so that the disparity between urban and rural response times can be properly understood and tackled?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady makes an important point about variation not just between regions but within regions. As a rural Member of Parliament, I get the point that there is often significant variation within a region. That has been a key area of focus. The federated data platform, which is due to come on stream in April, will give her local ICS much better data on what is happening and on what community capacity there is. Over the summer, we have worked with ambulance trusts to look at operational performance data on a much more granular level. That is why I have flagged to the House the issue that a small number of trusts are driving a large proportion of the handover delays. That is exactly the sort of variation that we are looking at.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the £25 million Government investment in the new emergency village at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, with the new critical care unit opening only a few weeks ago. That will make a substantial difference by easing the pressures at the hospital, which are contributing to unacceptable ambulance waiting times. Will he join me in visiting the hospital to see the substantial difference it will make to my constituents?
Steve Barclay
As my hon. Friend knows, my parents live very near the hospital in question. I know he has been a huge champion of the additional funding. If the opportunity arises, I would be very happy to visit. I pay tribute to the work he has done to secure the additional facility, which will benefit his constituents and those across the Fylde coast.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
In July, I met the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and the chief executive of Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust to discuss the ambulance delays and the delays at A&E. They both told me the same thing: the problem is actually with exit block. They cannot admit people if they cannot discharge people. I have been told by Hull Royal Infirmary that at points over the summer, more than 170 people were in the hospital who should not have been there because they were waiting for discharge packages. That works out at more than a fifth of hospital beds being taken up by people waiting for adult social care.
A number of months ago, I raised in this place a letter from the Conservative-led East Riding of Yorkshire Council, which said that it did not have the adult social care carers to meet the needs of the population. This situation will only get worse. The Secretary of State has said that he is looking at an international recruitment taskforce. I recommend a simpler solution: pay people more, and then we might get the workers we actually need to deliver adult social care. This is already a crisis and it will only get worse.
Steve Barclay
A good example from Hull, which I visited over the summer, shows that this is not simply about money, although that is obviously a relevant factor. The hon. Lady will be familiar with the Jean Bishop integrated care centre in Hull, where the social care staff say that no one has left the service because they really enjoy working in an integrated way. The patient feedback is also extremely strong. That shows the sort of innovation we should apply across the system. I hope the hon. Lady would welcome that innovation in Hull being applied more widely.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the pressures that Warrington Hospital has been under through the summer, particularly the wait times. I am grateful that he intervened and spoke to the chief executive about looking at some of the issues that it was facing. Having spent some time there and having talked to staff and the management, it is clear—I agree with him—that the real issue is delayed discharge. It appears that there is a 90-bed shortage in step-down care capacity in Warrington. Will he join me in urging Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Trust and Warrington Borough Council to make progress on increasing that capacity, so that we can try to address some of the issues in the emergency department?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a central role for the integrated care systems in future is to look at how they best use the better care fund, how we better integrate around step-down provision, and how we ensure that best practice is being followed through the delayed discharge, including regarding some of the additional pressures that Warrington faced specifically, as I know from when we spoke over the summer. He will also know that there had been additional funding for new capacity at Warrington, which strangely was not highlighted in the media coverage that I saw.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, in the west midlands, it was being reported that some were waiting as long as 17 hours to receive service from an ambulance. It was also reported that at least 68 people have died since April while waiting for an ambulance, although that number was backdated to last August. It is now clear that our NHS is at breaking point due to a decade of Tory cuts; welcome to backlog Britain thanks to 12 years of Conservative Governments.
Trusts in the region report being poorly equipped for the burden of treating patients, with many reporting delays due to a shortage of beds. This crisis will only get worse in the coming months as we enter the cold period—a winter in the midst of one of the worst crises in living memory. What measures will the Secretary of State introduce immediately in response to the increased pressures that our NHS is facing, which are costing lives? Will he provide the extra measures that the NHS desperately needs to deal with this crisis—a crisis that was made by 12 years of Conservative Governments?
Steve Barclay
I fear that the question was written before the statement. In the course of the statement, we have covered the significant additional funding that is going in, whether that is in primary care with the £1.5 billion on GP capacity, the £450 million on A&E capacity, the £150 million on ambulances, the £50 million on 111 call-handling or the £30 million on St John auxiliary ambulance capacity—to name just a few areas.
As to the hon. Gentleman’s wider charge on Government funding for the NHS, I remind him that health funding is on track to be £4 in every £10 of day-to-day Government expenditure, which is a significant increase on 2010. We have also just been through a pandemic in which the fiscal response, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) will know, was about £400 billion. Significant funding has gone in, and the statement today has shown that a number of factors, in particular the integration between social care and the NHS, are at the heart of solving the issue of delays on ambulance handovers.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
For the week ending 12 August, there were nearly 1,000 excess deaths. We know that that is just the tip of the iceberg and it is likely to get worse; that is about 10% more than the five-year rolling average. What are the Secretary of State’s estimates of how much worse it is going to get over the winter months, and what is he going to do about it?
Steve Barclay
I have set out a range of things that we are doing to tackle what we recognise are significant pressures facing the NHS, whether that is through the taskforce that we have set up, which is targeted on delayed discharge; the intensive work that has been undertaken with, in particular, the 10 trusts that account for 45% of ambulance delays; the improved capacity within our call handling; or looking at our data, as was raised earlier, on the variation in performance between ambulance trusts on areas such as conveyancing or within the integration between the NHS and social care. I pay tribute to the huge amount of work that is being done within the NHS and social care in recognising that there are significant challenges within the system, which is why so much work has gone into addressing that over the summer.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State might recall that in his previous Health incarnation, he responded to a debate about the crisis in the ambulance service in my constituency. It is worse today—much worse. I take the point about delayed discharge, but, even so, is it not better to have people moving into a hospital setting, rather than people not being picked up by ambulances? That is where the real risk is. Will he also guarantee that I get an answer to my letter asking that Rochdale, which lost its A&E service some years back, gets it back? That would make a material difference.
Steve Barclay
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I will ensure that that particular letter to the Department is highlighted following this statement. On his first point, as I said in my statement, I agree that the greater risk is the unmet need if an ambulance does not arrive, rather than a patient who is in hospital. That is why Professor Stephen Powis and chief nurse Ruth May wrote to the system when there was pressure during the heatwave, flagging that as a specific issue. We have been working with trust leaders, including leading figures such as Anthony Marsh, on pre-cohorting and post-cohorting, capacity in emergency departments, and where risk sits in the system. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This is about a lack of planning. I could say the same about the monkeypox response, because we still do not have the vaccines; they are now being watered down to half strength, because we have run out, they have not been delivered and we still have 100,000 to order. The ambulance situation is also about a lack of planning. My grandmother was admitted to the Royal Cornwall over the summer via A&E. The person before her waited 24 hours in an ambulance to be discharged. The person behind had been in a car crash, but the ambulance did not turn up for five hours and they had to make their own way to the hospital with a damaged lung. In Brighton, the Royal Sussex’s A&E has been given a very poor Care Quality Commission report. All of these cases are because of the lack of move on beds in social care. In Brighton, a senior care worker can receive less than £10 per hour to work. People get more working in shops on the high street. This needs to be addressed urgently. Is it not time for a national pay, and terms and conditions, for care workers? It would cost the Department nothing, but would stop the loss of many of our workforce.
Steve Barclay
Far from there being a lack of planning, the very essence of integration between social care and the NHS through the ICSs is that we recognise the importance of both aspects working much more closely together. That is why we are bringing forward initiatives such as the federated data platform.
Monkeypox is outside the scope of today’s statement, but I know the issue is of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that, fortunately, we have not yet had any fatal cases in the UK and the rate of infection has been falling. We purchased the maximum number of vaccines that we could; I wrote to the relevant charities with the details. Although smaller doses are being delivered compared with the initial 50,000, we still have doses in the system. We expect a further 20,000 very shortly and a further 80,000 later this month. We have procured doses, we are getting them out and it is fortuitous that cases are falling, but we are obviously keeping the situation under close watch.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
This summer I have heard some horror stories from constituents with life-threatening conditions about the dangerous delays they have faced. When one constituent raised the issue with the NHS, she was told by the senior consultant at the A&E department that the NHS has collapsed. If senior frontline clinicians are saying that in the summer, God help us when we get to winter. I really fear where we are going to be, because there is no doubt that my constituent is very lucky to be alive. We have heard a lot of figures today about the number of excess deaths this year. Will the Secretary of State give us his estimate of the number of people who have died unnecessarily because they have been stuck in an ambulance waiting to get into A&E, or because an ambulance has not turned up at all?
Steve Barclay
Again, despite that colourful language, we have more doctors, more nurses and more paramedics. We are training more and meeting more demand, and significant additional funding has been applied to ambulance trusts, call handling and other parts of the system, including primary care. Part of reducing the demand on the ambulance system is related to GP capacity, which is why—to take that as an example—an additional £1.5 billion of funding has gone in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his clear financial commitment to trying to address the issue of ambulance response. I also congratulate the new leader of the Conservative party. In her statement at dinnertime, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said that the NHS is one of her main priorities.
The Secretary of State will know that this week is Air Ambulance Week, which runs from 5 September to 11 September. Today, Air Ambulance Northern Ireland stated that it has had its busiest year ever, so will the Secretary of State allocate additional funds to the devolved Administrations, particularly in Northern Ireland, to help cope with the increasing use of air ambulances due to delayed response times and extortionate waiting lists?
Steve Barclay
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of the air ambulance. As a rural MP, I know full well the importance of the service it provides across the Cambridgeshire fens, and I know that it provides an essential service for his constituents. Again, if there are any specific issues, I am happy to ensure that the Department looks at them, but he is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the air ambulance within the wider response.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 25 questions. We now move on to the final statement today, which is on energy prices.
Energy Update
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
The Government recognise that this is a deeply worrying time for households and businesses, as we see renewed highs in energy prices. These are of course largely a result of Vladimir Putin’s illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine, as we discussed at the G20 meeting of Energy Ministers on Friday. The surge in the global wholesale price of gas meant that Ofgem announced on 26 August that the default tariff cap level from 1 October will rise to £3,549 for a typical household paying by direct debit. This represents around a £1,600 per year increase on the current level, and around a £2,300 per year increase on last winter’s level. We see no reason to believe that gas prices will fall any time soon; prices will continue to be driven by geopolitical instability, with energy bills likely to remain high for some time to come.
The future outlook is uncertain, but we know that we need to support UK energy consumers to manage the impacts in both the short and longer term. That is why the Government have taken decisive action, including introducing a £37 billion package of support, which is targeted at those who are most in need of support. This includes a £11.7 billion energy bill support scheme, which is worth up to £400 for around 29 million households. In addition, targeted support includes more than 8 million households on means-tested benefits receiving a payment of £650. Over 8 million pensioner households that receive the winter fuel payment will also receive a £300 cost of living payment. Six million households that receive disability support will receive a £150 disability cost of living payment, and there is a £144 million discretionary fund for local authorities to distribute to those identified as being in need.
The Government are also focused on delivering a programme of work to tackle energy efficiency in order to target longer-term energy bill reductions. We are investing £6.6 billion in energy efficiency and heat decarbonisation over this Parliament. We will deliver upgrades to over half a million homes in the coming years through our social housing decarbonisation fund, home upgrade grant schemes and energy company obligation scheme, delivering additional average bill savings of £300.
We must continue to decarbonise, reducing our dependency on expensive, imported fossil fuels and bolstering our energy security through clean, home-grown energy. A net zero economy is not just critical to tackling climate change; it is also in our strategic interest as a means to reducing our reliance on global energy markets. That is why the Government’s British energy security strategy, published in April, set out a series of bold commitments, which put Great Britain at the leading edge of the global energy revolution.
The Government are delivering on this, for example, in our latest renewables auction, awarding contracts for difference to a record 93 new renewable energy projects, which will total almost 11 GW of new generating capacity for Great Britain—enough to generate sufficient electricity to power around 12 million homes. The UK is already a world leader in offshore wind, with the biggest installed capacity in Europe, generating 12.7 GW of electricity, enough to power around 10 million homes. We are continuing to increase this with another 6.8 GW in construction and a further 7 GW in preparation. We are increasing our nuclear ambition with the construction of Hinkley Point C and Government investment into Sizewell C, both of which could power 6 million homes. We are also launching Great British Nuclear, a body tasked with developing a resilient pipeline of new build nuclear projects. We have launched a major review into Britain’s electricity market design, to radically enhance energy security, and to help deliver our world-leading climate targets, while reducing exposure to international gas markets.
We have facilitated the uptake of new products and services such as time of use tariffs, which reward consumers financially for using energy when demand is low or when excess clean electricity is available—for example, on sunny or windy days and nights. The Government also recognise the impact that rising energy prices will have on businesses of all sizes. We are in regular contact with business groups and suppliers, to understand the challenges they face, and explore ways to protect consumers and businesses.
We are determined to secure a competitive future for our energy-intensive industries, which are, of course, most vulnerable to energy price rises. We have therefore extended the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme for three years, and are considering further measures to support businesses, including increasing the renewable obligation exemption to 100%.
However, this Government recognise that we need to go further still. These measures were brought forward when estimated annual energy costs were expected to rise to £2,800. It is now clear that we are looking at a challenge on a greater scale. The Government are working closely with Ofgem and other stakeholders to ensure that consumers and businesses are protected from the volatile energy prices this winter and beyond. I know that tackling this issue will be at the top of the incoming Prime Minister’s inbox, as we look to address both the short-term shocks and longer-terms needs of the UK energy system.
When it comes to energy security, this Government have an excellent record. When it comes to energy prices, we will once again be rising to the challenge of ensuring that British consumers and businesses are given the support that they need for this winter. I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for the brief advance notice that we had.
I think that we can all agree that this is a statement of astonishing vagueness and complacency. I had, for example, anticipated that the Minister might have a bit more urgency on the consequences of Russia’s decision to cut off Nord Stream 1 today, and the effects that that will have on gas prices. I thought that he might have come to the House to tell us about that. We are closely tied to European markets. Does he accept that this announcement today puts an even greater sense of urgency on the need to protect the price of gas from outside the UK, both for businesses and for domestic customers, and what measures are the Government undertaking to make that happen?
For domestic customers, there is certainly an energy bill crisis in this country. We need urgent action now.
The Minister talked about funding for the last round of price cap increases, not the one we have now. I know that we have a new Government coming in, but we have heard nothing from the Minister or the Prime Minister about what the plans might be. In fact, all we have heard from the new Prime Minister is that there will be an announcement, but nothing about what the announcement might be. A clear and obvious announcement already exists, however: Labour’s fully funded plan to freeze energy bills this winter, paid for by a further windfall tax on the oil and gas giants making record profits on the back of the energy crisis.
The Minister has an opportunity today to put flesh on the bones of any announcement. He should tell us whether he thinks that the Government should freeze energy prices. Also, does he think that the Government should implement the further windfall tax on the oil and gas giants, and if not why not—and if not, does he want just to protect the profits of the oil and gas industry as a whole?
As well as short-term support for households, we need a long-term answer to this crisis. We on the Opposition side of the House are clear that the best way out of a fossil fuel crisis is to get off fossil fuels. That is why Labour has called for a national clean energy sprint for renewables and a national home insulation plan. The Minister mentioned home insulation and talked about the Government’s existing schemes, but he knows that, in relation to real need, they do not touch the sides. Does he recognise that we urgently need a national warm homes programme to insulate 19 million homes, and is he prepared to commit to that today at the Dispatch Box?
On future energy, the Government could fix many of the problems we face if they decoupled the price of electricity from that of gas. The Minister said in his statement that there is a very leisurely process of consultation and discussion, which I see from the discussion document “Review of Energy Market Arrangements” would not be enacted until 2025. Does he accept that that is a ridiculously long timescale for an urgent change we need now? Is he prepared to commit to decoupling the price of electricity from the price of gas now, particularly given the weight that renewables now have in the market? The Minister talked about offshore wind, but why has he not removed the Government’s ludicrous ban on onshore wind, and does he intend even at this late stage to decide it is time we actually did that?
Finally, the incoming Prime Minister is obviously a fan of fracking, but the Minister told the House on 15 March:
“We are clear that shale gas is not the solution to near-term issues. It would take years of exploration and development before commercial quantities of shale gas could be produced.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 761.]
Does he stand by that statement and will he be communicating this view to the new Prime Minister?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement, as ever. Let me try to deal with each of his points in turn.
First, on the Russian decision to cut off—or, as they put it, repair—Nord Stream 1, it is worth reminding ourselves that we are not dependent on gas from Russia, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Last year less than 4% of our gas came from Russia, and this year there have been no deliveries of gas from Russia since March—50% of our gas is domestic, and 30% is from Norway. He is right that this has an impact on prices, however, and that is being discussed at the moment and I would expect to hear more from the new Prime Minister and her team in the coming days, as he well knows.
The hon. Gentleman asked about any future windfall tax. Again, I do not want to speculate on what might happen, but I will say what happened when Labour last proposed a windfall tax. The measure that we introduced—the energy profits levy—is projected to raise twice what Labour’s proposal for a similar move would have raised at the time, and it has led to greater support for the most vulnerable customers. Labour’s proposals would have raised about £600, but the Government’s proposals raised twice that amount—about £1,200 for the most vulnerable households—and, as I said in the statement, there will be more to come on this.
The hon. Gentleman asked a very reasonable question about decoupling the electricity price from the gas price. Of course, this is one of the measures being looked at in REMA, as he rightly pointed out, and it will also be something of active interest for the Government. He asked about onshore wind, and he will know that the local partnerships scheme announced in the British energy security strategy in April has exactly mapped out how we see the changes in the onshore wind regime in England. There is no change as yet in Government policy on fracking, but that will obviously be a matter for the soon-to-be new Prime Minister.
Overall, the Opposition seem to make three central points: the Government failed to invest in renewables; the Government failed to invest in nuclear; and the Government failed to invest in energy efficiency. They are wrong on all three. On renewables, under this Government we have quintupled the percentage of electricity generated from renewables, from 7% of our electricity mix when they were in power to 40% in 2021, which is a very strong achievement. On nuclear, the Labour party’s 1997 manifesto said there was
“no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations”
in Britain. Twenty-five years later, we have reversed that. We are building Hinkley Point C, and on Friday the Prime Minister was at Sizewell C announcing his support for that power station. On energy efficiency, we have actually increased the percentage of homes that reach the band C level of energy efficiency: we have trebled that from 14% of our homes in 2010 to a strong 46% today. When it comes to matters relating to energy—prices, taxation and energy security—this Government will take no lessons from the Opposition.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister said that the rise in price was a result of the attack on Ukraine. It is much more than that: it is a deliberate part of the attack on Ukraine. Is not the essential ingredient of any scheme that the Government bring forward that it encourages customers to reduce their consumption?
Greg Hands
My right hon. Friend of course makes a very strong point about Russia’s deliberate weaponisation of energy in this conflict, which we wholly deplore and our international partners also very strongly deplore. On our energy use, my job is to make sure that we have the energy supply that this country needs, and I am confident in our energy supply and the energy security measures we already have in place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The only aspect of this rehashed statement to welcome is the acknowledgment from the Minister that the current proposals are insufficient to avoid a catastrophe. What we should be getting today is a proper updated statement on energy security and a net zero update that would reflect additional investment in renewables such as pumped storage hydro, Peterhead carbon capture and storage, what is happening with the Rough gas storage facility, the decoupling of renewables from gas, and grid upgrades.
The reality at the moment is that 6.5 million households are in fuel poverty, and if the energy cap increase goes ahead as planned, then 9 million households will be in fuel poverty. What is the Minister’s red line for the acceptable number of households that will be left in fuel poverty? What does he say to the businesses that have had no support to date? Does he agree with Make UK, which says that 60% of manufacturing businesses are now at risk? What assessment has he made of the impact on agriculture and the food and drink industry, and does he agree that the tax cuts proposed by the incoming Prime Minister will adversely help the rich and do nothing for the lowest-paid workers? The incoming Prime Minister has talked of scrapping the green levy. Has he explained to the incoming Prime Minister that there is no single green levy, and that doing so would not actually be a solution for reducing household bills?
On nuclear, will the Minister confirm that Hinkley Point C is now nearly 50% over budget and is years late, and that EDF now wants a delay to the payment start dates? For Sizewell C, will he confirm that the upper estimate for construction and finance is £63 billion? That is £63 billion to be added to bill payers’ bills, and it will not actually reduce energy bills in the future. In 2019, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s estimate for the nuclear clean-up cost was £131 billion. When will we get an updated figure? Surely that in itself indicates that we need to end this nuclear folly and madness.
Finally, does the Minister agree that his Government need to introduce a freeze in the energy cap and urgent support for businesses, and to review budget allocations to councils and devolved Governments, so that energy cost pressures on schools, the NHS, transport and care services can be properly funded during this time of emergency?
Greg Hands
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his ability to squeeze in so many questions. On additional investment in renewables, the Government are moving to annual allocation rounds on our renewable options. That is a strong achievement. The Government have invested a huge amount in renewables, particularly through the contracts for difference system, which I would urge him to support. He will know that we made an announcement recently on where we are with Centrica and Rough gas storage, and that continues to proceed.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that fuel poverty is a devolved matter, so he may wish to have a word with the Scottish Government, which I have reason to believe he may be close to. He also mentioned businesses, and I remind him that the cost of energy for businesses is right at the top of the in-tray of our new Prime Minister. He mentioned the food and drink sector, and I am sure that is also the case for that sector. He asked about tax, and that will be a matter for the Treasury and for future announcements.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned nuclear budgets, and I am getting a bit fed up with the SNP’s obsessive anti-nuclear behaviour. It is exactly that kind of no-saying that got us into the problem of not having enough nuclear power in this country. Thankfully, earlier this year the Prime Minister rectified that with the British energy security strategy, making sure that we get to 24GW of nuclear power by 2050. As for the cost of Hinkley Point C, the hon. Gentleman will find that the strike price, which was negotiated by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, and by me, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, compares very favourably with energy prices today.
Finally, I think I heard a complaint from the hon. Gentleman about budget allocations to councils, which was extraordinary, coming from the SNP. It is the party that has been hammering council budgets in Scotland, and then expecting them to collect the rubbish with vastly decreased levels of budgetary contribution. I again urge him to have a word with his friends in Edinburgh who are running the Scottish Government, to see whether they might be able to do something to improve the budget allocations for Scottish councils.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the support for individuals and businesses, but may I raise with him the issue of schools? Southend West is home to 30 excellent schools, and many heads have been in contact with me, concerned that they will not be able to pay the utility bills. One has even trailed in the local press the possibility of opening for only four days a week. Can he assure me that it is the Government’s priority to make sure that our children’s education does not suffer as a result of the energy crisis, as it did as a result of the coronavirus crisis?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Schools are certainly at the forefront of our thinking for the coming winter. She is right that we need to make sure that schools are properly supported, and there are lessons to be learned from the pandemic as to how that was done. I am sure that her words will be well heard by Ministers, HM Treasury and the Department for Education.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
A year ago I asked the Government why they had closed the Rough gas storage facility off the Yorkshire coast, leaving the UK with just 1.7% of storage for annual demand. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), told me that the question was irrelevant, and accused me of inducing panic and stoking alarm. Given the reports that the Government are to U-turn and reopen the facility, will the Minister now admit that the closure was a mistake?
Greg Hands
The closure was a commercial decision, made by Centrica, not a decision made by the Government.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Energy Minister has a well-deserved reputation for getting things done, and I thank him for the prompt responses he has given to inquiries that I have made to his office, especially in respect of businesses. I sense that he understands the challenges, such as for the small engineering business I visited last week whose energy bill is £13,000 a year currently, and which has had a range of quotes between £37,000 and £68,000 for the renewal of its contract. The staff tell me that means that in the coming year they may not be able to replace a machine or take on a couple of apprentices as they would like to do. He has told us about the details that will be coming on short-term support—I am sure businesses will welcome that when it arrives—but I wonder whether he would say a little more about the long-term proposals to decouple the electricity bills from the gas price.
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is truly a champion of businesses in his constituency and across the country; I know the important work he does on the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, for example. He is right, in that most of the energy of businesses in this country is dealt with through long-term contracts. That is an advantage in giving certainty, but when it is time for the long-term contract to be extended or renewed that can lead to a very concerning rise in the price of that contract. The Government are keenly aware of that and it is absolutely something that our new Prime Minister and the team overall will be looking at.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
The Minister’s statement was nothing but full of hot air. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, the worst in living memory, many of my constituents are struggling to pay their energy bills, as are others across the country. The words of wisdom from the outgoing Prime Minister were for people to buy a kettle for £20 and save £10 a year. Does the Minister agree that the Government are out of touch with struggling families and that the suggestion of a new kettle is not only insulting, but derisory?
Greg Hands
Look, that is not what the Prime Minister said; he did not say that the answer to the energy crisis was to buy a new kettle. He used the new kettle to provide an analogy as to how we have dealt with nuclear power in this country, further to the points I raised earlier, with the failure to have a long-term view as to how to save money on energy costs overall. The hon. Gentleman is wholly misrepresenting what the Prime Minister said—I suspect he is wilfully misrepresenting it—in his speech on Friday.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Pubs, grassroots sports clubs and an indoor play centre are examples from the local hospitality and leisure sector that have been in touch with me in the past few weeks to highlight the astronomical price rises they are expecting, putting their businesses in a perilous situation. These sectors are often an afterthought for Government support, yet their importance in our communities should not be underestimated. So will the Minister place on the record that this Government recognise the value of the hospitality, leisure and indoor play sectors, and that they will be given the support they need to survive the winter?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend, an extremely well-regarded former Sports Minister, for her commitment to the sector. She is right to say that pubs, the hospitality sector in general, sports facilities and outdoor play facilities are vital parts of the social and economic fabric of this country. The Government are keenly aware of the importance of the impact of rising energy prices on businesses, and, as I have said, I am sure this is right at the top of the new Prime Minister’s in-tray as we go forward.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Last Wednesday, the Business Secretary tweeted his winter energy security update, a plan that fails even to mention energy efficiency, despite the BEIS Committee, the CBI and charities all calling for immediate action on insulation to keep homes warm and to cut bills. The Minister did at least mention efficiency in his statement, but there is still no sense of urgency and no plan at the scale required. We need a retrofit revolution. Why are the Government not tackling demand-side measures with far more urgency? Will he finally get on with a local authority-led, street-by-street home insulation programme?
Greg Hands
On energy-efficiency, the Government have extensive programmes in place, which I outlined in the statement. We have £6.6 billion going in over the course of this Parliament. It is important to recognise not only the amount of money going in, but the results we have had. In the 12 years of this Government, the percentage of homes rated A to C for energy efficiency has increased from 14% to 46%, which is a trebling of the amount of homes rated energy-efficient. Of course there is further to go, because 54% are insufficiently energy-efficient. A lot of work is still to be done, but the trebling of the number of homes well rated for energy efficiency is a real achievement of this Government.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting my constituency to meet industrial energy users. It is good that the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme is being extended, but firms in many sectors, such as engineering, glassmaking, ceramics or hospitality, do not qualify for the scheme despite relying on large amounts of energy for their core business, with many facing bill increases of 500%, 600% or 700%. What can be done to help them survive and to protect the jobs that my constituents rely on?
Greg Hands
I had a helpful and productive day in August, partly spent in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he and I ran a session for industrial energy users with Andy Street, the brilliant Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority. It is important to recognise that many businesses in this country are not in classic energy-intensive industries and therefore do not qualify as such, but are nevertheless big users of energy. We need to ensure that support is available so that such businesses can get through this coming winter. That is exactly the opinion that I have reflected within Government as we move forward.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
According to Electric Radiators Direct, Bradford ranks highest in the country for the difference between average resident income and average yearly energy bill. Friends of the Earth claims that 52% of neighbourhoods in Bradford are among the worst affected across England and Wales.
Everybody in the country knows and we in this House know that the energy profits levy is in fact a windfall tax—a Labour idea. We have another suggestion for the Minister: freeze energy prices. The Government can name it what they want. We have the ideas, and we are handing them over. What is stopping the Minister freezing energy bills?
Greg Hands
I am not quite sure about Labour’s position. On the one hand, it says that we copied its windfall tax proposal, but it also says that what we have done is somehow inadequate. The energy profits levy is projected to raise twice what Labour’s proposal was ever projected to generate.
When it comes to Bradford, that is exactly why we are ensuring that the assistance is as targeted as possible and goes to the most vulnerable and in-need households. That is why we have offered the one-off payment of £650 to more than 8 million households on means-tested benefits, the cost of living payment to 8 million pensioner households, and the £150 disability cost of living payment to 6 million households. In addition, we have the £144 million discretionary local authority fund for distribution to those identified as being in need. A huge amount of Government action has already taken place, and more is to come.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of Blackpool residents’ strong objections to fracking, which has already been explored at the Preston New Road site a few miles outside my constituency. Fracking should take place only where it is supported by local communities and only if people can feel the benefit directly in their pockets. Does he agree that a few thousand pounds off energy bills would be quite an inducement for people living close to a fracking site?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a telling contribution on Blackpool’s behalf that I am sure the Government will study closely. We are also studying the British Geological Survey report into this matter, to which the Government will respond in due course. Over the past year that I have been Energy Minister, I have heard my hon. Friend stick up for and make a strong case for Blackpool on several occasions in relation to fracking.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Lewisham Council’s energy bill has already doubled from £7 million to £14 million a year, with bills set to go up further. But instead of setting out a plan of support, the Tories have spent this summer fighting among themselves and have even claimed that rising costs should be found from existing public sector budgets—budgets that have already been decimated over the last 12 years. We need serious leadership and a plan now, so will the Minister commit that, in any emergency Budget, public services will be properly supported with rising energy costs?
Greg Hands
Public services have always been well supported by this Government throughout the 12 years that we have been in power. When it comes to future taxation, that is, of course, a matter for the Treasury and the Prime Minister.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his answers on support for energy-intensive industries such as those in my area. He knows that Teesside is the centre of the green industrial revolution in the UK, with our nuclear power station at Hartlepool, wind power manufacturing on both the north and the south side of the river, and large-scale carbon capture, utilisation and storage and hydrogen production in Redcar and Cleveland. As well as looking at new measures to increase such supply, we must tackle demand. Does he agree that we should invest further in energy efficiency and retrofitting homes, as many families could save hundreds of pounds on their energy bills by simply insulating their homes properly?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is always a strong voice for Redcar and Teesside. I think that every single question he has ever asked me has included hydrogen somewhere. He is auditioning, I think, to be the UK’s Mr Hydrogen. He has mentioned CCUS as well, which is a big priority of ours, and he is absolutely right to say that energy efficiency is so important. If we can reduce the amount of energy that is used to create the same level of heating in people’s homes, clearly that is a massive gain. That is why we have invested £6.6 billion over the course of this Parliament in energy efficiency.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The annual energy costs of a bar on my patch in Shoreditch—it is part of a large chain—have gone up from £30,000 last year to £120,000 this year. All energy contracts are now being renegotiated, with some experiencing an uplift of at least 300%, and since the pandemic some electricity suppliers are refusing to supply the hospitality sector. The Minister has given warm words, but there are two issues there. Will he give us comfort that he will act on at least one of them by talking to the energy suppliers about making sure that more of them can at least compete for the business of these important hospitality businesses?
Greg Hands
As ever, the hon. Lady raises an important and telling point. It is worth reminding ourselves, as I said earlier, that businesses tend to have long-term contracts for their energy bills. Prices were lower but they are now rising. There is an advantage in being locked into lower prices for a longer term, but there is, of course, a disadvantage when that long-term contract rolls off and they have to replace it. She is quite right about that. I am happy to look into the specifics of the bar that she mentions. There is no obligation currently on energy suppliers to supply businesses, unlike their obligation to provide to consumers, but I am happy to look into the specifics of the bar that she mentions in her constituency.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
There is clearly consensus across the House about the need to decouple the price of electricity from the cost of gas. I very much welcome the Minister’s remarks that that is being actively looked at in government. May I encourage him to go a little further, given that we are in this little moment of an interregnum, exploit his licence and tell us what might be the obstacles to doing that quickly and, if we wanted to do it, how fast it could be done?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend invites me to go down a road of policy speculation. What I will say is that many markets and many countries are looking at this specific issue. There are various proposals out there. We are looking carefully at this issue domestically, and we are also looking to see what other countries, other markets and other jurisdictions are doing in this space.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I met a range of organisations during the recess. Most recently, I met David Findlater, the managing director of Calder Millerfield in Dalmarnock, which has been making bakery and butchery products in the area and employing local people for over 60 years, supplying supermarkets and fast food establishments. Its annual prices have gone up from £160,000 for electricity and £30,000 for gas to £712,000 for electricity and £80,000 for gas. It does not know how it will keep going as a business and meet those bills. It wants to hear urgently from this Government that help is coming. Will the Minister give it that assurance?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Member for her question. I share, and I think we all share, the concern about the rising prices facing not just consumers, but businesses up and down the UK. The Government are keenly aware of the issue, as I said; it is right at the top of what the Prime Minister will be looking to do, and I am sure that announcements will be forthcoming.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I listened to Edwina Currie this morning telling people to put foil down the back of their radiators to improve energy efficiency. She seemed to miss the point that many of my constituents are not even thinking of switching their radiators on in the first place. I just wonder about those in the left-behind neighbourhoods—the very poorest. In my patch, in Orchard Park, 29% of households are in fuel poverty before we even start, against the national average of 13%. What will the Minister do for those people on Orchard Park who are not able to switch their radiators on this winter?
Greg Hands
Obviously, we are very concerned to make sure that consumers are supported through the coming winter. That is absolutely at the heart of the existing Government’s policy, and I am sure it will be part of the incoming Prime Minister’s policies as well.
I ask the hon. Member to tell her constituents to have a look at what the Government have already done—the £39 billion-worth that we have already announced this year, not all of which has taken effect yet. For example, the £400 payment for 29 million households has not yet actually come in. I urge the hon. Member to relay to her constituents that the Government are on their side, have already committed large amounts of public funds to this and, I am sure, will be committing more in the coming months.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, his officials and Treasury Ministers and officials for ensuring that the discount on electricity bills will be paid directly to consumers in Northern Ireland rather than having to go through the Assembly and the Departments, which quite frankly would not have been capable of administering it.
I am disappointed, however, that in the Minister’s statement today there was no mention of exploiting the resources that we have on our doorstep, namely the abundant supply of gas in the north-east of England, which could give a very quick supply of additional gas to the UK network. Is he not concerned that his increasing dependence on renewables—for which much of the infrastructure is dependent on the supply of rare earth metals, 60% of which are controlled by China—will leave us as dependent on China in future as Europe is on Russia today?
I have a more immediate question. The Minister has announced 93 contracts for difference. How will he ensure that the companies that get those contracts will not simply—as they are doing at present—refuse to activate them and sell electricity as if it were generated by the most expensive gas?
Greg Hands
I thank the right hon. Member for that list of important questions. He will know that the new taskforce has already started meeting to extend the energy bill support scheme, or provisions thereof, to Northern Ireland; that is welcome news.
I think the right hon. Member said that fracking would lead to quick supplies. I am not as convinced that he is that it would be quick, but as I said, we will be responding to the British Geological Survey in due course.
On dependence on renewables, the right hon. Member is right that a number of elements used in creating renewable energy resources are dependent on critical minerals, but that is exactly one of the reasons why the Government have recently launched the critical minerals strategy. We will be talking to all our international partners, as I do, about critical minerals and making sure that we have a diversity of sources of supply for them going forward.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I do not get any sense of urgency from the Minister about the plight of businesses negotiating energy contracts. I have been contacted by a family-run independent craft bakery that is about to celebrate its centenary and has been run by six generations of the same family. It employs 20 people in my constituency, but is facing at least a 300% increase in the energy costs in its contracts. We cannot leave businesses in that situation hanging. We have no date yet for the Government to come forward with a set of proposals. When will those businesses have some idea what support they will get from this Government? Businesses in that situation are just not going to survive for very long.
Greg Hands
Let us be absolutely clear: the new Prime Minister has said that there will be announcements very shortly on the support that will be there. The hon. Gentleman throws his hands up in the air, but he was first elected, if I am not mistaken, under the last Labour Government. When it comes to acting quickly, it took that Labour Government more than 10 years to reverse their policy on nuclear energy, so perhaps he might like to reflect on how quickly Governments can move, and see that this Government have moved incredibly fast to react to changing circumstances on both energy prices and energy supply.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
To continue the theme, small businesses will be among the worst hit by the soaring energy bills. Bath Aqua Glass is one of many businesses in my constituency that have told me their energy bill will go up 10 times—not 10%, but 10 times. The company’s bill will go from £14,000 to £130,000. The whole energy sector is completely out of control. We Liberal Democrats have called for emergency covid-style support for small businesses. What are the Government doing, not just in the short term to support small businesses, but in the long term to fix the broken energy sector?
Greg Hands
I have already said that this is a priority for the new Prime Minister, and I would expect there to be announcements shortly on what is being done. Businesses are the core of our concern here in relation to energy prices. There is of course no energy price cap for businesses, and we recognise the challenges that businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises that do not qualify as energy-intensive industries but nevertheless use a lot of energy—face at this time. That is exactly the sort of thing the Government are actively looking at.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
On Friday, I visited a pub called the Ring ‘O’ Bells in the Frodsham area of my constituency. I spoke to Phil, the landlord, whose projected bills are going up by several thousand pounds per month. Then I went along to the Devonshire Bakery, a family business that has been operating in my constituency for a considerable number of years, and which is facing a 400% rise in its energy bills. I say to the Minister that we need now to urgently step up and support businesses, not only in my constituency, but up and down the country, and we certainly need to hear that urgently from the new Prime Minister.
Greg Hands
I have already said that I think we will be hearing very soon from the new Prime Minister and her team, but the hon. Gentleman could say to Phil the landlord that this Government has had an excellent track record, when it comes to the pandemic, of providing support for businesses. I think that has been universally acknowledged as being an extremely strong element of support—£40 billion overall for businesses over the pandemic—and, if I were the hon. Gentleman, I would say to Phil, “Judge the Government on their actions.” There will be more to come, but I ask him to report to Phil the confidence that he should have in the Government’s excellent record of supporting businesses through the pandemic.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The incoming Prime Minister has promised to deliver a plan to address the energy price crisis and is now thought to be considering freezing energy bills. In my Birkenhead constituency, however, people are already struggling to pay their bills, with many fearing that they will be plunged into destitution this winter. Does the Minister agree that urgent action is needed to cut energy costs now and that no option should be off the table in tackling this crisis, including renationalisation, which has allowed the French Government to cap rises at 4% while bills in the UK have risen by 54% already this year?
Greg Hands
The French analogy is a bit of a misnomer, and the hon. Gentleman and I probably disagree on it. I think he is celebrating the nationalisation of the French energy industry, but I am not sure that is a good answer either for this country or for others. He says that further action is needed, and that is what I have pledged at this Dispatch Box. I ask him to look at the amount of money—£37 billion—that this Government have already put in to assist consumers with energy bills; I think it compares favourably with other European countries, up until the previous rise in prices.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In Scotland, we produce six times as much gas as we consume, yet the energy price cap has already increased by 40%. In Scotland, gas accounts for just 14.4% of electricity production, yet the energy price cap is about to increase by a further 80%. In Scotland, our annual electricity production comes almost entirely from renewables, yet households and businesses are being crippled. Surely even the Minister must accept this blatant failure of UK energy policy. Is it not time we recognised that Scotland does not just have the energy; we badly need the power?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I strongly disagree. When it comes to energy, it is the UK Government’s reserved energy policy that is working well for the people of Scotland. Had we followed the SNP’s energy policy of being against both nuclear and Scottish oil and gas, we would be in a terrible position and would probably be dependent on the good will of Vladimir Putin.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Forgive me, Minister, but it is already too late for some businesses. Alexandros, a very popular restaurant in my constituency, has announced that it is closing while it assesses whether it can afford to carry on with a £13,000 increase in its energy costs. This is going to be brutal for small businesses on our high streets, isn’t it, Minister, without appropriate intervention?
Greg Hands
I have already said that this is a matter of very active consideration by the Government and that it is right at the top of the new Prime Minister’s in tray. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the amount of support the Government have given businesses during the pandemic and over other matters recently. We have an incredibly strong record of supporting businesses, which is one reason we have such an excellent record on creating jobs and making sure that, by working with businesses, we have a robust employment sector in this country.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, if you, I, the Minister or anyone on these Benches were to stop paying our energy bills, we could be cut off or disconnected from gas and electricity, but it would take a long time because the company would have to go through a number of different procedures and we have rights. Not so those people on prepayment meters. In the statement, the Minister has talked repeatedly about those most in need of support. If people are on prepayment meters, it is almost always because they are on a low income and need more support. They already pay more than the rest of us, but all they can do is get into £10 of debt. The minute they go over that £10 emergency credit, they are disconnected. Is that fair? If he does not think it is fair, will he join my campaign to outlaw so-called self-disconnection? If not, are we to believe that he thinks we deserve better rights than our constituents who are really struggling financially at the moment?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady is right to raise the matter of prepayment meters and prepayment customers. She is, of course, right to raise the issue of the most vulnerable, which is exactly where the Government’s overall package is targeted. The £37 billion goes hugely to disadvantaged people and households.
Ofgem has taken a number of actions on prepayment meters in recent times. It warned suppliers in June 2018 that prepayment meters should be installed only as a last resort for debt collection. It banned forcible installation for vulnerable customers in 2017. In December 2020, it introduced new licensing conditions, including an ability-to-pay principle and the obligation on suppliers to identify self-disconnection and self-rationing by prepayment meter customers proactively. A number of measures have been taken by Ofgem. Of course it will keep these things under review, and I am sure the Government will look at them as well. If there are more actions the hon. Lady thinks should be taken, I am happy to hear from her.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Many industries on Teesside and beyond that are dependent on natural gas as a feedstock are being ruined. CF Fertilisers has already ceased ammonia production in Billingham, while a second major local company told me that a decision could be taken within weeks unless something comprehensive is done, and it will close. The company has written to the Prime Minister. I await a response to my urgent letter to the Business Secretary on Friday, telling him that hundreds of jobs are at risk at that one company. The Minister spoke of some support to help energy-intensive industries, but it is totally inadequate to meet the needs of industry on Teesside and beyond. Will he please outline what assistance will be available for non-qualifying energy-intensive industries? Will he go away again and find another way to help the balance of industries, or is he prepared to see thousands of people lose their jobs?
Greg Hands
The Government are never prepared to see thousands of people lose their jobs, which is why we have taken such strong action in the last few years to make sure that our employment situation remains as robust as it is. Beyond that, the hon. Gentleman is asking me to make commitments that will be made by the incoming Prime Minister. He mentions CF Fertilisers, which is a company that we are keenly aware of. We have interacted with the company over a long period of time and will continue to do so.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Like many Members of this House, I am receiving desperate messages not only from individuals, but from hospitals, care homes, schools and small businesses. The energy bill for one pub in my constituency, Dylans-The Kings Arms, is due to rise from £22,000 to £124,000—a sixfold increase, or an increase of £100,000. One care home in my constituency emailed me today and said its gas bill alone will have a 15-fold increase, rising from £40,000 to £600,000. If a pub has no heating, patrons will not visit. If a care home does not have heating, vulnerable people become ill and possibly die. The Minister has already indicated that he does not know when an announcement will be made, but will he please give us an assurance that straight after this debate he will go straight to the new Prime Minister and encourage her and her new Cabinet to make an announcement this week—not just for individuals and households, but for businesses, care homes and schools?
Greg Hands
I do not think that the hon. Lady will have long to wait. I say to her that we absolutely share those concerns. All Government Ministers, at least in the Commons, are obviously constituency MPs as well, and we have these kinds of cases in our constituencies, including in my constituency. We are well aware of the big rises in energy prices being faced by many businesses at the end of their contract when taking up a new contract.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Manufacturing in this country is facing a truly terrible crisis. For example, OGM Moulding Innovation employs 220 people in England and Wales, including in my constituency of Caerphilly, and it faces a massive increase in its energy costs. Unless something is done urgently, it faces closing three factories. It does not qualify for special support, because it is not deemed an energy-intensive company. Nevertheless, it uses a huge amount of energy. My plea is very simple and straightforward: will the Government give a commitment that they will come forward in the next few days with comprehensive packages to help companies such as OGM Moulding Innovation?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his concern for his constituency-based business. As I said in answer to the previous question from the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), we are all keenly aware of the difficulties that many businesses are in. On the other engagement that we have had with the sector, the Secretary of State has been meeting energy suppliers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has heard loud and clear from the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, Make UK and others. The Government are of course keenly aware of the situation, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman will have long to wait to hear the response.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
About three hours ago I spoke to Deborah Linton, who is the operations director of Dentec Hillington, which is a body repair shop just off London Road in my constituency. Its energy bills alone will rise by £54,000 this year, and the message that she wanted me to bring to the Minister is that businesses need action and need it now. I have a simple question for the Minister: will the Government have announced action when I visit the company on Friday?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to speculate on the date of future Government announcements, which I am not able to do, but I will say that I do not think he will have long to wait.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The issue around energy costs for businesses was a key priority for businesses I met in July. We know that business insolvencies are at a 60-year high at the moment. I am also getting a lot of feedback on the doorstep, when I meet constituents, who are concerned about how they will manage with the forthcoming energy price increase. We know that the new Prime Minister is not keen on handouts, but if there is not a reasonable offer from the new Prime Minister, what would be the Minister’s assessment of the increase in debt, homelessness and insolvencies and, as a consequence of all that, the increase in excess deaths?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I have already said how well aware we all are of the increase in costs for businesses, but I think she paints an unhappy picture that goes beyond the reality of what businesses are facing in this country. If we consider the amount of support that the Government gave during the pandemic, and the level of employment in this country, including a record high in payroll employment, we see some really good economic figures coming out of that. Of course, we recognise that businesses are facing those big increases in energy costs, which is why I expect announcements to be forthcoming quite soon.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I am grateful to the Minister for his update on the £400 payment to households in Northern Ireland. Of course, if we had had an Executive going back as far as February, we could have done that ourselves. As he knows, the Northern Ireland energy market and system is very different from that in Great Britain, so in the event that the next phase of Government support has large elements that apply only to Great Britain, but with large Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland, what contingency steps are the Government taking to ensure that, in the absence of a functioning devolved Executive, businesses and households in Northern Ireland have the same access to support as their counterparts in Great Britain?
Greg Hands
The Chancellor of the Exchequer convened the Northern Ireland taskforce with the specific objective of making sure that Northern Ireland does not miss out on UK Government support for consumers and businesses in future. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more of an update than that, but it is a strong area of Government action to ensure that Northern Ireland, quite properly, is treated as part of the UK when it comes to all these matters, including, especially, Her Majesty’s Government support for consumers and businesses.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In the Minister’s statement and in many of his answers he has focused on what the Government have already announced, but does he recognise that that does not come close to meeting the depth of the crisis that we now face? Does he accept the need for a freeze on domestic bills and action to match his words on businesses? Across my constituency, hundreds of small businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, are at risk. Thousands upon thousands of jobs are threatened without decisive action. When can we expect it?
Greg Hands
The Government have provided enormous levels of support for exactly those kinds of businesses. The hospitality sector was a strong recipient of Government support during the pandemic. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the £37 billion of support to consumers so far this year. He will not have to wait long to hear what the Government will be doing, but I ask him to judge the Government on their excellent track record in this space—in supporting businesses, particularly in the last few years. As I say, he will not have to wait too long to see further measures.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
Housing associations that I have spoken to in Glasgow North are, first and foremost, concerned about the wellbeing of their tenants who cannot afford to heat their homes this winter, but leaving the heating off is also bad for the housing stock: damp and mouldy houses will be bad for future generations and will cost more to repair in the long run. Does the Minister understand that as well as a price freeze now, we need a long-term preventive approach to energy security, efficiency and insulation?
Greg Hands
That is one of the reasons we are investing £6.6 billion over this Parliament in energy-efficiency measures, which will include the ECO4—energy company obligation—measures that we debated in this House in July. We will have to see what energy-efficiency measures may be forthcoming from the Prime Minister in the coming days.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents are already cancelling their contracts with their gas companies. They are absolutely terrified. Churches and charities want to step in, but they are exposed to the commercial rates, with charities often seeing a tenfold increase. They want to provide warm banks to keep their communities safe, warm and well fed this winter. What steps are the Government taking to support charities and churches to ensure they can provide the warmth their communities need?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady makes a strong point that this is not just about consumers and businesses; everybody is being affected by the global rise in energy prices. This is not just a UK phenomenon, but a worldwide one. If she has cases of charities and others being unable to take out contracts or cancelling contracts, I would be happy to look into them with her to find out what is going on and to ensure that those vital services continue to get an energy supply.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Rising energy prices will disproportionately hit those on the lowest incomes, while tax cuts will disproportion- ately favour the highest earners. Considering the scale of the financial problems about to hit families, with some experts indicating that energy bills could hit £7,000 per annum by next year unless there is some firm Government action, social cohesion should be the cornerstone of Government policy. Would not one way of doing this be to ensure that the broadest shoulders pay their fair share, by increasing the burden on higher and additional rate income taxpayers to support those in need?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go down the road of Her Majesty’s Treasury announcements on tax and other matters, which I am afraid I will have to resist doing. I think he will hear before too long what the Government propose to do on these vital matters.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
People are really frightened about how they are going to get through this winter. One of my constituents, who is a widow with long-term health issues, has written to me to say that she will have to cancel insurance for her pets—so if her pet becomes ill she will not be able to take them to the vet—and will get rid of her car, which is vital for her to get to medical appointments. She says that her gas and electricity bill was originally about £85 a month, but she has now received a direct debit statement saying that it will go up to more than £255 a month; her energy costs will basically triple. She is terrified about how she will manage this winter, as are many of my constituents. Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will impress on the new Prime Minister the scale of the catastrophe we face if the Government do not come forward with a major increase in support for people facing these bills?
Greg Hands
I am concerned to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. Indeed, many of all our constituents are facing difficulties and prospective difficulties at this time. In relation to her constituent’s car, the Government have reduced fuel duty at the cost of about £5 billion to the Exchequer, and that will help people to run their cars. We are acutely aware of the difficulties faced by consumers, but we have risen to the challenge. The £37 billion package announced for this year so far is a considerable amount of public spending to help consumers with bills, and there will be more to come.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Many people across rural Scotland depend on heating oil to heat their homes. Today I spoke to someone who was quoted 110p a litre, with a minimum delivery of 500 litres. Of course, once heating oil is gone—when the tank is empty—it is gone. If people cannot afford to refill the tank, they cannot heat their house. With winter approaching, that is a potential death sentence for vulnerable people in an already economically fragile part of Scotland. What will the Government do to help those people, and what reassurances can the Minister give to those who rely on heating oil that they will be protected from skyrocketing fuel prices this winter?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Member for that question because many consumers, up and down this United Kingdom, are dependent on heating oil. They are off the gas grid and heating oil is the principle means of heating their home. We need to be keenly aware of that, as the Government are.
It is worth recognising that there is a competitive market for heating oil. I often speak with the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association, which is a trade body, and with consumer groups in relation to heating oil. Obviously, prices have risen; they are closely related to the price of kerosene, for example, which has been quite volatile this year.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that households that have an electricity charging point will benefit from the £400 payment, and others will benefit from the payments to the more vulnerable, so it would not be right to suggest that those who use heating oil are not recipients of Government assistance. There is also the £1.1 billion home upgrade grant, through which the Government have committed to improve funding for energy efficiency and clean heating upgrades for those dependent on heating oil and other liquid fuels.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 60% to 70% of our energy is domestically produced. The price of producing it has not increased at all, so 60% to 70% of the bill increase is theft by the energy companies charging international rates to domestic companies. It is time we had wholesale market reform, to ensure that domestically produced energy is sold at production prices and not inflated prices for fat cats in the City.
May I ask the Minister specifically about the £144 million discretionary fund? Many of my constituents are use remeterage, whereby their landlords have a commercial contract but they are remetered at a higher price and are ineligible for any support. Will the Minister write to councils to confirm that they must offer parity for those people, if they can show they use remeterage and therefore are not eligible for the £400 support?
Greg Hands
I might have to write to the hon. Member on the question of remeterage. The £144 million discretionary fund is supposed to be disbursed at the discretion of local authorities, in the right way. I think his question is more about heat networks. In the British energy security strategy, we announced that heat networks will in future be regulated by Ofgem—I say that on the assumption that he supports the Energy Security Bill that is making its passage through Parliament at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman’s point that somehow the UK can declare some kind of unilateral declaration of independence from global energy prices is, I am afraid, simply fanciful. Even Norway, which is one of the world’s biggest domestic producers and almost certainly the largest surplus energy producer in the world, is facing these same challenges of rising domestic energy prices. It is simply not possible for the UK to isolate itself from these global trends. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I call Patricia Gibson.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The energy price cap is set to double. Businesses have received no support with energy costs, households have simply not received enough and those in park homes have been completely ignored so far. On top of that, the cost of supplier failures means that the poorest, who use less energy, will continue to be disproportionately impacted by punishing standing charges. Today the Minister has said nothing about any of these issues, because today’s statement is about a zombie Government giving the illusion of activity. When will we see urgent and decisive action to tackle this increasingly painful and in some cases life-threatening crisis for businesses and households on the brink?
Greg Hands
There is a lot in that question. The hon. Lady raised a new issue, not raised in these questions so far—the issue of park homes. That is a serious concern, because around 1% of households in this country are not reached by the current £400 scheme, although they are being reached by other schemes. We have said clearly that we will announce measures to assist those living in park homes, houseboats and so on, which are not covered because they do not have a meter point. There will be a scheme announced this autumn to help them, with funding attached, as part of an additional scheme.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Like many Members, I already have a great number of distressed constituents getting in touch with me desperate for some sort of help. Today, though, I want to focus my comments more specifically on businesses, which we have been hearing about from Members around the Chamber. Last Thursday I met with farmers, who might be readily overlooked; it is essential that all sectors across our economy are considered. They have to keep their grain at a certain temperature, for example, to make sure that it is not affected by moisture and so on. I ask the Minister to ensure that all categories of businesses—care homes, farmers and so on—are considered. Specifically, I spoke to pub owners at a roundtable meeting last Friday. There were seven of them. Frankie, Phil, Ricky and Jake joined me. Several of them will be out of business in three weeks when their contracts end. I ask the Minister to implore the Prime Minister to act with absolute urgency on this issue.
Greg Hands
On farming, we are interacting regularly with the National Farmers Union, NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the Ulster Farmers Union to make sure that the voice of farming is heard loud and clear within this Government, including on energy prices. When it comes to wider announcements, as I have already said, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will have too long to wait.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Like others, I want to make my point on this. On Sunday, just yesterday, one of my constituents closed his family shop, café and restaurant that he had owned for a number of years. It was a family enterprise that employed some 68 people. He said that he had spent much of his life in the village in which he had grown up, but he said that energy costs were so high that he could not continue to trade there. That is a fact of life. It is also a fact of life for butchers’ shops, and I wish to make a plea for them. I have spoken to three butchers in the past 10 days. One of them said that his energy costs will go from £1,850 to £4,000. The contract runs out in September. A second one said that his electric costs will go from £2,350 to £4,500. His contract runs out in October. The third one says that his costs will go from £3,000 to £6,000. Refrigeration is important to them. The costs are already high, and they say that they will not stop there. I just ask the Secretary: what can we do for those people?
Greg Hands
I hear the hon. Gentleman loud and clear. Northern Ireland is very much at the forefront of our discussions and our considerations. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a new taskforce in relation to Northern Ireland, recognising its difficult position of not having a Northern Ireland Executive and also recognising that electricity is a devolved matter. We are actively on that case to make sure that Northern Ireland consumers and businesses do not miss out on the support being given by the UK Government, quite properly treating the United Kingdom as a whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his statement.
Point of Order
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 12 August, the Government made a significant policy announcement via a statement to BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme but without informing Members of this House. They said via the radio that they would not be purchasing Evusheld, a preventive covid treatment for the estimated half a million immunosuppressed and immunocompromised patients, many of whom are still shielding from covid-19. No “Dear Colleague” letter was circulated to Members of this House setting out the background and rationale for such a major policy decision, nor did I have any response to my request in a letter to the Secretary of State to meet with MPs virtually during the summer recess to explain his decision.
Outside this House, various arguments to refuse this life-saving treatment have been put forward by Ministers, but they simply do not stand up to scrutiny. It is therefore vital that Members of this House have the opportunity to properly scrutinise the Government here in public view in this Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can you please advise whether the Government have given you any indication that they intend to make a statement this week, or perhaps issue a “Dear Colleague” letter? If not, can you please advise how we can bring the next Secretary of State to this Chamber to answer questions on why the Government continue to block a drug for the most vulnerable among us—a drug that is medically approved, clinically effective, cost-effective and in use by many other countries?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. I can confirm that Mr Speaker has not had notice of any statement on this subject. The hon. Lady will know the various ways in which she can continue to pursue the issues she has raised, but I am confident that those on the Government Benches will have heard her comments and I am sure they will feed them back to the relevant Government Departments. Clerks in the Table Office will also be able to give the hon. Lady advice on how she might pursue this.
We now come to the Second Reading of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Not moved.
Business without Debate
Telford Child Sexual Exploitation: Inquiry
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
It is a privilege to have secured the first Adjournment debate after the summer recess, and I am grateful for this opportunity.
The independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Telford reported on its findings on 12 July this year, at a time when Parliament was in some turmoil, so I am particularly grateful to now be able to put on record the findings of that important inquiry and the response of the authorities to those findings.
This inquiry has relevance for every council and every police force, and it marks a turning point in the fight against CSE and the organisational culture and attitudes that for so long have allowed this horrendous crime to pass unnoticed. I am very glad that the Minister is on the Treasury Bench to hear and respond to the debate. I urge her and her officials to read the report, because this is a landmark inquiry and a turning point in this ongoing battle. The Telford inquiry is a testament to the victims and survivors and their families—to their determination and bravery—because it will improve safeguarding across the country, and there are many good people to thank for the role they played.
The inquiry was chaired by Mr Tom Crowther QC. He makes it clear at the outset of his report that inquiries of this kind can drive change only if organisations that are subject to criticism accept the spirit in which the comments are made and view the findings in a way that is self-critical and reflective. It is not enough to say, “Well, this happened a long time ago” or “Our practices have substantially improved.” As Mr Crowther says in his report, in child welfare and safeguarding there is no place for corporate pride; there is no place for reflexive denial, deflection of blame or excessively optimistic statements.
Tom Crowther conducted his work sensitively and thoroughly. His report is measured and balanced, his recommendations constructive and clear. He shows insight into the silence around CSE and the way that authorities, not just in Telford, too often respond when questioned. He tackles, too, the key issues of institutional blindness and complacency and the failure to take CSE seriously.
It was back in the summer recess of 2016 when I first met with CSE campaigners, victims and survivors. I listened to their experiences and offered to help them secure this inquiry, which they felt would give them a voice and would mean that their experience was not just brushed aside and forgotten about so that people could move quietly on to other things. To them, it was an important part of their recovery. These meetings came after a high profile police investigation and successful prosecution known as Operation Chalice. A group of seven men in Telford were jailed for serious sexual offences against young girls, some as young as 13. It was apparent from the work of Operation Chalice that this was not a one-off, and that there were serious underlying problems.
When something has gone wrong, it is understandable that any organisation will feel uncomfortable when practices and procedures are challenged and scrutinised and shortcomings are identified. However, child sexual exploitation is a horrendous crime that affects whole communities and damages young lives. No one in authority charged with responsibility for young people should shy away from improving practice when something has gone horribly wrong, and those that do embrace an inquiry such as this as if it were an opportunity—which, indeed, it is—are to be commended. That is why I welcomed the response of West Mercia police to the inquiry’s findings. Speaking on behalf of West Mercia police on the day the report was published, 12 July, Assistant Chief Constable Richard Cooper said:
“I would like to say sorry. Sorry to the survivors and all those affected by child sexual exploitation in Telford…our actions fell far short of the help and protection you should have had from us, it was unacceptable, we let you down.”
That acknowledgement that mistakes were made is exactly the right way to respond. It is the first step towards accepting that things went wrong. It also makes a huge difference to victims, and provides reassurance that culture and attitudes have changed and new ways of working can be adopted for the future.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The scale of the abuse suffered by young, vulnerable women in my hon. Friend’s constituency over a number of decades is truly shocking and repugnant, as are the failings on the part of the authorities to which she has alluded, going back years and years. In Telford, Rotherham, Rochdale, Huddersfield, Halifax and countless other places, those vulnerable young women were failed by the authorities because they were too politically correct to call out what was going on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time we had a new approach to dealing with this abhorrent crime, and that all police forces should be required to prioritise its investigation?
Lucy Allan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making two important points: first that this happens throughout the country, and secondly that there is much more work to be done. He is also right to emphasise that the role of the police is vital. They can and should view the report by Tom Crowther—the Telford report—as a model to be followed, and note the way in which West Mercia police responded to its findings. That, too, can be a significant learning for many police forces throughout the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. It is hard to listen to stories such as this because they are so heart-rending and personal. I think we all accept that these issues are real for the hon. Lady and her constituency, but, as she has said, they are also real throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every police force, every authority, every public body can learn from this report. Is it the hon. Lady’s hope that this report will be dispersed across the United Kingdom by the Minister, if that is at all possible, so that all of us, everywhere, can learn for the betterment of the children?
Lucy Allan
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I call him my hon. Friend—who makes exactly the point that I would like the Minister to take away from today’s debate. There is so much learning in the Crowther report that could be disseminated throughout the country.
In his report, Mr Crowther urges all stakeholders to commit to a reflective response, and refers specifically to Telford and Wrekin Council. He observes that the council has shown a reluctance to accept criticism, and goes on to say that its approach has been essentially defensive. He stresses that to foster a culture of openness and learning it is necessary to recognise and admit mistakes; but he found, instead, a long-standing culture of resistance to ever admitting that provision was imperfect. Disappointingly, that is what we saw when the council came to respond to this important report on its publication.
In a very brief statement, which was issued on the date of publication and which no one put their name to, the council did not acknowledge or recognise that any mistakes had been made, and the press release claimed that the inquiry had in fact found that the council had made significant improvements and that, in any event, the council was already carrying out many of the recommendations. The press release did say that it was sorry for the pain and suffering of the victims, but it very specifically did not make any apology for or any mention of the mistakes the council had made. There was no acknowledgement that it could have done things differently and no suggestion that the council had a responsibility for what went wrong. There was repeated reference to the fact that child sexual exploitation was a problem that dates back many years—as long as 30 years in this case—as if to create some kind of distance between what had happened and the people responsible.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
That is infuriating. We must never forget who is at the heart of this: it is the victims and their families who have had these traumatic experiences, and situations have been imposed on them for many years. The report referred to institutional blindness as a key point. Does my hon. Friend share my frustration? In order for us to reinstall trust in those organisations that have failed many of our constituents for a long time, we have to get those authorities to recognise and realise where mistakes have been made. That is why I am frustrated at the council’s response. Does she agree that in order to get to the position of being able to reinstall that trust, we must get our local authorities, including Bradford Council in my constituency, to trigger an inquiry to get to the bottom of the issues to do with child sexual exploitation that have been going on in Keighley and my constituency?
Lucy Allan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right that it is essential that councils not only acknowledge but know what has gone wrong. This happens in lots of institutions, not just councils. Too often it is easy for them to say, “Nothing happened here really,” and to see it through their own eyes rather than view the reality through the eyes of an outsider or, indeed, the victim. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the suffering of victims. I do not think that any one of us who has ever spoken to a victim will forget what they have told us. It is an extraordinarily hideous crime—its deviousness, its manipulation and its way of making people do something they do not want to do without even realising that it is happening. It is the most hideous of crimes. I recognise how difficult it is to identify it, but that means that it is all the more important that inquiries such as this happen. It is such a healthy exercise to actually look at what has gone on, examine responses and challenge oneself. It is very difficult to do that on the inside. I think that having an outside, independent person asking these questions in the same balanced, measured and blame-free way as Tom Crowther is vital, and there is scope for many more such learning opportunities in many other areas.
The response of Telford and Wrekin Council was not just a missed opportunity to learn lessons or reassure the community that it knew that things had gone wrong, but a clear indication and evidence of the resistance, the reluctance to accept criticism, the defensiveness and the corporate pride that Mr Crowther references in the inquiry report. It is that same reluctance to be open about shortcomings that created roadblocks to the inquiry taking place in the first place. Although I would not expect any organisation to be enthusiastic about such an inquiry, the resistance to it in this case was clear for all to see.
For two long years, the council gave various reasons why this inquiry was simply not necessary. First, it hid behind the national child abuse inquiry, which it claimed would cover Telford when it did not do so. Then, it said that it was going to cost too much, then that it had a good Ofsted report, and then that there was nothing to see anyway. When the council did finally agree to it, it took another year to appoint a chair, and when it did that, it produced 1.2 million pages of evidence for the inquiry to sift through. That shows that it was not taking seriously its duties to improve its procedures and practices, and that was extremely frustrating. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) mentioned being frustrated. Don’t block it, don’t stop it; just accept it as a learning opportunity and as an opportunity to do things better, because these are children and young people, and this is about lives being ruined. No one should stand in the way of making sure that best practice is in place.
For me, most disheartening of all was the formal response to the inquiry by the leader of Telford and Wrekin Council. The report had said,
“It is…the responsibility of the elected members, particularly the cabinet members, to give direction and to assert priorities; to determine what is essential and what may be foregone. I have seen…no indication that before 2016, a CSE response was ever regarded as an essential service. I consider that a glaring failure on the part of a generation of Telford’s politicians.”
Having read that in black and white on the printed page, the council leader who joined the cabinet in 2011, far from accepting responsibility and being humble about the shortcomings, in his response talked defensively about how proud he was of Telford, as if there had been criticism of our town—of course, there had not. He talked about the significant improvements, despite the report saying that such progress as there had been was “unconscionably slow”, and he made repeated reference to the way that CSE dated back 30 years. He went on to say that he was only three years old at the time.
CSE is not all in the past. CSE is not something that happened 30 years ago. Forgive my frustration, but we had the same approach—the same institutional denial—with the maternity death scandal at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital. Before the Ockenden inquiry into maternity negligence, we saw the great and the good reassuring anyone who asked that there was nothing to see here, and that it was all in the past. But it was still happening at that very time, because there was a refusal to accept shortcomings or have any insight into the problems that the organisation faced.
The leader of the council is the corporate parent, the person ultimately responsible for young people in our borough. Instead of saying, “Yes we got it wrong, yes we made
mistakes, and yes people suffered as a consequence,” he says, “Well, I was only three years old at the time.”
I am heartened that all stakeholders have committed to implementing all the findings of this important report, and it is my job as Telford’s MP, as the representative of victims and their families and all young people in Telford, to ensure that the recommendations are implemented, and to seek updates on their progress. We all know that it is the perpetrators who are to blame for horrific crimes. It is impossible, however, not to feel a deep sense of sadness and anger about the entrenched culture and attitudes that allowed CSE to go unchecked for so long. I invite the council to do as West Mercia police have done and acknowledge the shortcomings identified in the report, and apologise to victims, families and the community for those failings. I ask all stakeholders in Telford and Wrekin to work together with our community to implement all the inquiry’s recommendations promptly.
I thank Mr Crowther for his excellent work and steadfast determination to get the job done, and all the victims who have worked with me on this issue and who were able to give their evidence to the inquiry. I hope that CSE victims and survivors in Telford and elsewhere feel confident that they are now being taken seriously and together have shone a light on this issue, and that no one anywhere will be complacent about CSE in the future. I know that the Minister will confirm that in her response.
I want to take this chance to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who at the time we were battling for this inquiry was the local government Minister. Without his help, I wonder whether the inquiry would ever have taken place. I am very grateful to him.
I doubt any of us would have been able to speak out on this issue but for the pioneering work of the inspirational hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It was her support that enabled me to keep going to make this inquiry happen, and I commend her on her bravery on holding those responsible to account. It is not an easy job, as I can now say from experience.
I am privileged to be Telford’s MP and to have the platform to speak up for victims. I am grateful that other hon. Members have taken the same opportunity. Together, slowly and bit by bit, standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, we will make change really happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amanda Solloway)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for securing this incredibly important and moving debate. She has worked tirelessly on these issues. Her perseverance has helped to ensure that the report has been published and that the horrendous way in which more than 1,000 children in Telford were failed has been exposed. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in commending her efforts, alongside those of other hon. Members present who are driving change on behalf of victims in constituencies across the country, including my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). I acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) as well.
The abuse suffered by the many victims in Telford is truly sickening. My thoughts are with them. As has been so shockingly detailed, children were failed over and over again by those who should have protected them. I pay tribute to the victims and survivors in Telford and to all those who have shared their experiences. They have suffered unthinkable ordeals. Sadly, we cannot undo what happened in the past, but what we can and must do is take every possible step to ensure that others are not let down as they were.
The independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Telford has produced a thorough and measured assessment of how local services responded to child sexual exploitation as far back as the 1970s. I am grateful to the inquiry for its comprehensive and hard-hitting exposure of the scale of the failures in that response. The inquiry acknowledges that the frontline response of services in Telford has improved in recent years, and it is right that the 47 recommendations made for local frontline services in Telford have been accepted. The mode of offending and the failures of police and other services that are detailed in the report are all too familiar. Shocking though it is, the fact is that what happened in Telford has happened in many other places.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
May I say how much I admire the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan)? She has really battled to get this inquiry, and I know she will keep on battling to get its recommendations imparted.
I ask the Minister about two very specific things. First, I am very glad that pre-charge bail has come back into statute, but it has not really been implemented, which is really hampering ongoing investigations into perpetrators—not least because many have dual nationality, so we do not have the ability to take their passports away.
The other thing is that we are very fortunate in Rotherham because we have the National Crime Agency, but as I realised only very recently, perpetrators who have been brought in for questioning have to come in voluntarily to be charged. I wonder whether the Minister could look into charging powers, particularly in these very challenging cases.
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. If I may, given our current situation, I will get back to her on that point.
As the public rightly expect, there have been significant changes in how local authorities and the police safeguard children since the appalling abuse that took place in Rotherham, Oldham and elsewhere across the country was first exposed a decade ago. Recognition of child sexual exploitation has increased significantly in recent years, with individual police forces taking action to improve their responses. The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on the issue, Deputy Chief Constable Ian Critchley, is working to drive up performance nationally. As with any issue relating to public protection and particularly the protection of children, the pursuit of improvement needs to be relentless. We are supporting the police in that effort through investment and thorough strategic impetus.
We are already addressing, at a national level, many of the issues highlighted for the local frontline services in Telford. We are driving up data quality by funding child sexual abuse analysts in every policing region, as well as having made it mandatory since March for police forces to record the ethnicity of those arrested and held in custody because of their suspected involvement in grooming groups.
In July, we published an updated version of our child exploitation disruption toolkit, which highlights the need for police and local agencies to work together to gather and scrutinise data so that they can identify and disrupt offending. In addition, we fund the vulnerability, knowledge and practice programme, which identifies best practice and shares it with all forces. We are ensuring that the complexity and sensitivities of child sexual abuse investigations are understood by policing leaders through the College of Policing’s training for senior officers on issues of safeguarding and public protection.
We are taking steps forward all the time, but we must not lose sight of the fact that things went terribly wrong in the past. Complacency must never be allowed to set in. It has been made abundantly clear to the police that protecting children must always be a top priority. There should be absolutely no doubt that we will keep shining a light on these issues, and where shortcomings are identified, we will take action to address them. That is why Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has been commissioned to investigate how police forces across England and Wales handle cases of group-based child sexual exploitation. Unlike reviews of historical issues, it will give an up-to-date picture of the quality and effectiveness of forces’ efforts to support victims and bring offenders to justice. We expect the inspection to report by the end of this year.
The failings uncovered in Telford and elsewhere undoubtedly demand a swift and strong local response. The Government are ensuring those lessons are learned right across England and Wales through our strategic national approach. We are working across central and local government, law enforcement and the wider criminal justice system, and we continue to be recognised as a global leader in addressing the threat.
Last year we published the “Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy”, which highlights the vital importance of a joined-up approach and sets out firm commitments to drive action across every part of Government and across all agencies, including education, health, social care, industry, and civil society. More broadly, the “Beating Crime Plan” reaffirms our enduring determination to root out hidden harms and secure justice for victims in these cases. We are delivering on our commitments. We are putting victims and survivors at the centre of our approach, while relentlessly pursuing the perpetrators of these despicable crimes.
Of course, it is not for the police alone to tackle child sexual exploitation and keep children safe from harm. All statutory partners must play their crucial roles. While the inspection into group-based child sexual exploitation is primarily a policing one, we want to include local authorities in the response. The events in Telford have highlighted the importance of an effective multi-agency response. Ensuring close collaboration between key partners is a key part of our strategy.
The Children and Social Work Act 2017 introduced the most significant reforms in a generation, requiring local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and chief officers of police to form multi-agency safeguarding partnerships. All the new partnerships were in place by September 2019. The partnerships have been supported by a Home Office- funded police facilitator, who has engaged with every force in England and Wales to ensure they understand their new responsibilities and are making the most of this opportunity to improve outcomes for children and young people.
In May we welcomed the publication of the independent review of children’s social care, and the national review of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. Both reviews make recommendations on improving multi-agency working to strengthen child protection, with a sharp focus on professional expertise.
Victims and survivors have been failed in the past. That is utterly unacceptable. Through increased investment in specialised services, we are determined to ensure that victims and survivors get the help and support they need to rebuild their lives. Services protecting vulnerable children in Telford and Wrekin have been transformed since 2016, thanks to the work of committed social workers and senior leaders. They are now rated “outstanding” by Ofsted and are helping to bring about improvements in other underperforming local authorities to help to protect more families, as sector-led improvement partners.
Nationally, services include the rape and sexual abuse support fund and funding for police and crime commissioners to locally commission vital emotional and practical support services. The support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse fund also supports voluntary sector organisations to deliver a range of vital national services, such as support lines and counselling, to children, adult survivors and families affected by sexual abuse.
It is also essential that we send a clear and unequivocal message to all victims and survivors that they should come forward and report abuse. All agencies involved in tackling these crimes have a role to play in making that happen. They must strive every day to secure the trust of victims and command the confidence of the wider public.
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) knows how much respect I have for her, but I will continue, if that is okay.
Across the country, there are many amazing charities doing brilliant work to help victims to rebuild their lives. In my own constituency I have seen at first hand how the charity Safe and Sound transforms lives by providing one-to-one support to victims. I pay tribute to all involved with Safe and Sound and the work they do to support victims, and to other charities that do the same.
In closing, I would like to thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate for reminding us who is at the heart of this for all of us. The abuse perpetrated in Telford was sickening. The failings that occurred were shocking. We owe it to the victims there and in every part of the country to ensure that nothing like that ever happens again.
Question put and agreed to.
Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Rehman Chishti)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 748).
The statutory instrument was laid on 4 July under the powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. The SI has been considered and was not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and it was approved by the House of Lords on 20 July. It amends the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and introduces new measures targeting the financial, trade and transport sectors.
These enhanced sanctions represent our latest response to the continued support by Belarus of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and they aim to deter Belarus from engaging in further actions that destabilise that country. Since 24 February 2022, Belarus has facilitated Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Lukashenko has openly supported the fabricated narrative used by the Kremlin to justify Putin’s illegal and unprovoked assault of Ukraine, and he has allowed Russia to launch troops and missiles from Belarusian territory and fly jets through Belarusian airspace.
The measures are designed to further ratchet up pressure on Belarus, building on the previous designation of more than 50 Belarusian individuals and organisations for their role in aiding and abetting Russia’s invasion. Let me be clear: Belarus’s behaviour is aiding and abetting Putin’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. The measures build on the wide-ranging sanctions already imposed on Lukashenko and members of his family and his regime for their role in violating democratic principles and the rule of law in Belarus and oppressing civil society, democratic opposition leaders and independent media. I want to make it clear that our grievance is not with the Belarusian people, who are themselves the principal victims of Lukashenko’s repression, but with Lukashenko, his regime and its backers for supporting Putin’s illegal invasion.
The financial sanctions introduced by this instrument will ban more Belarusian companies from issuing debt and securities in London, and prevent them from obtaining loans from United Kingdom banks. The sanctions will also prohibit UK citizens and entities from providing financial services to the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus and the Belarusian Ministry of Finance. That will help to prevent Belarus from using its foreign reserves in ways that undermine the impact of the international sanctions that the United Kingdom is imposing with partners around the world.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for introducing the instrument to the Committee, and I am sure that he will have no trouble getting it passed. Like many colleagues in this place, I have been banned from visiting Russia because of our apparently Russophobic approach and rhetoric. I wholeheartedly welcome the measures, but may I urge the Minister to go further? The bureaucracy in Belarus extends beyond 50 individuals. Given how active those individuals are in supporting Russia’s invasion, surely we can do more to target them and the bureaucracy more generally.
Rehman Chishti
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have a huge amount of respect for him and for his expertise in foreign affairs—he sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is absolutely right that we must do everything we can to ensure that all levers possible are applied, across the board, to individuals contravening the legislation passed by this Parliament though their unacceptable behaviour in support of Putin’s illegal actions in Ukraine.
My hon. Friend will agree that the difference between us and those in Belarus and Russia is that we believe in democracy. Therefore, the sanctions that we impose in the United Kingdom have their legislation and criteria set through Parliament. We will use every lever possible to hold those individuals to account. We are making it very clear that we are looking at individuals in all sectors and areas where we feel that they are aiding and abetting Putin’s aggressive behaviour in Ukraine. I note his point about ensuring that the measures are continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that we catch the widest number of individuals who need to be held accountable.
The trade sanctions contained in this instrument include a ban on the export of dual-use goods and technology for all purposes and on the export of goods and technologies for critical industries. That includes high-end equipment such as microelectronics, marine navigation equipment, aircraft components, quantum computing components, and oil-refining goods and technology. That in part answers the point made by my hon. Friend on the widening of the criteria under which individuals can be held responsible for the unacceptable activity in Ukraine. That will place further constraints on Belarus’s military, industrial and technological capabilities and on refining petroleum, one of the country’s highest value exports. The measures include a ban on the export of luxury goods to Belarus and a ban on the import of iron and steel from the country.
Finally, the legislation introduces new sanctions on transport. It extends measures introduced in 2021 against aircraft, giving us the power to detain and deter registered Belarusian aircraft. It also introduces new shipping measures, prohibiting Belarusian ships from entering UK ports and introducing powers to detain and deregister ships. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I welcome the Minister to his first of our discussions on sanctions regimes. He will know from the record that when we have debated them in the past, the Opposition have always approached them in an entirely constructive manner. We will not seek to divide the Committee today, but I want to raise a number of issues and ask the Minister some questions.
We have always supported the Government’s course on sanctions and on taking the toughest and deepest possible action against those who are taking direct action in Ukraine—in the case of Russia—but also those who are aiding and abetting, as is the case with Belarus. Where we have thought that sanctions could go further and be stronger, we have made that argument, and we will continue to do so. I thank the team in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and others who have worked on putting together the sanctions, which obviously required an intense amount of work.
We have wholeheartedly supported the Government; indeed, the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), has just been making that clear in the Chamber following the statement on military support for Ukraine. The economic, diplomatic and political pressure that we bring to bear on Russia and those aiding and abetting it is also crucial, so these are welcome measures against the despotic regime of Lukashenko in Belarus.
The House may have been in recess for the last few weeks, but the war against Ukraine and its people has raged on, claiming more lives, wreaking further destruction and continuing to undermine the global rules-based order. We have seen horrific reports of the forcible transfer of Ukrainian civilians, the separation of families and so-called filtration camps. A recent report by Human Rights Watch exposed that more than 3.4 million Ukrainians had entered the Russian Federation from Ukraine, including more than half a million children. Deep concerns have been raised with me by Ukrainians and others about what is happening in those camps. I hope that the Government give that due consideration, as well as the bulk of the illegal armed action that is taking place in Ukraine, in the measures that we take.
It is very clear that, although Russia is the principal perpetrator of aggression towards Ukraine, the Kremlin is not acting alone, as the explanatory notes to the measures clearly set out. Those who aid and abet the Russian regime—Putin’s regime—must be held to account, which is why it is crucial that we approve these measures today. Lukashenko has long been a pawn of the Putin regime, and his brutal, corrupt and autocratic grip on Belarus has made it a regional pariah, undermining democracy at home and peace and stability abroad, particularly in the near region.
We have only to look at the perilous diversion and grounding of Ryanair flight 4978, the irrefutable rigging of the 2020 presidential elections and the many repressive measures taken against the Belarusian opposition, and indeed civil society and those who want freedom of speech in Belarus itself, to show that Lukashenko shares Putin’s penchant for tyranny, repression and disregard of both domestic and international law. That was set in train by the formation of the so-called Union State between Belarus and Russia, which has facilitated the use of Belarusian territory and infrastructure to launch attacks against the people of Ukraine.
Although Belarusian forces have not been committed, as the explanatory notes make clear, Lukashenko’s complicity in the war cannot be overstated. He effectively allowed Putin to invade Ukraine via Belarus, he has surrendered the use of his country as a platform for air raids and missile strikes, and he has tied the regime’s future to a war that has led to the death of thousands of civilians. That has been known from the very first days. We all saw the evidence for what they were doing—it is there, as clear as day—and we have seen some horrific actions in recent weeks, including the launch of missiles towards Ukraine.
The Prime Minister stated that it was the Government’s intention to apply sanctions to Belarus on 24 February. That was confirmed by the Foreign Secretary the same day, so I have to ask the Minister why it took until the start of July for the sanctions to be brought into effect, and why it has therefore taken until today for the Committee to be given the opportunity to debate them. I do not doubt the Government’s intention, and nor do I criticise what they are putting forward, but time and again we have been lagging behind and not moving at the necessary speed. If it is a question of resourcing for the excellent teams in the FCDO and elsewhere that have been doing this work, the Government really need to catch up.
After our most recent debate on sanctions, the Minister’s predecessor, who is now the Education Secretary, assured me that the sanctions taskforce at the FCDO contained 150 permanent staff, and that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation had doubled in size. Can the Minister confirm how many permanent staff are now in OFSI and the sanctions taskforce? Has the Department has assessed staffing levels again, and are they sufficient to provide the swiftness that we need? The Ukrainian people do not have time for these sorts of delays when it comes to countries such as Belarus and individuals in those regimes who are taking these actions. We need to move swiftly. If it is a question of capacity, I urge him to look at whether more permanent staff can be brought in urgently.
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay about the number of individuals being targeted, which seems small compared with the number of those who we know are involved in the Belarusian regime, and potentially in orchestrating and authorising these actions against Ukraine and in support of Putin. I hope that the Minister will answer that question about the numbers involved, come back to us in due course, and keep the measures under constant review. With the measures against Russia, the names of individuals have been regularly updated. I hope that that will occur in relation to Belarus and others.
Lukashenko had the gall the other day to congratulate Ukraine on its independence day. I was marching with the Ukrainian representatives and refugees in Cardiff just last week. Lukashenko said that Belarus will
“continue to stand for the preservation of harmony”.
We know that is absolute nonsense, because less than a month prior to those words being issued he fired 25 missiles, hitting targets in the Chernihiv region and around Zhytomyr on the day when Ukraine celebrated its statehood day.
I echo the words of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who condemned the attack, saying:
“Lukashenka can’t fool anyone. He is guilty of crimes against Belarusians & Ukrainians & must be held accountable.”
She rightly stated that Lukashenko is effectively allowing Belarusian lands to be used as
“an aircraft carrier for Putin.”
Our actions here in the UK must match that bravery and the starkness of what she and those who work around her, who have often been put at immense personal risk, are setting out.
I also want to ask the Minister about the statement that was made in November 2021, when the sanctions against Belarus were last debated. The then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), stated that our
“actions work best when combined with other diplomatic and economic measures, and the UK has assisted independent media and civil society organisations in Belarus”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1076.]
Can the Minister explain what support is being provided to Belarusian civil society, much of which is being targeted by Lukashenko, to supplement and complement the sanctions that are being debated today? Clearly, the support that has been offered has not been enough to stop the repressive activities that we have seen, as well as what he has being doing inside Ukraine.
Thirdly—I have made this point in many debates on this subject—what consideration is being given to moving beyond the freezing of assets, travel bans and so on to the seizure and repurposing of the assets, whether Russian, Belarusian or otherwise, of those who are directly implicated in the illegal war against Ukraine? We know that demands for reconstruction, humanitarian support and other forms of support for Ukraine are immense, and they are increasing. There is a fiscal reason for ensuring that we get additional resources in, but many people are rightly asking why some assets will sit there, effectively dormant, without being seized and repurposed. What further consideration has been given to that?
In the impact assessment, there is specific mention of issues relating to Belarusian steel and iron products. I am pleased to see those measures. It has been suggested to me—I wonder whether the Minister can shed any further light on this—that materials are being exported from Russia and Belarus via third parties in the steel and iron market, and potentially making their way to our shores and those of allies. It would be deeply concerning if such sanctions-busting activity was going on, either through the rebadging of products or by misleading people about their origins. If the Minister does not have the details today, I would welcome a letter from him on that. What measures have been put in place to ensure that diversionary routes are not being used to send products—particularly high-value products—that originated in Russia or Belarus to our shores? How will we ensure that the measures set out in the regulations are absolutely robust and secure?
The explanatory memorandum states that air and space goods have not been included, as they were in the measures against Russia, because
“Belarus does not have the exact same role as Russia in the war against Ukraine.”
That strikes me as slightly odd. We ought to be taking the toughest measures. It is very clear that, although Belarus has not committed its own troops, it is part and parcel of what Putin is doing, in providing a launchpad—that so-called aircraft carrier—to use against Ukraine. I cannot understand why we would then give Belarus an exemption on aviation and space goods. I recognise that that is probably a fairly small part of its market, but we should not be giving it any scope whatsoever for economic benefit from products that are either directly or indirectly linked to the actions that are taking place in Ukraine. I hope that the Minister can explain why that exemption has been made.
It is clear that Lukashenko must feel the pressure from the west as much as he does from the east. We therefore welcome the overall package of sanctions that the Committee is considering today, which represents a considerable step in the right direction. The war is continuing for far longer than was ever estimated at the beginning. I fear that it will only be protracted and worsen in the months ahead, so we must ensure that our sanctions regime can expand in real time, in real response to the measures taken by Russia with the assistance of countries such as Belarus and the Lukashenko regime. We fully support the regulations. We will not divide the Committee, but I hope that the Minister can answer some of my questions.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I fully support the measures contained in the SI, although I regret their necessity. In 2018 I led the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Belarus. We went there because at that time there was an assessment that Belarus might be inching slightly further away from Russia, and that there were some signs of hope that Belarus was moving towards a more democratic society. Those were entirely dispelled at the subsequent election in 2020, which the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe ruled was neither free nor fair, and involved massive and systemic violations and abuses of human rights.
Belarus has an appalling human rights record. It has a history of murdering opposition activists and independent journalists. It was cited as having the worst environment for journalists almost in the world. We particularly remember Pavel Sheremet, the opposition journalist who exposed corruption in Belarus, and was then blown up in his car. I welcome the fact that, at the parliamentary assembly of the OSCE in July, which was hosted by the UK in Birmingham and at which I led the UK delegation, the Government took the decision to refuse visas not just to the Russian delegation, but to the Belarus delegation. Both remain members of the OSCE. The Government quite rightly said that Members of Parliament from those two countries should not be issued with visas in order to attend. We did hear at the assembly from Belarus Free Theatre, which is one of the campaigning organisations subject to repression in Belarus but which nevertheless does a fantastic job outside the country in highlighting some of the abuses going on.
I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, that we could be going further in terms of sanctions against individuals. The Magnitsky sanctions were specifically introduced to target individuals who we know are guilty of human rights abuses; there are plenty of those in Belarus, particularly in relation to some of the atrocities that I have mentioned, and therefore, as well as the measures that we are looking at today, there is scope for further, targeted sanctions against those individuals who we know are committing human rights abuses.
I also highlight the genuine concern felt in the Baltic states. The so-called Suwalki gap is about 60 miles. It is the strip of land between Belarus and Kaliningrad, which is under Russian occupation. It is a very short space and, should it be occupied by Russia, it would cut off all three of the Baltic states from the rest of the world. The Baltic states genuinely fear the Russian deployment of troops in Belarus; they see it as a direct threat.
For all those reasons, the sanctions are welcome, and I share the view that, in some ways, they should have been introduced sooner. However, while it is absolutely right that we make clear that Belarus’ support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine is wholly unacceptable, we need to go further. This is not just about stopping Belarus supporting Putin in Ukraine; we need to ensure that sanctions remain in place until we achieve a free and democratic Belarus because there should be no doubt that Belarus is a puppet state of Russia. They have ruthlessly suppressed all opposition and attempts to instil democracy and, until we can change that, these sanctions need to remain and, if anything, we need to look to strengthen them in time.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie.
Let me reiterate a point made by the hon. Members for Basildon and Billericay, and for Cardiff South and Penarth, and the right hon. Member for Maldon. First of all, in terms of the Suwalki gap, it is clear to me, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia, that the Government and our allies need to go a lot further to ensure that nothing happens to the Baltic states, who valiantly kept their freedom and the idea of their nations alive during the Soviet occupation. In terms of the demands highlighted by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, the House is clear that this is not enough. The Belarus state is a vast monolith of the Soviet era; it is not just 50—forgive me—lackeys. There is an entire state structure, from local government, national Government, all the way down to the health structure, that needs to be tackled.
I certainly will not move against the motion; I think everyone is totally in agreement, but the Government need to move forward quickly to ensure that the Belarusian regime understands that we all mean business.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to members of the Committee for their contributions to today’s insightful and timely discussion and I will address the important questions that they have raised. I thank the Committee for its full support for these regulations. The House is united in agreeing that we must do everything we can to stand by the people of Ukraine. The United Kingdom Government at every level, supported by all political parties, took decisive military, economic and diplomatic action to support the people of Ukraine, and we will continue to do that.
I turn to hon. Members’ specific questions. I thank the Opposition spokesman for his constructive dialogue and support, and for raising the issues that need to be raised. We improve regulations and legislation only by engaging in discussion, interaction and reflection, and the process for dealing with the situation in Ukraine has been constructive throughout.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire mentioned the numbers. We must do more. We will absolutely do everything we can to support the people of Ukraine and ensure that those responsible for this unacceptable behaviour are brought to account in order to deter others from such unacceptable actions and deeds.
The figure of 50 was mentioned, but I want to set out the overall mapping, in terms of sanctions, that we have applied to Belarus. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and others asked about that. On the designations and criteria that we have applied, under the Belarus regulations 108 individuals and 10 entities were designated pre-invasion. That comes back to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. He asked what we have done about the unacceptable behaviour and aggression, and the fraudulent elections in Belarus. What have we done to hold individuals to account—not now, with regard to the Ukraine situation and the Belarus Government aiding and abetting Putin’s illegal invasion, but what did we do then, and what have we been doing since? Some 108 individuals and 10 entities were designated pre-invasion, and an additional six entities were designated in response to the invasion, as they are significant to the regime. They include Alexander and Viktor Lukashenko. The United States has not designated 69 of those individuals, but we have.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth says that we need to work with international partners. Absolutely, but the United States and United Kingdom have different legal criteria. Nobody in this House would say to me that we should do anything outside our legal criteria. We will do it in the right way, by applying our legal criteria.
The second set of designations come under the Magnitsky sanctions and the global human rights legislation. Eight individuals have been designated, including Alexander and Viktor Lukashenko, on human rights grounds. Only one of those is not designated by the US, although its designations are via its Belarus programmes, rather than the global human rights regime.
Then we come on to the Russia regulations. We now have a separate entity for Belarus, but from February, when we were looking at Ukraine, we were using the Russia regime. Under the Russia regulations, 47 individuals and seven entities were designated following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some 41 of those individuals are not sanctioned by the US, and the remaining six are. All those entities are sanctioned by the US. Five of the individuals sanctioned by the US and all seven entities are sanctioned under the Belarus programmes, rather than the Russia programme. The remaining individual is sanctioned under the Russia programme.
I have given that answer because I wanted colleagues in the House to know the different regimes that we have applied sanctions under.
Mr Baron
I do not for one moment question the Minister’s good intent. What he said there is absolutely spot on, but what is troubling some of us is that given the size of the Belarusian Government bureaucracy and the state generally in pursuing its aims, which we all condemn, 50, 100 or even 200 are probably not enough. If we are to send a strong message to Belarus and any other people aiding and abetting the invasion of Ukraine, we have to get tougher and perhaps be even quicker in our response. Will the Minister bear that in mind?
Rehman Chishti
Yes. I thank my officials for the note over here, but let me just answer that point. I am trying to multitask in reading, reflecting and answering; hopefully my lawyer’s training helps in that regard. I get the point raised by my hon. Friend. I think the officials get the point. We have to do everything we can. I have tried to give an overall picture with regard to the number of individuals, but his point is that looking at the scale and size of the country, we have to do everything we can to ensure that as many of those individuals who need to be held accountable are held accountable. I get that, and no doubt officials here get that, and it will be taken back and looked at. I will write to him specifically on that point with further details so that he gets the fullest answer.
I want to address another point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, about why we are replicating measures made on 28 April. Why are we doing it now? His point was with regard to the timing of the different regulations. The new measures are the latest in a co-ordinated package of measures that the UK has introduced in response to Belarus’s support for the Russian invasion. The point I made earlier was that we put a number of measures and designations into play prior to the invasion. The new criteria that we have put in place extend and broaden the group of individuals who can be held accountable for the unacceptable behaviour of aiding and abetting Putin’s financial actions, and supporting the aggression in Ukraine.
Since the invasion of Ukraine, we have launched a series of sanctions targeting Belarusian individuals and organisations who have aided and abetted this reckless aggression. We designated 47 Belarusian individuals and seven Belarusian entities under the Russia sanctions regime. We also introduced a 35 percentage points increase in duties on a range of products imported from Belarus. Those measures are in addition to the wide range of measures that we have already imposed on Belarus under our Belarus sanctions regime, which include sanctions on Lukashenko and members of his family, and on other individuals and entities.
With regard to the third point that the hon. Gentleman raised on the issue of steel, iron, aviation, space and goods, I will take that matter away and make sure that it is answered as fully as I can, to do justice to the answer, rather than reflecting on it now. I will make sure that he gets a full answer on that specific point.
Rehman Chishti
I will raise the point with my officials tonight, to make sure that it—irrespective of what may happen tomorrow or the day after—can be put into the system today and fully looked at. I say that to my officials as the Minister at this point in time.
The Chair
Order. On balance, I think it might be better if the Minister addressed the House rather than his staff.
Rehman Chishti
Sure. I am grateful, Mr Hosie. I was trying to reiterate that the point was so important that it needed to be conveyed, taken away and looked at. I get the point on that very basis.
Stephen Doughty
I did get a helpful letter on 17 May from one of the preceding Ministers, who is now the Education Secretary—who knows what he will be doing tomorrow? He gave me some further detail on the resourcing, and helpfully said that the task force now has 150 members of staff. Can the Minister give some clarity on whether they are permanent or temporary staff? Secondly, there was no detail on when the new staff—the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation—are going to be in place, just that the recruitment had commenced. It is crucial that we boost those numbers as quickly as possible. These are complex measures and I know that is why some of them take some time. We have got to have the resourcing in place to ensure that they can be brought forward speedily.
Rehman Chishti
With regard to the answer given by the former Minister on the figures, I want to be frank and clear, because it is a specific question on the numbers and details that the hon. Gentleman has asked. I can ask officials to look at that specific point, and at the breakdown he has asked for. In my early days, when I came in as Minster, I went down and met and thanked the sanctions team. The work that they do in the evolving circumstances is with the latest information and evidence available. We have increased the numbers of staff and officials working on sanctions. The question that the hon. Member asked is about a specific breakdown; I will ensure that he gets a full update regarding that specific point.
Stephen Doughty
It is not just the Minister’s Department; it is also the Treasury, because, crucially, if any of these sanctions are to work in practice, it is also about companies and individuals, and for those who might be trading or engaging with them to be properly informed and have the right information to actually implement them. Crucially, UK businesses, and others, who might have had partnerships or engagement with Belarusian individuals must have that information, so I hope that the Minister will raise it with the Treasury.
Rehman Chishti
I will ensure that every Department that is relevant and connected, with regards to the imposition of sanctions and the figures that he has asked for, makes sure that it answers his question fully and frankly because I think that is absolutely important. In my time in this role, I have tried to engage with parliamentarians across the House and now the questions must be fully answered. If I have missed any specific points raised by any Member, I will ensure that the officials read the document and come back and answer those specific points.
My hon. Friends, it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom and our allies to support Ukraine and take tough action against Putin and those who support his illegal invasion. In co-ordination with our allies, we continue to introduce the largest and most severe economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced, and that we have ever imposed. I am led to believe that the latest figures we have, regarding the situation in Ukraine and Russia and the sanctions that we have imposed, is more than 1,000 individuals and more than 100 entities.
On a recent visit to Canada and to the United States, I have had conversations with our counterparts to ensure that we do all we can, in a co-ordinated manner, and in line with the criteria set by the British Parliament, to impose the swiftest and firmest sanctions that we can regarding individuals, whether in Belarus or in Russia, linked to the aggressive, unacceptable behaviour that we are seeing in Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has committed to going further, and we will continue to do so until Putin ends this war of aggression. It is a matter for Putin to end it. Therefore, until that happens, we will do everything that we can, using all possible levers, to ensure that those who are responsible for that unacceptable behaviour are held to account.
I thank the Committee for their insightful contributions and support for the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. I hope the Committee will support the regulations. I know the Committee has said it will, but I say that again, and thank the Committee for its support regarding the regulations. On the points that have been raised by the Opposition spokesman and others, I will ensure that the officials take those away and respond to them in as full a manner as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 748).
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Luxembourg) Order 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Luxembourg) Order 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
The draft order gives effect to a new replacement double taxation agreement with Luxembourg. The statutory instrument has five main objectives: in a nutshell, it updates an existing agreement so as to make it easier for businesses to understand; it supports cross-border trade and investment; it reduces the tax burden on UK businesses with subsidiaries in Luxembourg; it improves available dispute resolution mechanisms; and it bolsters provisions to tackle tax avoidance and evasion.
I will now turn to the detail of the draft order and the new agreement. As I am sure the Committee understands well, agreements such as this one remove barriers to international trade and investment; they also provide a clear and fair framework for taxing businesses that trade across international borders. Both those things benefit businesses and the economies of signatory countries—in this case, the UK and Luxembourg.
The reality is that our previous agreement with Luxembourg dates back to 1967. As such, it needs updating, for example to reflect changes to the OECD model tax convention and to the domestic tax laws and treaty preferences of both countries. The new agreement also introduces a number of improvements for businesses, individuals and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs itself. Updating arrangements to follow many of the latest provisions in the OECD model convention will make it easier for businesses to understand their responsibilities and obligations.
One significant issue for larger companies is continuity in the payment of dividends. Dividends between group companies operating across borders in the European Union were previously exempted from so-called source state taxation under the parent subsidiary directive. The new agreement replicates that exemption for the majority of dividends, ensuring that UK businesses with subsidiaries in Luxembourg will not pay tax in Luxembourg on dividends paid to UK companies. The new agreement exempts the majority of dividends from tax, but it preserves our right to tax distribution from UK real estate investment trusts at a rate of 15%, thereby ensuring that the UK will not lose taxing rights where the profits from those REITs are otherwise exempt.
Disputes are another important issue. The draft order gives effect to the minimum standard on improving dispute resolution set out in the final recommendations of the OECD and G20 base erosion and profit shifting—BEPS—project. It does so by changing how disputes involving the application of the agreements are resolved. The changes mean that where taxpayers consider that the agreement has not been applied correctly, they may present their case to either tax authority, rather than just the authority where they are resident. At the same time, any resolution of a dispute will need to be implemented even if the time limits in the domestic law of either territory would otherwise prevent that.
There are also implications for tackling tax avoidance and evasion. Importantly, the new agreement contains all the minimum standards introduced by the BEPS multilateral instrument to ensure that double taxation agreements are not used to avoid or evade tax. The provisions include the statement in the preamble that it is not a purpose of a double taxation agreement to create
“opportunities for…tax evasion or avoidance”,
as well as a principal purpose test that denies treaty benefits in the case of abuse.
Other anti-avoidance rules in the new treaty include a tie-breaker provision for determining corporate residence based on a competent authority agreement. There is also a provision in the capital gains article that preserves UK taxing rights on gains from shares that derive their value from property in the UK. Finally, the new agreement provides for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts.
In conclusion, all these features together strengthen both countries’ defences against tax avoidance and evasion, so this agreement is one that the UK and Luxembourg can both be very happy with. The mutual benefits that I have outlined are many. The agreement makes it easier for businesses to understand their obligations and responsibilities, it reduces the tax burden for UK businesses with subsidiaries in Luxembourg, it improves available dispute resolution mechanisms, and it bolsters provisions to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. Above all, it protects UK revenue and provides a stable framework within which trade and investment between the UK and Luxembourg can continue to flourish. For those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Ms McVey, and I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. I am pleased to respond briefly on behalf of the Opposition.
As we heard from the Minister, the statutory instrument gives relief from double taxation in relation to capital gains tax, corporation tax, income tax and taxes of a similar character imposed by the laws of Luxembourg, as well as relating to international tax enforcement. As we can see, the schedule introduced by the order is largely technical in nature. It follows an approach that is consistent with similar bilateral agreements with other states and territories, and we will not oppose the order. It is important that bilateral agreements concerning taxation are clear.
We also welcome the objective of this double taxation treaty, which the explanatory memorandum makes clear is to
“protect the Exchequer by including provisions to combat tax avoidance and evasion.”
These provisions include
“measures providing for the exchange of information between revenue authorities”,
in order to
“make it more difficult for residents of both territories to evade taxation by concealing assets offshore.”
As the Minister knows from her time in office, the Opposition have been pushing her and her colleagues at every turn to do more to tackle evasion and avoidance. We have pushed them to implement the global minimum corporation tax rate that the OECD and G20 recently agreed, which the Minister mentioned in her speech. Therefore, I will use this opportunity to ask the Minister briefly about the implementation of the OECD agreement.
On 20 July this year, the Treasury published draft legislation that would introduce the new so-called multinational top-up tax. Can the Minister simply confirm whether the new Prime Minister tomorrow will support this legislation? If she cannot confirm that, will she join me in urging the new Prime Minister to continue with this legislation?
Lucy Frazer
I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman and I am very pleased to see him after the break. Of course he will realise that as the Prime Minister has just been appointed as the leader of the Conservative party and is yet to go to see the Queen, it would be a little bit premature to set out her plans.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am very pleased to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey, and I am delighted to take part in what is by far the most exciting thing to be happening at Westminster this week.
The policy objectives behind this order are ones that we can all support, and I certainly will not seek to divide the Committee today on it. Nobody should have to pay tax twice on the same income; equally, however, nobody should ever be able to dodge their rightful tax liabilities just by moving their money—or, as in most cases, pretending to move their money—to a different country. For those reasons, I particularly welcome the updates to the previous order that show progress towards closing the loopholes that for far too long have allowed wealthy individuals and organisations to use often completely bogus company structures and other dodges to avoid paying their fair share. I have some queries about the detail of the order, and with your leave, Ms McVey, I will discuss each of those in turn.
I welcome the statement in paragraph 7.12 of the explanatory memorandum that tells us that article 5 of the convention
“includes a rule that prevents companies fragmenting their activities in order to avoid the PE threshold”—
the permanent establishment threshold. However, reading through article 5, it is very difficult to find where it says that. Article 5 does not say that in so many words and it does not say it with anything like such clarity, particularly given the Minister’s desire, which she expressed in her opening remarks, to make the regulations easier to understand. What we have in article 5, paragraphs 4 to 7, is a convoluted set of ifs, buts, maybes and exceptions. About the fifth or sixth time I read through them, I thought I understood what they mean. Will the Minister explain why that part of the order had to be worded in such labyrinthine fashion? It seems like a lawyer’s dream, but I suspect it will be a legislator’s nightmare.
The same paragraph of the explanatory memorandum also refers to the fact that some amendments to the definition of “permanent establishment” recommended by the BEPS project are not adopted in the draft order. Will the Minister briefly outline which amendments those are and why the Government do not think it is necessary and appropriate to incorporate them into the draft order?
Paragraph 2 of article 6 confirms that the order applies to the usufruct of immovable property. According to Hansard, the word “usufruct” has only been used three times in Parliament during my lifetime—that is four times it has appeared now—and yes, I did have to look it up to find out what it meant.
There are important and welcome provisions in articles 11 and 12 designed to close down a very frequently abused loophole whereby a company could set up a shell, purely fictitious holding company in a low-tax jurisdiction and agree to pay itself outlandish levels of interest, rents or royalties that could make all the profits of the entire operation appear where they would be least taxed. Article 28 has a more general anti-avoidance provision. Again, I welcome it as an important principle of fairness that companies should pay tax on their profits in the jurisdiction where those profits are generated, but will the Minister clarify how that is going to work in practice? I could see, for example, how interest rates could be benchmarked so that it becomes quite obvious if a company is paying excessively high interest rates to its parent company, but how practical will it be to do that with trademarks? There will be an argument that every trademark has a different value. How do we assess or benchmark the value of the Google or Amazon trademark when those companies are similar to any other company in the marketplace, but are also in many ways unique?
Will, for example, HMRC and its Luxembourg counterparts be looking for evidence that such payments are determined by a long-term, legally enforceable contract between the two companies, and cannot just be made up year by year after the company that is going to pay the money has finalised its accounts and decided how much profit it can have? It is astonishing how often subsidiaries of Amazon, Google and so on seem to pay 99.9% of their in-country profits in the way of rent or other payments to their parent company.
A perhaps more important concern is how HMRC and the Treasury can be sure that they have access to accurate and up-to-date information about company ownerships and directors, and the relationships between companies in the UK and elsewhere, when the official register of companies in the United Kingdom is such an utter mess. The Minister may or may not have been called to higher things by the time these discussions are needed, but when she or her successor is speaking to colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about when the register will be made fit for purpose, perhaps they could also suggest that companies legislation in the UK should follow tax legislation—follow HMRC’s example—and clamp down on those entirely artificial and bogus company structures that, all too often, are created purely to avoid legal requirements. We have seen examples of how it has been made difficult or impossible for companies to avoid their tax requirements, but why is it possible for them to dodge some of their transparency requirements in the UK? Why is it legal for a company to avoid the requirement to publish full accounts or have them audited just by splitting itself into 20 or 30 mini-me companies so that every single one of them comes down below the reporting threshold, despite the fact that they have identical shareholders and directors?
Moving on to other parts of the order, I note with a passing interest the fact that the UK Government still thought it was necessary to retain the provisions in article 13 giving them the right to tax a Luxembourg company on profits arising from some oil and gas activities in the North sea. That comes as a surprise to those of us who were told in 2014 that the oil and gas had run out. I suspect that between now and October 2023, we are going to be told again that the oil and gas under the North sea is worthless.
Article 21 deals with the taxation of wealth or capital. The memorandum points out that there is currently no tax in the UK based on an individual’s wealth, but can the Minister confirm that if any future Government were minded to introduce a wealth tax of any kind, it would automatically fall within the scope of the order and we would not need an additional order to cover it?
The provisions of article 24 relate to arbitration and dispute resolution. I welcome the fact that the emphasis is now on trying to do things by agreement, and only to go to arbitration as the last resort. Will the Minister clarify how the arbitrator is appointed and, importantly, who pays the cost of arbitration, because it can become an expensive business? How do the Government propose to discourage vexatious or entirely groundless applications for arbitration without unintentionally making it impossible for individuals or organisations who may well have valid grounds for testing the validity of a decision?
Finally, I ask the Minister to confirm, on the record, that article 26, on the exchange of information, is entirely compliant with the general data protection regulation. I fully support in principle tax authorities exchanging information when necessary to catch out people who too often use secrecy to conceal what they are doing and their ill-gotten gains, but if two different jurisdictions are exchanging information, it is important that both agree to comply at all times with the higher of the two standards of data protection applicable. Will the Minister confirm that that will be done with the legislation as it is, and reassure us that should there be any divergence between the UK and Luxembourg through one or the other weakening its current data protection laws, the data rights of UK citizens will not be weakened as a result?
With those comments, I will be happy to support the order going through tonight, but I do have some questions on detail that hopefully the Minister can answer. If she cannot just now, she can possibly write to me at a later date.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes for his detailed and interesting questions. I hope to be able to respond to at least some of them. The hon. Member asked how the principal purpose test applies in practice. The answer is that HMRC has a long history of dealing with avoidance provisions of this type, and the same principles will be applied here, supported by existing guidance and OECD commentary.
The hon. Member asked about anti-fragmentation and the complicated wording; I assure him that it is standard OECD wording, which has been adopted by all countries. He also asked about any potential new capital articles. I would reassure him that the provision would cover any new UK tax on capital. On how arbitration works, the costs will be paid by the states and details of the operation are set out by a competent authority agreement. On whether article 26 complies with GDPR, the answer is yes, it is fully compliant with GDPR provisions.
The hon. Member pointed out the issues of beneficial ownership. He will know that the UK was the first country to introduce a public register of ultimate beneficial owners of companies—the people with significant control register. Recently, we have also introduced a largely public register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property, and we expect that new register will be useful in tackling tax non-compliance as well as economic crimes.
Peter Grant
On the question of the register of beneficial ownership, how effective—if indeed they exist at all—are the penalties for knowingly providing false information, or for knowingly withholding information? I regularly look at companies’ records at Companies House where it is clear from looking at the shareholdings that someone has very substantial control, yet the official register says that no one has significant control. When will the requirement to report that actually be given teeth, so that it becomes mandatory, instead of effectively voluntary as it is now?
Lucy Frazer
It is of course important that we have penalties appropriate to the provisions in any legislation. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are looking very carefully at the issue of beneficial ownership. He also asked about a wealth tax; there is no current intention to bring in any wealth tax. For all those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Office
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I do not feel that the House is any better informed about the Government’s response to this heatwave following the answer to the urgent question than we were when we first walked in. The Government’s approach seems to be that this is merely an unfortunate 36 hours of very hot weather and we will just have to soldier on through it and stand in the shade, but what we need from them is a long-term plan. What are our vulnerable and elderly constituents to do? Who should they contact in this situation? Where is the advice from the Government? There does not seem to be any urgency. Will the Minister go away and then come back and do a better job?
Kit Malthouse
There has been enormous urgency. As I said in my response to the urgent question—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening—I have just come from the third Cobra meeting, in which we discussed our preparations.
[Official Report, 18 July 2022, Vol. 718, c. 709.]
Letter of correction from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).
An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford).
The correct response should have been:
Kit Malthouse
There has been enormous urgency. As I said in my response to the urgent question—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening—I have just come from the third ministerial Cobra meeting, in which we discussed our preparations.
Health and Social Care
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and its recognition of the need to have specific strategies to make sure that women have equal access to services. However, it is silent on the biggest healthcare injustice that women face in our country—that abortion is still treated under Victorian criminal law, with the most draconian laws in the world. Seventeen women in the past eight years have been subject to criminal investigation, including simply because they suffered the appalling issue of stillbirth. This strategy should stop that by expanding the Government’s own change in the law in Northern Ireland to ensure that abortion is an issue between women and their doctors, and that every woman is protected from criminal investigation at a time when what they need from us is care and compassion.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is right that there is a need for care and compassion, and she highlights an extremely important point. She will be aware that the sexual health review is currently being conducted. That will report later this year and will look into the issue that she raises.
[Official Report, 20 July 2022, Vol. 718, c. 981.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay).
An error has been identified in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller).
The correct response should have been:
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is right that there is a need for care and compassion, and she highlights an extremely important point. She will be aware that the sexual and reproductive health action plan is currently being conducted. That will report later this year and will include ensuring women have equitable access to abortion within the current legal framework.
Transport
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
My mum is one of the RMT members who will be taking industrial action this week, along with many of my constituents, the majority of whom are cleaning workers, catering and gateline staff, and other ancillary roles who are not even on a real living wage and at the sharp end of this Government’s cost of living crisis. My mum and the other key workers in transport are not striking because they want to; it is a last resort because they feel they have been left no choice. A real-terms cut to their pay or the threat of losing their job altogether is far more than the wages they will lose in striking to defend themselves. Will the Transport Secretary therefore tell the House what steps he has taken to enable train operating companies to make an offer on a deal so that this crisis can be fairly resolved and the strikes averted?
Grant Shapps
It is important to recognise that a responsible Government have to make the judgment between railway workers, nurses, teachers, care workers and many others. In that regard, she should know that in the past 10 years there has been a 39% increase in railway workers’ salaries compared with just 16% for nurses. We do need to make sure that the fair settlement is fair for everybody.
[Official Report, 20 June 2022, Vol. 716, c. 578.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols).
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
It is important to recognise that a responsible Government have to make the judgment between railway workers, nurses, teachers, care workers and many others. In that regard, she should know that in the past 10 years there has been a 39% increase in tram and train drivers’ salaries compared with just 16% for nurses. We do need to make sure that the fair settlement is fair for everybody.
Petitions
Post box in Hayfield
Conviction of Yasin Malik
Corporate Travel Management
Council tax discounts for dementia
Pryzm in Watford
Bus services in Footdee (Fittie)
Doncaster-Sheffield airport
DWP dedicated telephone line for advice services
Eligibility period for the Cost of Living Payment
Universal Credit deductions
Written Statements
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingent Liability (Letter of Credit) and Bounce Back Loan Scheme Update
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Contingent Liability (Letter of Credit)
Today I will lay before Parliament a departmental minute describing a number of contingent liabilities arising from the issuance of letters of credit for the energy administrators acting in the special administration regime for Bulb Energy Limited (“Bulb”). These letters of credit replace previous ones provided, announced within past written ministerial statements, which soon expire.
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 have ensured that Parliament has been afforded the full 14-sitting-day notification period to allow the proper scrutiny of these new contingent liabilities.
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 letters 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.
Publication of latest bounce back loan scheme and lender performance data
Today the Government provide an update on the performance of the bounce back loan scheme (BBLS), which was designed to provide rapid access to finance for small businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The data in this release includes specific information on the value of loans marked as suspected fraud, and claims made and settled by individual lenders who are accredited for the scheme.
This data release is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to transparency in relation to BBLS. The Government will continue to provide updates at regular intervals. This update will be published on the BEIS website to allow members to further scrutinise the data.
The data in this publication is as at 31 July 2022, unless otherwise stated. The data comes from information submitted to the British Business Bank’s (the Bank’s) scheme portal by accredited scheme lenders.
As of 31 July 2022, businesses have drawn a total of £46.6 billion through BBLS. The first evaluation of BBLS, published in June 2022, found that up to 500,000 businesses could have permanently ceased trading in 2020 in the absence of the scheme.
It is unfortunate that some have taken the decision to take advantage of this vital intervention by defrauding the scheme for their own financial gain. The Government have always been clear that anyone who sought to do so is at risk of prosecution.
Checks were put in place from the outset to reduce the risk of fraudulent applications being successful. Lenders are the first line of defence, and were required to make or maintain know-your-customer and anti-money laundering checks and use a reputable fraud bureau to screen applicants against potential or known fraudsters. Lenders reported preventing over £2.2 billion-worth of fraudulent applications as a result of these checks.
The Government remain focused on working with the Bank, lenders and law enforcement agencies to tackle fraud in the scheme. This work is supported by the Public Sector Fraud Authority, who have led the development of a sophisticated analytics programme to better understand the level and types of fraud committed against the scheme.
We are working with enforcement bodies including the National Investigation Service (NATIS) and the Insolvency Service to investigate instances of fraud, recover fraudulent loans and penalise fraudsters. Since September 2020, NATIS has opened 273 investigations into BBLS fraud, with a total value of £160 million. Some 78 suspects have been dealt with to date, with 49 arrests made. Meanwhile, Insolvency Service activity on BBLS fraud has so far resulted in 242 director disqualifications, 101 bankruptcy restrictions and 1 criminal prosecution. This enforcement activity is in addition to recovery work being undertaken by lenders as part of their obligations under the BBLS guarantee agreement.
At spring statement 2022, the Government announced an additional £48.8 million of funding over three years to tackle public sector fraud. This included further investment of £13.2 million in NATIS, effectively doubling their capacity to investigate BBLS fraud, and £10.9 million to enhance the Bank’s counter-fraud and assurance work programme.
Headline figures
£28.3 billion: the outstanding balance of total drawn loans making payments on schedule
£4.7 billion: the amount that has been fully repaid by borrowers
£3.2 billion: the outstanding balance of loans in arrears that haven’t yet progressed to defaulted
£1.4 billion: the outstanding balance of loans defaulted that haven’t yet progressed to claimed
£2.6 billion: the outstanding balance of loans claimed that haven’t yet progressed to settled
£1.2 billion: the total settled amount (the amount paid out to lenders under the BBLS guarantee agreement)
£1.1 billion: the total drawn value flagged by lenders as suspected fraud
Notes:
The values stated above will not add up to the total drawn values as set out in column 1 of table 3 (Detailed loan status by lender). That is because the above figures do not take account of events which can reduce outstanding balances—for example: partial repayments of a loan, certain recoveries received in respect of a loan, and amounts written off loans by lenders.
To aid the reader’s understanding of the data, the terms used in this publication are defined at the end.
All businesses remain responsible for repaying their loans under BBLS and are fully liable for the debt.
It is important to recognise that it is still relatively early in the life of the scheme, and therefore it is too soon to definitively assess the performance of the BBLS scheme as a whole. Data being collected from accredited scheme lenders is subject to refinement, addition, and correction over time. Please see “Limitations and further considerations” for further background.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2022-09-05/HCWS292
[HCWS292]
Infected Blood: Interim Compensation
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
The infected blood inquiry has heard first-hand details of the terrible suffering experienced by the victims of infected blood over many years, and the urgent need to address the financial uncertainty faced by many.
This Government commissioned Sir Robert Francis QC to produce an independent study with options for a workable and fair framework of compensation for those infected and affected by the tragedy. A copy of Sir Robert’s report is in the Library of this House.
Following Sir Robert’s detailed evidence given to the inquiry in July, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, delivered an interim report to the Government. In accordance with section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005, a copy of Sir Brian’s interim report has been laid before Parliament. In his report, Sir Brian made the following recommendations:
“(1) An interim payment should be paid, without delay, to all those infected and all bereaved partners currently registered on UK infected blood support schemes, and those who register between now and the inception of any future scheme;
(2) The amount should be no less than £100,000, as recommended by Sir Robert Francis QC.”
On 16 August, I wrote to Sir Brian to confirm that the Government have accepted his recommendation in full and that we will be making an interim payment of £100,000, by the end of October, to all infected beneficiaries and bereaved partners registered with the four national support schemes. The date of effect of the recommendation is 29 July 2022, the date that Sir Brian delivered his report. Any infected person or bereaved partner registered with one of the four schemes operating in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland on that date will be eligible to receive the payments. Sir Brian’s recommendation —which this Government accept—was careful not to exclude any eligible person who, for whatever reason, may have not registered themselves with their relevant national support scheme. Should they do so in future, before the inception of any future scheme, they will also be eligible for such a payment, subject to successful application to the scheme.
The intention is that payments will be tax-free and will not affect any financial benefits support an individual is receiving. In advance of the payments, the four support schemes will write to beneficiaries, confirming tax exemptions and benefit disregards, and provide practical details about how the payments will be made. The UK Government will provide the funding to ensure that those eligible, wherever they are living in the United Kingdom, will receive the payment.
As recognised by Sir Robert Francis and Sir Brian Langstaff, this group of victims is the immediate priority for the Government because we recognise that, tragically, many of these individuals will not see the conclusion of the inquiry.
However, I am mindful that there will be people deeply affected by this tragedy who will not benefit from these payments. Sir Robert’s detailed compensation framework study makes carefully considered recommendations about the further scope of compensation, including that carers and bereaved relatives—a cohort of affected people not currently supported by financial support schemes—should be compensated. In his interim report, Sir Brian makes specific reference to bereaved parents and children but notes the complexities in determining the approach to their compensation.
To those individuals and others who are out of scope of these payments, I would like to emphasise that the interim payments the Government have announced are the start of the process and not the end. Sir Robert’s study has been warmly welcomed by the inquiry and, without prejudging the findings of the independent inquiry, I fully expect his wider recommendations to inform the inquiry’s final report when it is published in mid-2023. Until that time, the Government will continue work in consideration of the broader recommendations in the compensation framework study so that we are ready to respond promptly when the inquiry concludes its work.
[HCWS279]
Launch of the Public Sector Fraud Authority
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Further to the written statement dated 7 July, I am writing to update the House that the Public Sector Fraud Authority launched on 3 August 2022.
The Chancellor’s spring statement, issued on 23 March 2022, provided £25 million of funding to establish the PSFA, which brings together experts from across sectors in an integrated way with the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury. Staffed by counter-fraud experts and backed by leading data analytics tools and techniques, it will put a greater focus on performance and outcomes. It will also build deeper and broader expert-led services to support Departments and public bodies to reduce the impact of fraud. The functions and services of the PSFA will be built over the next two years.
The authority has launched with a target of detecting and preventing £180 million of fraud in its first year and will work with Government Departments and public bodies to agree longer-term targets by December.
The PSFA will modernise the Government’s counter-fraud response by:
Agreeing ambitious counter-fraud plans for departments and public bodies and reviewing progress;
Regularly and directly briefing Cabinet Ministers including HM Treasury and Cabinet Office on the latest fraud landscape;
Providing expert support to Departments and public bodies about the fraud risks and threats they face, then helping to design defences against them and test their effectiveness;
Building a new national counter-fraud data analytics service that will provide advanced data capabilities—such as social network analysis—to surface, fight and prevent fraud against taxpayers; and
Enhancing the use of fraud intelligence across the public sector, and with other sectors, to combat specific threats.
Ahead of a permanently appointed chief executive officer of the authority, it is led by interim chief executive officer Mark Cheeseman OBE, an internationally recognised expert in public sector fraud who led the creation of the Government’s counter-fraud profession and the establishment of the international public sector fraud forum.
The PSFA will be supported by a cross-sector advisory panel that will provide expert advice and help shape the strategic approach to public sector fraud prevention and reduction. The chair of the advisory panel will be announced in September.
[HCWS278]
Bearskins Clarification
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
On 11 July in a debate in Westminster Hall on bearskins, I referred to data on potential faux fur products that had previously been shared with the Department, but I also stated that the Ministry of Defence had not received recent results data. Whilst my statement was in line with advice I had received, further work has revealed that this was not correct, and I wish to correct the record.
In May 2022 a letter was sent to the Prime Minister by PETA, copying Defence Ministers, enclosing a report against two of the five initial criteria that faux fur would have to meet in order for further work to be done to consider it as a replacement for the guardsmen’s caps. This was passed to officials in the Ministry of Defence, who responded on 15 June 2022 requesting that the report should be sent by the organisation that had conducted the tests direct to our partner, Leidos. We understand an email containing the report was sent but was blocked by Leidos’s spam filters and deleted. Subsequent to the debate, the email was re-sent, copying the MOD. After the MOD forwarded a copy to Leidos it was safely received.
To date, the Ministry of Defence has not seen a set of verifiable data that demonstrates a single sample of faux fur meets the five criteria. We are aware of testing that was carried out in December 2020 by an accredited testing house against three of the criteria, although the material only passed one of those tests: water penetration. As I have explained, we are also aware of further testing, conducted in April 2022. The MOD does not believe from the information we have seen that the organisation that conducted those tests is accredited by either the UK Accreditation Service or the International Laboratory Accreditation Co-operation. In order to consider taking any proposed product forward, we need test results that have been conducted by an independent and accredited testing house.
Consequently, we have not to date seen evidence that a suitable faux fur product exists to be considered as an alternative.
Currently, the foot guards’ ceremonial caps are sourced exclusively from Canada, which is a regulated market and a declared party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. A CITES permit is required for the export of pelts from Canada to the United Kingdom. Canadian and international laws provide strict trade regulations to protect against unlawful trade in black bears, both within Canada and internationally. No bears are hunted to order for the Ministry of Defence; pelts are a product of legal and licensed hunting authorised in Canada by provincial and territorial Governments with the goal of long-term population sustainability.
[HCWS288]
DCMS Update
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I would like to inform the House of a number of DCMS updates.
Over summer recess we also reached another key milestone in the transformation of the UK’s broadband networks—announcing that over 70% of homes and businesses across the country now have access to lightning-fast, gigabit connections.
It has also been an incredible summer of sport, with my Department helping to successfully host both the UEFA Women’s Euros and the Birmingham Commonwealth games.
Building on the spectacular performance of the Lionesses at the Euros final, I wish to inform the House that on 2 September, the Government have officially launched a review of the future of women’s football.
Launch of the future of women’s football review
The Lionesses’ Euros victory rightfully put women’s sport at the centre of the agenda. Record numbers of viewers watched their success: 574,875 tickets were sold at the tournament, with sell-out crowds wherever the Lionesses played. The final also broke the attendance record for a Euros final—in either the women’s or men’s game. While it is right that we celebrate and reflect on that success, we must now refocus to ensure that this success translates to the continued growth of the women’s game.
The fan-led review of football governance, conducted in 2021, recognised the different issues that the women’s game faces in comparison to men’s football. The fan-led review therefore recommended that women’s football should receive its own dedicated review. Government accepted this recommendation. Rather than the issues of financial mismanagement and fit and proper owners that the fan-led review considered, the review of the women’s game will focus on capitalising on popularity and continuing to grow the game.
The review will be chaired by former England and Great Britain footballer Karen Carney MBE. Karen has extensive knowledge of women’s football and the issues affecting it, having had a very successful playing career and later moved on to become a respected broadcaster and columnist on both women’s and men’s football. Karen’s unique experience will be invaluable in ensuring that the review makes proposals that help to continue the growth and success of the women’s game.
The review will now commence with stakeholders and fan groups having the opportunity to provide evidence on the issues affecting the women’s game. There will be a particular focus on assessing the potential audience reach and growth of the game, examining the financial health of the game, its financial sustainability for the long term and the structures within women’s football.
The findings and recommendations arising from this review will be set out in a published report next year.
We have further updates to make on the gifting of Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games assets, and the removal of facsimile services from the universal service order.
Gifting of assets following the conclusion of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games
During the summer recess my Department has been working with the organising committee of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games to prepare to donate the sports equipment assets to Sport England for onward distribution to community organisations in Birmingham and the west Midlands. This will ensure maximum legacy opportunities for communities and sporting organisations to benefit from the games.
It is normal practice when a Government Department (in this instance an arm’s length body of the Department) proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
As the games equipment was being passed to Sport England immediately after the conclusion of the games, and with the games having taken place during summer recess, DCMS wrote to Dame Meg Hillier MP as chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, and Julian Knight MP as chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 29 July 2022, informing them of the proposed course of action.
Ministers at HM Treasury have approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
I inform the House today of the Departmental minute which sets out the detail of the decision, which has been laid in both Houses.
The distribution of sports equipment from Sport England onwards is expected to commence in October.
A copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Removal of the Fax USO
Tomorrow, the Government will amend the Electronic Communications (Universal Service) Order 2003 to remove facsimile services from the USO. This will come into force on 1 October 2022.
DCMS previously wrote to Ofcom to consult it ahead of potentially removing fax from the universal service order. This was in light of the industry-led migration from the public switched telephone network to all-internet protocol telephony, which will mean that fax machines will no longer work in the same way. This was in accordance with section 65(4) of the Communications Act 2003 which states that, before making or varying the universal service order, the Secretary of State must consult Ofcom and such other persons as they consider appropriate.
After a public consultation, Ofcom concluded it would be appropriate to remove fax from the USO. Ofcom noted the low usage of fax, as well as the availability of reliable alternatives, many of which are free of charge. DCMS officials conducted further investigations with the healthcare, tourism, legal, and energy sectors, and found that the use of fax was minimal and alternatives are being sought where its use still continues.
DCMS is content that it is appropriate to remove fax from the telephony USO. As a result, the designated providers BT and KCOM will no longer be required to provide fax services. We are making this change now given the ongoing changes to the UK’s telephone networks, as well as recognising that the limited existing use of fax services makes their inclusion in the USO unnecessary.
Fax services will remain available on existing PSTN connections until the service is withdrawn by the industry in 2025. BT has also indicated that fax services may continue to function over its digital voice services, though they are not guaranteed in the same way. Furthermore, the move from fax services to alternatives will have already been a part of many sectors’ preparation for migration to all-IP. DCMS has been working closely with other Government Departments to raise awareness of this change and others expected as part of PSTN migration.
The Government will also be making a minor clarification to the USO with regard to the term “publicly available telephone service”, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in 2011.
[HCWS284]
Contingency Fund Application: Departmental Update
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Will Quince)
I hereby give notice of the Department for Education’s intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund.
This follows the Department’s announcement on 11 March that a new independent Government body will be created to support teachers in delivering excellent curriculum content as part of world-class lessons. The body will help every child in the country reach the true height of their potential.
The body is expected to become fully operational from autumn following a transition phase, which will include procurement and development of new resources. The first new resources will be available to teachers by September 2023. The body has been incorporated as Oak National Academy Ltd.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £2,809,000 and capital of £3,869,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Education. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £6,678,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
We will seek a movement of funding in budgetary requirements at supplementary estimate. Accessing the Contingency Fund allows the Department to manage the expenditure associated with establishing and launching the new body.
I am therefore seeking parliamentary approval for costs of £6,678,000. The advance will be repaid upon receiving approval of the supplementary estimate.
[HCWS277]
Student Loan Interest Rates
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
I am announcing today a temporary reduction in student loan interest rates effective as of 1 September 2022.
The Government announced on 13 June 2022 that the student loan interest rate would be set at 7.3% between 1 September 2022 and 31 August 2023, in line with the forecast prevailing market rates. The Government confirmed that should the actual prevailing market rate turn out to be lower than forecast, a further cap would be implemented to reduce student loan interest rates accordingly.
I am announcing today a temporary cap to the post-2012 income contingent repayment undergraduate and postgraduate loan interest rates in line with the latest actual prevailing market rate. Subject to parliamentary approval, the cap will come into effect on 1 September 2022 and last for a period of three months.
The post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will be 6.3% between 1 September 2022 and 30 November 2022.
From 1 December 2022, the post-2012 and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will be 7.3%, as announced on 13 June 2022, to align with the forecast prevailing market rate. As before, should the actual prevailing market rate turn out to be lower than forecast, the post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will be reduced accordingly.
[HCWS286]
Children with No Recourse to Public Funds
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Brendan Clarke-Smith)
Today I am providing an update following a consultation undertaken by my Department to consider access to the two-year-old early education entitlement for children from families with no recourse to public funds (NRPF). The purpose of the two-year-old early education entitlement is to provide early education and support to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds in England.
Some families with an irregular immigration status have a NRPF condition designated by the Home Office. This condition restricts these families from drawing on welfare support and other passported Government support, and previously this has meant that their children, regardless of their own circumstances, have been unable to access the early education entitlement for disadvantaged two-year-olds.
The Department announced on 24 March 2022 that we would extend eligibility for free school meals to children from all families with NRPF subject to income thresholds and that we would consult on whether there are any additional groups of children from NRPF families who should be eligible for the two-year-old entitlement that we have not already identified.
I am pleased to confirm the publication of our consultation response on gov.uk. This confirms that the additional groups that have been identified are:
(1) those with a UK ancestry visa
(2) those with temporary protection status under Section 12 of the Nationality and Borders Act; and
(3) those with pre-settled status with no qualifying right to reside.
We have now permanently extended eligibility for the two-year-old early education entitlement to children from all families with NRPF, subject to the income thresholds as follows:
£26,500 for families outside of London with one child.
£34,500 for families within London with one child.
£30,600 for families outside of London with two or more children.
£38,600 for families within London with two or more children.
A maximum capital threshold of £16,000 applies in all areas.
These thresholds were developed to create comparative thresholds with broad equivalence with families with recourse to public funds and who qualify for the early education entitlement due to being in receipt of welfare benefits.
This permanent extension begun on 1 September 2022. We have published guidance to support local authorities in implementing these changes.
This will help to ensure that every child gets the best possible start and receives the right support, in the right place, at the right time.
[HCWS276]
Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
This Government have consistently been clear that the failure of the water companies to adequately reduce the amount of storm sewage discharges is unacceptable. We are the first Government to set a clear requirement on water companies to reduce sewage discharges and set this in law.
Today, I have laid in Parliament the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which sets out strict new targets to crack down on sewage discharges. This will start the largest investment in infrastructure ever undertaken by the water industry, an estimated £56 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years. This will eliminate 80% of discharges by 2050.
Designated bathing waters will be the first sites to see change. By 2035, water companies must ensure that overflows affecting a designated bathing water are compliant with strict standards to protect public health. We will also see significant reductions in discharges at 75% of high priority nature sites. By 2050, no storm overflow covered in the plan will be permitted to operate where this will cause any adverse ecological harm.
The first steps in achieving these targets are already being taken. Water companies are investing £3.1 billion already between 2020 and 2025 to deliver 800 improvements to storm overflows, which will deliver an average of a 25% reduction in discharges by 2025.
Storm overflows are a Victorian sewer system design feature. Achieving the targets will require large and complex infrastructure projects which will take time to deliver. It is right that we carefully balance our ambitions to improve and protect the environment with the need to limit the impact on consumers, particularly when households are facing pressures. If new evidence shows it is possible to go faster, without disproportionately affecting consumers, we will not hesitate to do so and we have set a review of the targets in 2027 for this purpose.
We will not hesitate to hold companies to account where discharges are happening illegally. This is happening now, with record fines and the largest ever criminal and civil investigation into water company sewage discharges being launched by Ofwat and the Environment Agency.
We have also made clear that water companies must be transparent about how executive pay and shareholder dividends align with the services they provide their customers. This Government supports Ofwat’s recent proposals to take further enforcement action against companies that do not link dividend payments to their environmental performance, or those failing to be transparent about their dividend pay-outs.
Water is one of our most precious commodities—water companies must now show their commitment to clean up our environment, protect public health and bring these harmful discharges to an end.
[HCWS281]
Approved Mileage Allowance Payments
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Alan Mak)
The Government have become aware of a technical inaccuracy in its responses to a number of parliamentary questions, correspondence and a parliamentary e-petition response on the subject of approved mileage allowance payments (AMAP) from March to August 2022.
The response stated that actual expenditure in relation to business mileage could be reimbursed free of income tax and national insurance contributions. This is in fact only possible for volunteer drivers. Where an employer reimburses more than the AMAP rate, income tax and national insurance are due on the difference. The AMAP rate exists to reduce the administrative burden on employers.
The guidance available on gov.uk has been correct throughout and the Government believe that the number of taxpayers who could be affected is very small.
HMRC is also taking steps to bring this inaccuracy to the attention of employers and employees where necessary. Should any cases arise HMRC will work on an individual basis aiming to ensure that any taxpayers who relied on incorrect information are not disadvantaged.
[HCWS280]
Covid-19 Vaccination Programme
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
The covid-19 vaccination programme continues to protect the UK against the virus. As of 30 August 2022, over 126 million doses have been provided, including 45.2 million first doses, 42.6 million second doses and 33.5 million third primary and booster doses in the UK. This represents uptake of 93.5% for the first dose, and 88.1 % for the second dose.
Vaccines remain the best protection against covid-19. Given that winter is expected to present another severe challenge from covid-19, we continue to urge everyone to play their part by taking up the covid-19 vaccine and, where eligible, the autumn booster offer without delay.
If eligible, the NHS will invite you to come forward for your vaccine via SMS, emails and letters. If you are unvaccinated and eligible for covid-19 vaccinations, you can still come forward and book an appointment.
The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has published further advice on the covid-19 vaccination programme. Her Majesty’s Government have accepted this advice and I am informed that all four parts of the UK intend to follow the JCVI’s advice.
Autumn vaccination programme:
The JCVI advises that for the 2022 autumn booster programme, the following groups should be offered a covid-19 booster vaccine:
Residents in a care home for older adults and staff working in care homes for older adults
Frontline health and social care workers
All adults aged 50 years and over
Persons aged five to 49 years in a clinical risk group
Persons aged five to 49 years who are household contacts of people with immunosuppression
Persons aged 16 to 49 years who are carers
For the 2022 autumn booster programme, the primary objective is to augment immunity in those at higher risk from covid-19 and thereby optimise protection against severe covid-19, specifically hospitalisation and death, over winter 2022-23.
Following appropriate data to demonstrate quality, safety and efficacy, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency authorised Moderna’s BA1/wild-type bivalent vaccine for administration as a covid-19 booster vaccination on 12 August 2022 and Pfizer’s BA1/wild-type bivalent vaccine on 3 September 2022. Covid-19 bivalent vaccines target two different variants of covid-19, which broadens immunity and therefore potentially improves protection against variants of covid-19.
The UK, following the JCVI’s advice, now intends to deploy authorised bivalent vaccines throughout the autumn programme for those eligible.
The JCVI published advice stating that the autumn booster vaccine dose should be offered at least three months after the previous dose.
Eligible persons aged 18 years and over may be offered booster vaccinations: 50mcg Moderna mRNA bivalent Omicron BA.1/wild-type vaccine; 50mcg Moderna mRNA wild-type vaccine (Spikevax); 30mcg Pfizer BioNTech mRNA wild-type vaccine (Comirnaty) or 30mcg Pfizer BioNTech mRNA bivalent vaccine (Comirnaty).
Eligible persons aged 12 to 17 years may be offered booster vaccinations with: 30 meg Pfizer BioNTech mRNA wild-type vaccine (Comirnaty) or 30mcg Pfizer BioNTech mRNA bivalent vaccine (Comirnaty).
Eligible persons aged 5-11 years may be offered booster vaccinations 10 meg Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA wild-type vaccine (Comirnaty) paediatric formulation.
In exceptional circumstances the Novavax Matrix-M adjuvanted wild-type vaccine (Nuvaxovid) is approved for primary course vaccination in adults aged 18 years and above and may be used when no alternative clinically suitable UK-approved covid-19 vaccine is available. Deployment is expected to start at the beginning of September 2022.
Nuvaxovid
On 3 February 2022, the Novavax covid-19 vaccine, Nuvaxovid, was authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, authorising the deployment of the vaccine after it has generated appropriate data to demonstrate quality, safety and efficacy. The JCVI has provided deployment advice on Nuvaxovid and it is expected to be deployed at the end of September 2022. Nuvaxovid may be used “off-label” as a booster dose for persons aged 18 years and above when no alternative clinically suitable UK-approved covid-19 vaccine is available.
The agreement to provide an indemnity as part of the contract between HMG and Novavax creates a contingent liability on the covid-19 vaccination programme. Putting in place appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
With the vaccine offer expanded for autumn for the groups as listed above and the deployment of Nuvaxovid in exceptional circumstances, I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to further vaccine supply via this statement and the departmental minutes laid in Parliament containing a description of the liability undertaken. The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further doses increases the statutory contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
Deployment of effective vaccines to eligible groups has been and remains a key part of the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19. Willingness to accept the need for appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines, with the expected benefits to public health and the economy alike, much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers have been willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we, along with other nations, have taken a broad approach to indemnification proportionate to the situation we are in.
Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. These vaccines have satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness and quality.
We are providing indemnities in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines or additional doses of vaccines already in use in the UK are deployed.
[HCWS290]
Work of the Department during the Summer Recess
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Barclay)
Over the summer recess, the Department of Health and Social Care has made significant progress in many areas, both to prepare the NHS and social care systems for the winter and to lay the foundations for further improvements in the coming years.
In respect of preparations for winter, the Department has worked closely with NHS England and other Departments across Government to:
Widen and launch the covid autumn booster programme, including through the first approval worldwide of two “bivalent” vaccines, which protect against both the original and omicron strains of covid-19;
Increase capacity in primary care, including through additional roles in primary care;
Put in place plans to boost the NHS’s capacity by the equivalent of 7,000 beds, including through the use of innovative “virtual” beds;
Increase the numbers of call handlers in both the 999 and 111 services respectively, with a target of having 2,500 call handlers in 999 and 4,800 call handlers in 111 by the end of December; and
Agree a new ambulance auxiliary contract with St John Ambulance, providing at least 5,000 hours of extra support each month.
The Department, the NHS and local authorities also continue to work together to address ambulance handover delays and delayed discharges, including by identifying the actions for which NHS leaders are responsible, and those for which social care leaders are responsible, thus supporting accountability.
Over the summer recess, we have also been focusing on increasing the NHS and social care workforce, by drawing on both domestic and international sources, with the aim of increasing the capacity of the NHS and social care systems both in the short term and over time. Our international recruitment taskforce is developing plans for implementing a “support hub” to help care providers recruit from abroad, and the Department is laying regulations to help increase the capacity and capability of the professional regulators to test the standards of overseas recruits. We also launched a consultation on 28 August with the aim of extending “Retire and Return” NHS pension changes through to 31 March 2023, allowing retired and partially-retired NHS staff to continue to receive important pension changes if they re-enter the workforce. Further work is also under way, including the consideration of further options on the pensions of healthcare professionals.
The Department continues to work closely with NHS England to address the covid-19 waiting times backlog—104-week waits were virtually eliminated, in line with the elective recovery plan, and the NHS is making good progress to address 78-week waits by April 2023. In support of this:
A further 50 surgical hubs were given the go-ahead over the summer, in addition to the existing 91 surgical hubs;
A further seven community diagnostic centres were given the go-ahead. The programme has so far delivered an extra 1.7 million tests; and
Choice of provider at the point of GP referral will be available to all patients from April 2023 at the latest, supported by information to be made available to patients through the NHS app
A number of reforms looking to the long-term needs of the NHS and care system are also now under way:
Work led by Professor John Deanfield is considering how we better embrace home testing for a wider range of conditions through a modernised NHS health check;
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is expediting work to consider how to improve the uptake and adoption of well-evidenced MedTech; and
Standardised, modular hospital design—delivering scale and process efficiencies—will be adopted as the default for cohorts 3 and 4 of the new hospitals programme. Enabling works for the new hospitals at Whipps Cross, Kettering and Hillingdon have been unlocked, and the strategic outline case for Shrewsbury and Telford has been approved.
Good progress continues to be made on the development of framework 15 and the NHS workforce plan. The future needs of the NHS and social care systems are best met by a workforce which is trained flexibly, which is adaptable, which embeds new roles in clinical practice, and which allows all health and care professionals to practise at the top of their competence.
Taxpayers expect the Department and the NHS to continue to be effective stewards of public money. We have therefore imposed further controls on the use of consultancy, professional services and contingent labour, with the aim of generating at least £170 million of additional savings over this financial year, with further recurrent savings thereafter. We have also instituted new mechanisms to assist transparency: more than 50,000 people work in national and local NHS organisations which do not provide direct patient care; and to help those who work in the NHS and the wider public understand more about the value delivered, we are today publishing an organogram of the Department—to be made available on a searchable platform over the coming days—followed by searchable organograms for NHS England and the other national arm’s length bodies by the end of September. Integrated care boards are being asked to emulate this approach.
There has also been progress on a number of other very important issues including:
The publication of the women’s health strategy;
The launch of the Government’s dementia mission; and
Confirmation of interim payments to those who have been infected by contaminated blood and bereaved partners
In November 2021, the Government announced it would make £50 million funding available for research into motor neurone disease over five years. Following work over the summer with DHSC and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation, to support researchers to access funding in a streamline and co-ordinated way, we are pleased to confirm that this funding has now been ringfenced. DHSC and BEIS welcome the opportunity to support the motor neurone disease scientific community of researchers, as they come together through a network and link through a virtual institute.
The Department has taken these actions to help the NHS and social care systems be better prepared for the winter challenges ahead and beyond.
[HCWS291]
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse 2018-2020: Past Reports
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amanda Solloway)
Twelve past reports of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse have today been laid before the House, in compliance with the Inquiries Act 2005. These reports were published by the inquiry between August 2018 and November 2020. The reports are also available on the NCSA website and will be published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS285]
Work of the Home Office
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today I am updating Parliament on Home Office delivery since my statement of 31 March 2022. The Department is committed to delivering better outcomes for the public and will continue to work to deliver a safer, fairer and more prosperous United Kingdom.
Reducing crime
The first job of any Government is to keep its people safe, which is why we have made it our absolute priority to get more police on our streets, cut crime and protect the public. Over the last three years the Home Office has worked hard to achieve these priorities and improve confidence in policing.
In July 2021, my Department published the “Beating Crime Plan” which sets out our approach to driving down crime, restoring confidence in the criminal justice system and better supporting victims. It balances the prevention we need to keep our citizens safe, with the enforcement required to deliver swift and certain justice for those who choose to break our laws.
We are delivering the commitments we made in the plan. As of 30 June, police forces in England and Wales have recruited 13,790 additional police officers, 69% of the 20,000 officers targeted by March 2023 under the police uplift programme. Moreover, we are focused on cutting crime in areas with the highest levels of crime.
As part of our commitment to excellence in the basics, every neighbourhood in England and Wales will have a named and contactable police officer and league tables have been introduced for 999 call answering times.
I removed restrictions on section 60 searches that have been in place since 2014. These restrictions have limited when officers could use the vital power and decreased their confidence in deploying it. Since 2019, stop and search use has increased by around 85% and has contributed to over 70,000 deadly knives and offensive weapons being taken off our streets.
In January 2020, we launched the place based safer streets fund, directing £120 million of investment to the worst affected areas to tackling acquisitive crime, neighbourhood crime, antisocial behaviour, and violence against women and girls, and improving public safety for all.
Since 2019, we have invested £170 million into the multi-agency violence reduction units and a further £170 million into bolstering the police response to serious violence in the areas most affected by serious violence. The Government will invest £130 million in 2022-23 to tackle serious violence, including murder and knife crime. Together, these programmes have prevented 49,000 violent offences in their first two years of activity, providing a saving of £3.16 for every £1 spent.
We are continuing to invest in the future of young people and intervening early to divert them away from a life of crime, including through the £200 million, 10-year youth endowment fund, which has supported 195 projects and already reached more than 64,097 at-risk young people.
We know that the drugs trade is at the heart of much of the homicide, serious violence and neighbourhood crime that blights our communities. Our 10-year cross-Government drug strategy provides £300 million of dedicated investment over the next three years, to drive work on tackling drug supply and reduce drug demand.
Our work is achieving results on the ground. Under our county lines programme, between November 2019 and March 2022, the police closed 2,400 lines, made over 8,000 arrests, and safeguarded more than 9,500 people. Our work on Project ADDER, which focuses on the response to addiction, diversion, enforcement and recovery has supported over 700 organised crime group disruptions, more than 12,500 arrests, 6,000 out of court disposals started by police, more than 14,000 drug treatment interventions by outreach workers, and diverted people away from offending and into recovery support between January 2021 and February 2022.
Our work at the border has delivered consecutive annual increases in drug seizures in each of the past three years. Last year, thanks to our investment, the police and Border Force made 223,106 drug seizures in England and Wales during 2020-21, a 21% increase on the previous year. We have also launched the new conflict stability and security fund counter supply of illicit commodities programme to enable priority countries to disrupt priority threats’ supply chains more effectively, focused on class A drugs, illicit firearms, and cash trafficking.
The Home Office has supported important legislation through Parliament, to reduce crime, support victims, and put the law-abiding majority first.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was passed in April. It doubles the sentences for assaults on emergency workers, introduces Harper’s law, and puts the police covenant in statute. It equips the police to combat crime and create safer communities, while overhauling sentencing laws to keep serious sexual and violent offenders behind bars for longer.
Meanwhile the Public Order Bill will further enhance the police’s ability to deal with disruptive protests that prevent ordinary people going about their daily lives and divert police resources from communities where they are needed most to prevent serious violence and neighbourhood crime.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act was passed in March. Hundreds of individuals and entities were designated within hours of it becoming law. The Government has sanctioned over 1,000 individuals and over 100 entities. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill will allow us to bear down further on kleptocrats, criminals, and terrorists who abuse our financial system, strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive while dirty money is driven out.
Tackling violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse, has been supported by major funding and the landmark Domestic Abuse Act. It means action to prevent and raise awareness of these crimes, including investing £3 million per annum in prevention projects, improved support for victims, directly supporting thousands of victims and children, and tackling perpetrators through an ambitious £25 million package of behaviour change programmes and research to reduce further violence. The Home Office provides funding for a number of helplines and online services to support victims of VAWG, including domestic abuse. This includes specialist domestic abuse helplines for elderly, deaf and disabled, LGBT and male victims, as well as teachers and employers. In 2021-22, over 81,000 people used the national tackling VAWG helplines for support.
The tackling child sexual abuse strategy, published in January 2021, has driven improvements in education, social care, health, law enforcement, and industry. We are working with international partners, to ensure we are doing all that we can to keep children safe online and in our communities in the UK and around the world.
Reducing the risk from terrorism to the UK & UK interests overseas, securing a safe and prosperous UK
The threats we are responding to are becoming more complex and they increasingly overlap. In May, this year, the National Security Bill was introduced to Parliament. It completely overhauls and updates outdated espionage laws and provides updated investigative powers and capabilities so that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies can deter, detect, and disrupt a wide range of modern-day threats from hostile states.
The US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and I released a joint statement in July announcing that the UK-US data access agreement will enter into force in October. It allows UK and US law enforcement to directly request data held by telecommunications providers in the other party’s jurisdiction for the exclusive purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating, and prosecuting serious crimes such as terrorism and child sexual abuse and exploitation. It will have a transformative effect.
The Government are committed to tackling the threat from all forms of terrorism. In the last three years, I have proscribed four extreme right-wing terrorist groups, including Sonnenkrieg Division and Feuerkrieg Division. I also proscribed the Islamist group Hamas in its entirety and we supported the successful US prosecutions of two members of Daesh: Alexanda Kotey and Elshafee Elsheikh.
We opened the world-leading counter-terrorism operations centre in June 2021, including a cutting-edge counter-terrorism operations suite and state-of-the-art forensics laboratory. For the first time it brings together all the London-based elements of counter-terrorism policing to ensure they can discover and disrupt threats more quickly.
The Home Office delivered the first UK policing counter-drone capability, which was used effectively at the G7, COP26 and the Commonwealth Games. A combination of deterrence communications, effective use of airspace restrictions, and new police equipment, powers and procedures is reducing the incidence of misused drones and facilitating their tracking and seizure.
We have passed key pieces of legislation such as the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 ended the automatic early-release of terrorist offenders. In addition, the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act was passed in 2021 and which ensures that sentences reflect the severity of the offence and strengthens the monitoring of suspects.
To enhance our ability to protect the UK we have also passed the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, which provides the police powers to better protect the UK from malicious drone use. We completed a call for information last year on the Computer Misuse Act 1990, to ensure that our legislation and powers continue to meet the challenges posed by the threats in cyberspace.
Tackling illegal migration, removing those with no right to be here, and protecting the vulnerable
The Nationality and Borders Act is the cornerstone of the Government’s new plan for immigration. Since receiving Royal Assent on 28 April 2022,1 have wasted no time in implementing the Act, delivering a fair but firm system to ensure that we can better support those in genuine need of asylum, deterring illegal migration, especially dangerous small boat arrivals; breaking the business model of vile criminal gangs; and removing from the UK those with no right to be here.
We have already achieved significant changes in the system with the first raft of reforms, including: the introduction of fixes to the asylum system; new and tougher criminal offences for illegal entry and people smuggling; and nationality law changes that allow fairer access to British nationality.
The reforms will build towards a new national age assessment board and scientific age assessment methods to protect children, modern slavery reforms and a new one-stop process and appeals to stop repeated, unmeritorious and last-minute claims seeking to frustrate removal.
In July 2021,1 signed a new agreement to strengthen UK-France co-operation on tackling illegal immigration across the channel. Through our joint action with France, we prevented more than 23,000 crossings in 2021. So far in 2022, over 17,000 people have been prevented from crossing the channel in small boats, around 70% more than to this point in 2021. In addition, the UK-France joint intelligence cell, established in July 2020, has, with France, dismantled 21 small boat organised criminal groups, securing over 500 arrests. In the few months it has been operational, the NABA has already resulted in a further 82 arrests, 62 charges, 10 convictions with sentences handed down of 5.9 years following the introduction of the NABA legislation. This includes 38 arrests, 32 charges and 1 conviction for facilitation. Also there have been 23 arrests for illegal entry, 17 charges and 7 convictions.
We successfully transferred primacy for operations in the channel to the Ministry of Defence, as part of the whole of Government effort to counter channel crossings by irregular migrants. This sees border force, immigration enforcement and service personnel working side-by-side to ensure the UK’s borders are protected and to effectively manage pressures in the channel.
In April 2022, I announced the world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. It is part of a suite of measures under the new plan for immigration to tackle the increasing number of small boats arrivals since 2019 by deterring them from making dangerous crossings. The partnership will see those travelling to the UK through illegal, dangerous and unnecessary methods considered for relocation to Rwanda, where they will have their asylum claim processed. While there are ongoing legal proceedings, the partnership arrangement fully complies with all national and international law and we prepare for delivery.
We deported 11,532 foreign national offenders between 2019 and March 2022. Since April 2020 we have used 151 charter flights and so far this year, we have returned 1,741 FNOs and other immigration offenders. To support this work, we have agreed new international returns agreements with international partners Albania, Serbia, Nigeria, and most recently Pakistan.
In addition, since 2019, we have helped over 11,000 people return home through our voluntary return service and other initiatives; offering practical support and assistance to those who wish to return to their home countries but have no means to do so.
The UK continues to welcome refugees and people in need of protection, Our safe and legal routes have resulted in over 320,000 people coming to the U.K. Since the Hong Kong BN(O) route was set up in January 2021, over 140,000 BN(O) status holders and their family members have chosen to take the UK up on this offer and have applied for the BN(O) route as of 30 June 2022.
In February 2021, the Home Office completed our commitment to resettle those 20,000 people fleeing conflict in Syria. An additional 1,838 refugees were resettled through the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme.
Through the UK resettlement scheme (UKRS), we have expanded our geographical focus beyond the middle east and north Africa to continue to offer safe and legal routes to the UK for some of the most vulnerable refugees around the world. 1,685 vulnerable refugees have been resettled through the UKRS since the launch of the scheme in March 2021 and since January 2019, 8,710 refugees have been resettled across all the Government’s resettlement schemes, not including Afghan schemes.
We helped over 15,000 people to safety from Afghanistan in the biggest and fastest emergency evacuation in recent history. A further 5,000 more people have been helped to enter since the evacuation. This January the Government launched the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme which will see up to 20,000 people from Afghanistan and the region resettled to the UK over the coming years. This is in addition to individuals relocated through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. In less than a year, almost 7,400 Afghan evacuees have been provided with permanent homes.
In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine we set up some of the fastest and biggest visa schemes in UK history. The Ukraine family scheme had received 58,600 visa applications by 23 August 2022, of which 50,100 visas had been issued. We had received 149,900 Ukraine sponsorship scheme visa applications, and issued 128,800 visas, by 23 August 2022.
In June we also announced that the Homes for Ukraine scheme will also allow eligible children under the age of 18 who are not travelling with or joining a parent or legal guardian, to come to the UK in carefully defined circumstances.
This record of delivery demonstrates the efforts of the Home Office to get on with the job of protecting the public, keeping our borders secure and the British people safe from harm.
Enabling the legitimate movement of people and goods to support economic prosperity
In 2019, we had uncontrolled immigration from the EU. Since then, we have ended free movement and launched a points-based system, creating a single, global immigration system, attracting and retaining the brightest and best global talent, while realising the enormous potential of our domestic workforce.
We have made significant progress in digitising the immigration system, making further improvements to how applicants apply for, access and prove their immigration status to others.
In terms of operational processing, between January and July 2022, 96.4% of UK standard passport applications were completed within the published processing time of 10 weeks. The Passport Office is working hard to investigate and conclude the reducing number of cases which fall outside 10 weeks. We plan to recover work in progress (WIP) to base levels across all workstreams in time for year-end WIP target levels, so that we are prepared for the levels of intake next year which we anticipate will be similar to those of 2022.
We are currently facing extremely high pressure globally across our visa network, caused by a significantly increase in visa demand following the easing of travel restrictions and the prioritising of Ukraine family scheme and Homes for Ukraine applications in response to the humanitarian crisis caused by Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. We are working hard to reduce the current processing times as quickly as possible by flexing staff resource and utilising agency across our visa routes as well as pursuing a programme of transformation and business improvement initiatives which will speed up decision making, reduce the time people spend in the system and reduce the numbers who are awaiting an interview or decision. We have also recently reintroduced priority and super priority services in a number of our visa routes to improve the customer experience.
Ahead of our exit from the European Union, Border Force recruited 1,570 new staff and trained a total of 8,000 in new policy and processes. We worked with HMRC to operationalise new inland border facilities, effectively creating 5 new ports; and delivered complex and interrelated change across a total of 125 ports.
We have further expanded our points-based immigration system to attract the most promising international talent to the UK and maintain our status as a leading international hub for emerging technologies. In May 2021, we expanded our global talent route to allow recipients of international awards, including the Nobel prize for physics, to automatically qualify for the visa. In 2022 we introduced the global business mobility, high potential individual and scale-up visa routes.
Since 2019, we have continued to increase border efficiency through the increased use of eGates, expanding their use to passengers from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea & USA, in addition to British, Irish and EU nationals, and with Border Force now operating 288 eGates at 15 ports. National rollout of the eGate upgrade, which has introduced a new operating system, Border Crossing, and upgraded the software, was completed six months early.
Since I overhauled the Windrush compensation scheme in December 2020, interim payments rose from £250 to £10,000. As at the end of June 2022, £53.8 million had been paid or offered under the Windrush compensation scheme, with £43.9 million paid out across 1,098 claims. Our One Home Office cultural transformation programme features an increased focus on ethical decision-making with new routes for colleagues to escalate concerns and think more about the “face behind the case”.
By 30 June 2022, we had concluded nearly 6.5 million EU settlement scheme applications, granting status in over 5.9 million applications. Over 450,000 individuals have been supported to apply to the EUSS by our network of grant-funded organisations across the UK. This includes victims of human trafficking and domestic abuse.
In 2021, we removed the ability for EU, EEA, and Swiss nationals to travel on an ID card, unless the holder is protected by the citizens’ rights withdrawal agreements, given they were one of the most abused documents at the border.
All these achievements represent a record of delivering on the people’s priorities, a record of which I am very proud.
[HCWS287]
The UK-Ukraine Digital Trade Agreement
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
On 24 August, the Government launched negotiations with Ukraine towards a bilateral digital trade agreement, the proposed UK-Ukraine digital trade agreement.
The UK is standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in the face of unjustified aggression from Putin, and I remain committed to ensuring that trade policy plays its part in supporting Ukraine now and throughout its economic reconstruction. In addition to the immediate actions we have already taken to liberalise tariffs and starve Putin’s war machine of funds, we need to put in place longer-term measures to support Ukraine and play our part in securing its future as a prosperous, stable and democratic partner in Europe.
The UK is increasingly recognised as a global leader in digital trade, with a network of international agreements that drive productivity, jobs and growth. In 2021, under its G7 presidency, the UK brokered agreement on the ground-breaking G7 digital trade principles, while earlier this year the UK-Singapore digital economy agreement—the world’s most innovative trade agreement—entered into force.
As a result, in my discussions with our Ukrainian partners, we have agreed that we should seek to negotiate a digital trade agreement to play an important role in supporting Ukraine’s reconstruction objectives. Ukraine has strong digital ambitions, and it has identified greater digitalisation of the economy as one of its areas of focus.
Ukraine sees digital trade as part of its vision for the future, and the UK is ideally placed to help Ukraine benefit from the opportunities this presents.
In addition to furthering our vital support for Ukraine, this agreement will also be good for British businesses. The current UK-Ukraine free trade agreement contains limited digital and e-commerce provisions. Expanding these commitments will remove barriers to digital trade and enable UK exporters to service Ukrainian markets more easily.
As digital trade is now the foundation of modern global trade, securing this agreement will send a strong signal of the United Kingdom’s support for our Ukrainian allies in response to the ongoing conflict, and further cement our position as a forward-thinking trading partner in the modern global economy.
I will continue to keep the House updated as negotiations develop.
[HCWS289]
Rough Sleeping Strategy
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Greg Clark)
On 3 September Government published their new strategy to end rough sleeping in England.
This Government have made the unprecedented pledge to end rough sleeping within this Parliament, and this strategy will help us to deliver that goal. Working with our partners across Government, in local authorities and the sector, we have delivered remarkable progress so far, with rough sleeping levels in the most recent annual rough sleeping snapshot at an eight-year low in England. However, we face significant challenges if we are to end rough sleeping for good, and we must work across Government and with local partners to step up our efforts.
The strategy will build on that progress and help us end rough sleeping for good by bringing forward a bold new approach backed by £2 billion of funding over the next three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping in England.
For the first time, we are defining what we mean by ending rough sleeping—that rough sleeping will be prevented wherever possible, and when it does occur, it will be rare, brief and non-recurrent. We will bring forward a new data framework, which will enable us to track progress against the definition and ensure all local and central partners are doing their bit.
We will embed a “prevention first” approach so that rough sleeping is better prevented before people reach the streets. This means ensuring the landmark changes in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 are fully embedded, to prevent more people from reaching a homelessness crisis, as well as bringing forward investment so that nobody leaves a public institution, such as prison or care, to the streets. As part of this, we will provide new funding over the next three years to expand the accommodation for ex-offenders programme so that people at risk of homelessness, including rough sleeping, in all parts of England are supported into long-term, settled accommodation.
We will also empower local authorities by extending our flagship rough sleeping initiative to 2025, with up to £500 million of funding so that local areas can provide the tailored support needed to end rough sleeping over the next three years. We will complete delivery of the Housing First pilots in Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region and the west Midlands, providing a further £13.9 million over two years on top of the £28 million already invested, and expand Housing First more widely through £32 million within the rough sleeping initiative.
This will sit alongside £200 million of new funding for the single homelessness accommodation programme, which will deliver up to 2,400 much-needed homes for vulnerable people at risk of homelessness or rough sleeping, including young people and those with the most complex needs, alongside expanding existing accommodation programmes that we know work.
We will act across the system to reduce rough sleeping. We will ensure new local integrated care systems in the NHS consider the health and social care needs of those sleeping rough in their area in the development of their strategies. Jobcentres will work closely with local authorities to support people experiencing rough sleeping to access benefits and employment advice. We will be launching a new homelessness employer covenant with Crisis to help employers recruit and support employees who have been homeless or rough sleeping.
A quarter of people sleeping rough nationally are not from the UK, rising to nearly half in London. Since the pandemic we have seen local authorities looking to exhaust all options to support this group away from the streets; we want to see this continue. For those here legally but with restricted eligibility for public funds, we want to see them get appropriate support to sustain a life away from the streets. For those here illegally, we want to ensure people return to their home country swiftly and receive the appropriate support to do this.
As part of the strategy we are announcing allocations for areas in England in a range of key initiatives including the rough sleeping initiative, rough sleeping accommodation programme, rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment grant and Housing First. Full details of allocations can be found on gov.uk.
While we have taken the significant step of committing to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 in full, we must make sure the police, local authorities and other agencies have the powers and tools they need to respond effectively to begging, support vulnerable individuals and help communities feel safer. Government are currently consulting on the need for appropriate replacement legislation to ensure the police and other agencies remain able to protect the public, while also embedding rehabilitation and support at the heart of our approach.
The whole of Government are united in ending rough sleeping. In order to achieve this, all partners, across central and local Government, voluntary organisations, delivery partners and the public must work together as one.
We want our ambitious approach to be matched by bold local delivery and expect all those involved in ending rough sleeping to play their part. We want to ensure rough sleeping is ended in a way that is sustainable in the long term, and this strategy lays the foundations for the long-term system change needed to support that.
This strategy shows that this Government are committed to ending rough sleeping, and we will continue to work with local and national partners to achieve this.
A copy of the rough sleeping strategy will be deposited in the Library of the House.
[HCWS283]
Work of the Department during the Summer Recess
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Greg Clark)
Since I was appointed on 7 July, I have been privileged to lead the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in its work to spread opportunity in all parts of the United Kingdom.
This statement updates the House on progress that has been made during the summer recess. All relevant documents referred to will be placed in the Library of the House.
We have delivered stronger local leadership.
A devolution deal has been signed with York and North Yorkshire to create a Mayoral Combined Authority comprising the City of York and North Yorkshire Councils and covering a population of 818,000 people. The deal, which is subject to ratification by the councils, includes a £540 million investment fund over the next 30 years, and over £22.5 million to support the building of new homes on brownfield land and to drive green growth in the area; the devolution of the adult education budget; an integrated transport settlement and confirmation that the Government are minded to provide additional support for the regeneration of the York central brownfield site, subject to an agreed business case. The first mayoral election would be in May 2024 and the new Mayor would take on the functions of the police, fire and crime commissioner. There will be a locally run public consultation, and the secondary legislation to implement the deal is subject to consent from councils and parliamentary approval.
A devolution deal has been signed with Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire to create an East Midlands Mayoral Combined County Authority. The deal is subject to ratification by the councils, and to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill receiving Royal Assent. The deal includes a Mayor for the 2.2 million people of the area, to be elected in May 2024. Both the Government and the four councils place great importance on the involvement of the 15 district and borough councils in the area. The deal establishes an investment fund of £1.14 billion over the next 30 years—the joint largest of any devolution deal so far—over £17 million to support brownfield development and further investment, subject to business cases, of £18 million to support local housing and net zero priorities. The deal also includes devolution of the adult education budget and an integrated transport settlement. There will be a locally run public consultation and the secondary legislation to implement the deal is subject to consent from councils and parliamentary approval.
Other deals named in the levelling-up White Paper are progressing well, notably with councils in Suffolk and north-east England, and with Cornwall, as well as additional trailblazer deals with the west midlands and Greater Manchester.
We have taken decisive action to restore good governance to councils in England that have let down local residents, in Slough, Liverpool, Nottingham and Thurrock. In making interventions, we have established an approach that help from within the local area should be pursued wherever possible and we are grateful to Mayor Steve Rotheram for stepping forward to guide the future of Liverpool City Council and to Essex County Council for leading the intervention in Thurrock.
We have tightened rules to prevent councils in England from using creative accountancy to avoid the spirit of the financial frameworks which are there to protect taxpayers, and have advised consultancies that they should not facilitate such practices at the taxpayers’ expense.
We have published for consultation the draft policy and strategy statement for the Electoral Commission required by the Elections Act 2022, in which combating electoral fraud through so-called family voting in local and national elections is emphasised.
We have provided further opportunities to level up across the United Kingdom.
Round 2 of the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund was opened on 15 July and closed on 2 August. Over 500 applications have been made from every part of the United Kingdom. Analysis of the bids is currently taking place and results will be announced in due course.
Over 50% of the allocations from the future high street fund have now been made.
On 1 September we published, with the Welsh Government, the prospectus for a freeport to be established in Wales.
In addition to the eight freeports in England, good progress is being made towards the designation of green freeports in Scotland, in a joint process with the Scottish Government.
We have delivered for our communities and faith groups and protected vulnerable people.
The British people have now welcomed over 120,000 refugees from Ukraine through the “Homes for Ukraine” and “Ukraine Family” schemes. We would like to pay tribute to the work of Lord Harrington of Watford, who led the “Homes for Ukraine” programme.
We have supported the next phase of the welcome programme to support people from Hong Kong with BN(O) visas in settling into the United Kingdom.
With £1.3 million of new funding we announced a new deal fund to support faith groups to support vulnerable people and communities.
Nearly 90% of the £150 council tax rebate has been paid out by councils to residents.
Because everyone deserves a home that is habitable, whatever its tenure, we have launched a consultation on setting a decent homes standard for private rented properties.
To help people with the cost of living during this time of high inflation, we have launched a consultation on setting a lower cap on maximum social housing rent increases in 2023-24.
On 3 September the landmark rough sleeping strategy to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament was launched, on which a separate ministerial statement is being made.
We have accelerated moves to provide justice for leaseholders in buildings that are unsafe because of cladding.
We have reopened the building safety fund for applications.
We have worked with lenders who have agreed to restart lending on affected properties.
We have issued contracts to developers to make good their pledge to remediate unsafe buildings for which they are responsible.
We commenced the primary legislation that will enable us to establish an industry scheme to penalise developers who fail to discharge their responsibilities.
We launched a call for evidence to enable us to address the specific problems of leaseholder-owned and commonhold buildings.
We have taken steps to increase the pace of development.
In order to accelerate development, we have set out measures to speed up the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects like nuclear power stations and offshore wind farms.
We have set out measures that will reduce the levels of nutrient pollution entering our most sensitive watercourses, thereby allowing stalled housebuilding to proceed while protecting the environment.
We have emphasised the importance of the beauty and the enjoyment of our built and natural environment.
We have strengthened the powers of councils to require takeaway restaurants to clear up litter they generate in our high streets.
We have launched the levelling up parks fund in England to create or restore 100 green spaces in our urban areas with the least access to parks.
A major planning application on the south bank of London has been called in for public inquiry to assess, among other things, the impact of the proposed development on the historic environment.
And we have extended the ability of cafes, pubs and restaurants to take advantage of the great British summer with al fresco dining.
I am proud of what has been delivered in eight weeks, and I am grateful to my officials in Government Departments as well as to partners in local councils, businesses and voluntary organisations across the United Kingdom for their intense work this summer. It shows what can be achieved to the benefit of all our citizens when people work together in joint endeavour.
[HCWS282]
Transport for London: Long-Term Funding Settlement
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Following my statement to the House on 13 July, I am writing to update the House that today we have agreed a new longer-term funding settlement between Transport for London and Government. The final extraordinary funding settlement expired on 3 August and I have agreed with the Mayor of London a new settlement until 31 March 2024 or until Transport for London reaches financial sustainability, whichever is the sooner.
This longer-term settlement includes over £1.1 billion of additional grant funding until March 2024 for London transport, which will unlock almost £3.6 billion worth of critical infrastructure investment, with a number of projects set to revolutionise travel across the capital.
As a result of our longer-term settlement, major upgrades will be delivered for Londoners, including new Piccadilly line trains and the modernisation of the District, Metropolitan, Hammersmith and City and Circle lines—maintaining the London Underground’s world-class status. Further benefits include: supporting the long-awaited repair of Hammersmith Bridge; vital improvement to Elephant and Castle station and a London Overground extension between Gospel Oak and Barking Riverside to service more than 10,000 new homes in east London.
As part of the settlement, the Mayor will be required to continue work on the introduction of driverless trains on London Underground, in use on the Docklands Light Railway for more than 35 years. At a time when strikes are crippling both the underground and national rail systems, never has this work been more important.
Alongside all of this is Government’s continued commitment to mitigate TfL’s loss of passenger revenue from the ongoing uncertainty of demand following changes to travel patterns since the covid-19 pandemic. None of this would have been possible without Government funding.
The settlement letter requires Transport for London to modernise and control its operating costs, to make it a modern, effective, efficient and financially stable operator. It is a settlement that is fair and proportionate to London whilst also taking into account funding provided elsewhere in the country and the cost to the national taxpayer, at a time of great pressure on national finances.
It comes on top of the over £5 billion of funding support the Government have already provided to TfL since the beginning of the pandemic and Government’s commitment to over £1 billion per year until 2025 for London transport through business rates retention.
Through all of this, Government are continuing to work with the Mayor and TfL to ensure London’s transport system delivers for the public and businesses and contributes to the country’s economy.
[HCWS275]
Buses: £2 Fare Cap and Bus Recovery Grant
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
On 3 September, we announced plans to invest up to £60 million to introduce a £2 bus fare cap on a single bus ticket on most services in England outside London. This will start no later than 1 January 2023 and will be in place for a period of three months until March 2023.
At a time when many are struggling with the rising cost of living, this is a significant investment that will result in millions of people across England saving on travel costs. This investment also makes clear our continued commitment to delivering on the bold vision for bus services set out in “Bus Back Better”, the Government’s national bus strategy, and particularly our ambition to make bus services cheaper. The introduction of the £2 bus fare cap is a significant step forward to delivering this and continues the Government’s track record of providing the largest investment in bus services in a generation, in England outside London.
This fare cap will not apply to bus services in London as transport is devolved to the Mayor of London, including fare setting. However, I know that colleagues across Parliament will be pleased that this announcement follows the agreement with Transport for London on a £1.2 billion multi-year settlement to secure the long-term future of London’s transport network, including bus services.
As well as supporting passengers by reducing the cost of bus fares, we have also continued to invest in bus services, in response to the unprecedented impacts caused by the covid-19 pandemic but which would now be threatening the provision of services at a time when the public need bus services more than ever.
With nearly £2 billion provided so far, through the covid-19 bus service support grant, the bus recovery grant and most recently the local transport fund, we have mitigated the impacts of the pandemic on bus networks. This meant that buses were kept running over the course of the pandemic to ensure that those who had to travel for work, education or healthcare were able to access these vital services and help keep this country running.
As I announced to this House in March, this funding was originally due to end in April, but at the time it was clear that the sector was still facing significant financial challenges as it sought to recover from the pandemic. That is why we announced we would provide a further £150 million, and extend recovery funding for the sector until October, to allow bus services the maximum amount of time to recover.
At the time of announcing this funding, we were clear that this would be the last such round of recovery funding. However, with the sector continuing to face significant challenges, and many people facing pressures due to the rising cost of living, we recognise that further Government support is necessary to prevent significant cuts to bus services for the millions of people who use them every day.
That is why on 19 August we announced a six-month extension to the bus recovery grant, worth up to £130 million, to continue supporting bus services in England outside London. This will be in effect for six months starting in October 2022 until the end of the financial year in March 2023. This funding will provide the sector and passengers with certainty in the short term and ensure that these vital services will continue to serve those that rely on them to live, work and travel.
Both of these further investments in England’s bus services demonstrate our commitment to supporting bus services. We will continue to work closely with the sector as we deliver the national bus strategy, and fulfil our ambition for everyone, everywhere to have access to great bus services.
[HCWS274]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, forgive me. It may be entirely apparent to the Committee that we are missing an Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at the moment. We have search parties out and I hope that our colleague will appear in due course. In the event that he does not, we will proceed. “In due course” means “in a minute”, by the way.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. I think we are all now present and correct and can begin.
Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022.
Relevant documents: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before your Lordships today seek to align flag-flying days in Northern Ireland with the rest of our United Kingdom. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, for the then Labour Government, provided that, on certain designated days, the union flag and in certain circumstances other flags must—I repeat, must—be flown on government buildings.
For the purposes of these regulations, a Northern Ireland government building is a building wholly or mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The 2000 regulations also set out a number of “specified buildings” at which the union flag must be flown on the designated days in question. These buildings were chosen as they were the headquarters of Northern Ireland government departments. In 2002, the provisions were extended to court buildings in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will also recall that the New Decade, New Approach agreement in January 2020, which saw the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland after a period of almost three years, contained a UK government commitment to:
“Update the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 to bring the list of designated flag flying days from Northern Ireland government buildings and court-houses into line with the DCMS designated days, meaning the same designated days will be observed in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the UK”.
The updated 2022 list of designated flag-flying days was published by DCMS on 11 February this year, and it states that Her Majesty the Queen’s two birthdays and the birthday of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales are the only royal birthdays to be observed for the purposes of flag flying. The regulations before your Lordships today will ensure that flag flying in Northern Ireland is aligned with this updated DCMS guidance and the policy followed across the rest of the UK. Prior to publishing the list of designated days, DCMS consulted a wide range of interested parties, individuals and bodies. I can confirm that the updated designated days reflect very clearly the wishes of the palace; the Committee should take note of that.
I understand that some Members will be disappointed that the number of designated flag-flying days in Northern Ireland will be reduced as a consequence of these regulations. I stress that our approach to flag flying in Northern Ireland through regulations has consistently sought to reflect Northern Ireland’s clear constitutional status as an integral part of the United Kingdom, as well as the reality of different political aspirations and sensitivities that exist across society.
I also point out that, as designated days are a matter of law in Northern Ireland, revised regulations must be considered by the Assembly ahead of being approved by both Houses of Parliament here in Westminster. I can inform noble Lords that, ahead of the most recent Northern Ireland Assembly election, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly considered and approved these regulations on 15 March this year.
The 2000 flags order also requires that consideration be given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Belfast agreement when making or amending flags regulations. I confirm that the Secretary of State is satisfied that these regulations are in accordance with the provisions of the Belfast agreement and that the regulations treat flags and emblems in a manner respectful of Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances.
The Government will continue to ensure that our approach to flag flying reflects the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, our Belfast agreement commitments and the need for sensitivity. On that note, I look forward to contributions from noble Lords today but commend this largely technical instrument to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for delaying the Committee for some minutes. I completely abandoned my toasted teacake to get here very quickly; I had mistaken the time.
The Minister is right that it is a technical change, of course, but it reflects the significance of flags in Northern Ireland. This was a cause of great bewilderment to me when I first went there so many years ago—25 or 30 years ago—including the fact that one saw the Palestinian and Israeli flags: the Israeli flag generally in loyalist areas and the Palestinian one generally in nationalist areas. It reflects identity, not as Palestinians and Israelis—those are political choices—but rather the identity of people as they see themselves.
The law is clear. The flags to be flown on public buildings are flown on them because those buildings are part of the United Kingdom. Clearly, if the rules change in Great Britain, they should change in Northern Ireland as well.
It is quite interesting to read the Assembly’s proceedings on this particular statutory instrument. It was, as always, an intriguing and interesting debate that reflected the wider view on flags in Northern Ireland.
On balance, the issue has been dealt with sensitively over the last two decades, but there have been some notable exceptions, such as over Belfast City Hall some years ago, which caused a great deal of fuss. You have to be very careful in what you do about flags. It is pretty clear that this particular change was initiated by the palace. Noble Lords will ask why for themselves—I think it is pretty self-evident—but the commemoration of the birthdays of all the royals has had to be abandoned on the flagpoles of Northern Ireland as a consequence of what I think this change resulted from. The essence of this is that what happens in Britain happens in Northern Ireland as long as it remains part of the United Kingdom. Even if it did not, it would still have to have sensitivity about flags. However, it is still part of the United Kingdom, so I support the statutory instrument.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, just said, flags are a highly sensitive issue in Northern Ireland that can provoke very strong reactions. However, I shall be very brief, as the Liberal Democrats, and indeed Alliance in Northern Ireland, broadly support these measures, which reduce the allocation of designated days and align them with the rest of the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said.
Given that these regulations once again reduce rather than add to the number of designated days, could the Minister say whether further consideration has been given to adding to the number of days through commemorating the Battle of the Somme? As the Minister will know, when these regulations were debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly in March this year, my Alliance colleague, Andrew Muir, suggested making the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme a designated day. He then followed up with a letter to DCMS. This was strongly supported in Belfast City Hall, where earlier this year the birthday of Prince Andrew was substituted with the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme as a designated flag day.
As noble Lords will know, it is estimated that at least 3,500 lives were lost from across the island of Ireland during the Battle of the Somme from the 36th (Ulster) Division and the 16th (Irish) Division. Can the Minister update us on whether further consideration has been given to this matter?
In seeking to support the Government today, it is vital to continue to stress the importance of respect, and of respecting how people feel about a flag and its symbolism, even if one does not entirely personally share or understand those sentiments.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for providing us with an overview of the legislation. Like my noble friend Lord Murphy and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I agree with and do not resile from the regulations. We can all have our own interpretation as to why they have been proposed.
There is a broader political point here, which my noble friend and the noble Baroness referred to, about the nature of flags in Northern Ireland. They are highly sensitive and mark out territory. Over the last few months, having had occasion to be at home permanently for some six and a half weeks, I have seen flags of all descriptions, representing two identities, in tatters on poles. If people had respect for their own identity and that of others, they would not allow that to happen. It does not necessarily happen solely with flags—it also happens with flagstones and kerbs—and it leaves the area environmentally in a pretty poor state.
We need to look to fulfil the ambition of the Good Friday agreement in respect of flags and identity through building the second process of the agreement, the healing and reconciliation process. I say to the Minister: with a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet this week, will the Government work with the Northern Ireland Executive—if we had one—to ensure that we do have one, and to ensure that we have all the institutions of government of the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 up and running? Will they also work with the district councils to ensure that there is parity of esteem, respect for political difference and respect for all flags, and that this is done in a more sensitive, more appreciative way that reflects all the identities that have to be reflected?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I had not planned to participate, but I give my full-throated support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, suggested. Not only is the Somme important in the iconography and history of the 36th (Ulster) Division, but it is often forgotten that more southern Irish Catholics died in British uniform during the Somme offensive than participated in the Easter Rising. That fact was for a long time brushed under the carpet. One of the more welcome signs of the approximation of the Governments in these islands is that those volunteers—they were all volunteers in Ireland—were eventually brought in and recognised, albeit long after the event.
It is a grisly memorial and a rather awful thing that we remember—the whole history of the world cannot contain a more horrible word, as one German veteran said. Yet it is something we all have in common in these islands, including me. I have a great-uncle whose name is carved on the rather skeletal memorial at Thiepval. Here is a suggestion with cross-community support and broad support in this House and in another place. It is something that I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider taking forward.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this short debate on the instrument before us. I shall respond to one or two of the points raised.
I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, managed to abandon his toasted teacake and get here in time to participate. I hope he can return to it, or a warmed-up version, at some point later this afternoon. He mentioned that the issue of flags is very sensitive, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Of course, we all know why that is the case. I commend the initiative of the Labour Government back in 2000 in grappling with this issue, which was seen as rather too difficult for the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly to resolve. As a consequence of their actions and those taken subsequently by this Government, we are in a much better place when it comes to the flying of flags from government buildings and there is a wide degree of consensus.
The noble Lord is right to remind the Committee of the difficulties that can arise, and I am well aware of what happened in Belfast from late 2012 well into 2013 with the decision on the flying of the union flag. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked whether we had worked with councils. We have, of course, but, as she is aware, flag flying from council buildings is not covered by the regulations but is a matter for district councils themselves. I will reflect on her suggestion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the possibility of making 1 July, the anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme, a designated day, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what she said. My noble friend Lord Hannan was very supportive. I have visited the Somme battlefield probably 11 or 12 times in the course of the past 12 years. I was there for the centenary in 2016, at the Lutyens memorial to the missing and the Ulster tower, and later in September that year. As my noble friend reminded us—it should never be forgotten—the contribution of the 36th (Ulster) Division on 1 July was heroic, as was the contribution of the 16th (Irish) Division in September 1916 at Guillemont and Ginchy. For those who have never visited, it is always a very moving occasion.
My noble friend talked about the number of southern Irishmen who gave their lives. When I was there last July, I managed to locate the inscription of a former Member of the other place, Tom Kettle, the MP for East Tyrone, whose name is one of the 72,000 on the Lutyens memorial. I think something like four out of the nine Victoria Crosses awarded at the Somme went to members of the 36th (Ulster) Division, so I am aware of its importance and resonance across Northern Ireland and the wider island of Ireland. In response to that specific request, I am very happy to take it up with DCMS, which I know regularly consults on the designated days. My personal view is that it is a very worthwhile suggestion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, asked about executive formation and so on. Of course, I am not yet in a position to second-guess what steps the new Prime Minister might take from tomorrow, and we are in a slight state of flux over the next 24 hours, but I am confident that the new Prime Minister and whoever might be the Secretary of State, whether it continues to be the current holder or it is a new appointment, will remain very committed to working as a matter of urgency to deal with problems around the protocol but also the impasse preventing the re-establishment and reformation of a Northern Ireland Executive.
None of us wishes to be in this situation. We all want to see the institutions established by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement fully functioning and up and running. On these occasions I always look to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who played such a key role in the negotiations, particularly on strand 1 of that agreement, back in 1998. It is my personal commitment and the Government’s that we wish to see devolved power-sharing government and the institutions that flow from that. We should never forget that strands 2 and 3 of the agreement do not function properly without strand 1. To get all the strands of that interlocking agreement back up and running will remain an absolute priority for Her Majesty’s Government.
The noble Baroness talked about parity of esteem in flag flying. These regulations deal only with the flying of flags from government buildings and, as I said in my opening remarks, they reflect the clear constitutional position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The agreement contains provisions on parity of esteem, but it is always sensible to remember that it never created a hybrid state; Northern Ireland is either part of the United Kingdom or part of a united Ireland, and I am very happy to say that it continues to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is always the need for sensitivity when it comes to such issues, and I hope that I reflected that in my opening comments.
This is a technical change that reflects the updated list published earlier this year by DCMS after consultation with the palace. It keeps Northern Ireland fully aligned with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Health and Social Care Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I hope to be even shorter with this piece of legislation. The Health and Social Care (Northern Ireland) Act was passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly earlier this year and received Royal Assent on 7 February 2022. The Act provided for the dissolution of the regional Health and Social Care Board and the transfer of its functions to the five Northern Ireland health and social care trusts.
A number of UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament Acts reference the now dissolved regional Health and Social Care Board, where amending those references would be outside the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Secondary legislation is therefore required to make consequential amendments to update references to the regional Health and Social Care Board so that the
“Northern Ireland Department of Health or health and social care trusts”
are referenced instead. This technical order seeks to update these references.
Although the order is primarily for administrative purposes, I would like to give a bit of background on the Health and Social Care (Northern Ireland) Act. All noble Lords will be aware that health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. The primary purpose of the Act was to implement recommendations made following a number of independent reviews and reports that had been commissioned over a number of years, from Donaldson to Bengoa, which found the current health system to be “overly bureaucratic and complex”. Those recommendations included the dissolution of the regional Health and Social Care Board and the transfer of its functions to the five Northern Ireland health and social care trusts.
As I said, the Act to give effect to this received Royal Assent on 7 February 2022, after which the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Robin Swann, requested that my department take forward secondary legislation to make consequential amendments to UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament Acts where the regional Health and Social Care Board is referenced.
Since then, officials have worked closely with colleagues across a range of UK government departments and with legal colleagues to identify the list of Acts where the now dissolved board is referenced, of which there are a total of 25. Twenty-three of those are UK Parliament Acts and two are Scottish Parliament Acts.
As I said, the order before your Lordships simply seeks to update references to the now dissolved body. There are no policy implications whatever; it is just a technical updating which the Government are taking forward. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
It will not be quite so short and uncontroversial next week—I suspect the Minister will have a few more hours on his feet than today—but on this one he is absolutely right. It is something we support.
It reminds us that there is of course an Assembly, which passed these changes some time ago. It also reminds us that this is an attempt to ensure that the health service in Northern Ireland is more efficient than it was. From a very good point of view, it shows the rest of the United Kingdom that health and social services go together. This operates well in Northern Ireland—it always has—and I am not quite sure why we do not take a leaf from the Northern Ireland book. It is something we admire.
What we cannot admire is the fact that there are no Ministers in Northern Ireland running the show, so far as health is concerned. We all know that there is a serious problem with waiting lists in Northern Ireland at both primary and secondary healthcare levels. There are huge difficulties in staffing, finance and so on. The problem is that there is no political authority in Northern Ireland to deal with these huge issues.
In a day we will have a new Prime Minister, and we might have a new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I hope that we do not have a new Minister for Northern Ireland in the Lords and that the Minister retains his position, because he knows a huge amount about the issues and the place, but there has to be even greater impetus. I know we have the protocol Bill and the legacy Bill coming up—these are all difficult issues to address—but, at the end of the day, unless we have a functioning Government in Northern Ireland only one other thing can happen. Ultimately, it will have to be direct rule. It would be a complete disaster if that had to happen, but you cannot leave civil servants running the show in Northern Ireland any longer, particularly with regard to health, so there is an impetus for the new Government and new Prime Minister, and possibly new Secretary of State, to resolve the impasse in Northern Ireland. We all know why it is there—I will not go into any of that—but I am sure that all Members in this Committee, particularly those from Northern Ireland, understand the significance and importance of having a Minister of Health who can operate as other Ministers can in a liberal parliamentary democracy.
I am sure that our belief, right across the House, is the same: let us restore the institutions, have Ministers and have an Assembly that is running, as in Scotland and Wales. Let us resolve those problems by proper, deep negotiation.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I will intervene from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on this one. I could see the alarm in the Minister’s eyes that a Westminster health and care spokesperson might try to intervene on an order to do with Northern Ireland health and care. I assure him that it is as technical as his contribution at the beginning. We have no problem at all with the statutory instrument in front of us today.
I want to make one point, which I hope the Minister will take back. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, may be aware that the Health and Care Act is the first real attempt by a Government in this country to combine health and social care, so Westminster, on behalf of England, is finally getting its act together and combining the two—which, whatever opposition we had to elements of it, we certainly welcomed. In March, during its passage through your Lordships’ House, a number of amendments were ruled out of order because they referred to some of the UK-wide legislation that the Minister referred to in his opening. We were told that an agreement had been struck by the Government with all three devolved nations, which had already taken their legislation through, and therefore that amendments we wished to lay could not be laid.
They were very minor and technical, so I will not go into them here. However, if we are going to talk about the importance of devolved responsibilities and try to mend some of the complex technical issues around legislation that crosses into UK-wide legislation, those working on Bills, certainly in your Lordships’ House, need to know at a much earlier stage where those discussions need to be had. It would have helped the transition of the Health and Care Bill, which was enacted on 28 April—some two months after the Act we are discussing was enacted—because there were things we would have liked to change and would have raised much earlier, had we been aware that there were issues.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support this very technical order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I make a plea yet again for negotiation between all parties and both Governments to get the institutions up and working to look at the areas where there are problems or impediments, including in the protocol, and any other issues.
The most important thing that the people of Northern Ireland require is a functional Government who are delivering for all of us on health and social care, the economy, infrastructure and job creation. In relation to this, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. There are chronic waiting lists in Northern Ireland for specific disciplines. There are also waiting lists to get on to waiting lists, which can cause such consternation for individuals who are ill. That has been the situation for quite some time.
I do not disagree with the assimilation of the Health and Social Care Board into the Department of Health and the five health trusts. As a former MP I had experience of dealing with the Health and Social Care Board and the health trusts. I could never fully understand or appreciate the difference in their workload, because the health and social care board commissioned the services and acted as the prescriber of what services were required. Notwithstanding that, that is a job better done by the Department of Health.
In relation to that, maybe the Minister would have talked to the current caretaker Minister, Minister Swann, who served as Health Minister for the last nearly three years, about what savings are projected from the assimilation of the Health and Social Care Board into the department and trusts. Will those savings be ploughed back into the delivery arm of the trusts so that people can access services in the medical and clinical areas to which they are entitled?
Lord Lexden (Con)
When my noble friend comes to reply, could he give the Committee an impression of whether the problems with the health service in Northern Ireland, although very considerable, have deepened yet further during this unfortunate period, which strengthens the reasons why we want devolution back?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am incredibly grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on what I rightly described as a very technical piece of secondary legislation. The main theme of contributions was the current problems in the health service in Northern Ireland and the need for a properly functioning Executive and Assembly to address them. I think we all agree on that. I reiterate what I said on the previous regulations: the Government and the Northern Ireland Office are fully committed, and I am personally committed, to doing whatever we can do ensure that those institutions are back up and running as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was not entirely accurate when he said that there were no Ministers in place at the moment. He will know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, acknowledged, that as a result of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act, which we passed earlier this year, there is provision for Ministers to stay in place for up to 28 weeks after an election.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I realised after I said it that I had dropped a clanger, but the point I was trying to make, which I am sure the Minister will come to, is that they are not Ministers in the sense of being completely accountable in the way that an ordinary Minister would be in any other legislature. Although they have limited powers, which they undoubtedly exercise as well as they can, it is not the same as if they were Ministers in a functioning Assembly and Executive.
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct to point that out. It is 24 weeks; I said 28 because the current deadline is 28 October. Although Ministers can stay in place, they are very limited as to what they can do—they cannot take decisions that would require executive agreement because there is no functioning Executive and they cannot take decisions that would be cross-cutting with other departments—but it is a preferable situation to the one we had when the Assembly was last down, when just civil servants were running the show. I am all too well aware of the limitations. For that reason, noble Lords are absolutely right to set out once again the urgency of restoring a properly functioning Executive and Assembly in which Ministers are fully accountable to the Assembly and, through the Assembly, to their respective electorates within Northern Ireland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, again underlined with her questions on certain aspects of the legislation the importance of getting the Assembly back. Although her questions were directed at me they really should be directed by MLAs to the Health Minister. I am very happy to look into the matter for her, but it is essentially a devolved one on which further elucidation would be gained through Health Minister’s Questions in the Assembly rather than in a House of Lords Grand Committee.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I asked the question because we as a House of Lords are being asked to approve an order that would enable a change in in English, Welsh and Scottish legislation to reflect the dissolution of the Health and Social Care Board. In view of that, would the question not be quite prescient? I also thank him for going to ask the current Minister for that information on the projected savings and whether they will be ploughed back into the service.
Lord Caine (Con)
As I said to the noble Baroness, I am perfectly happy to do so. I appreciate that no MLA is able to stand up in the Assembly and ask those questions at the moment, so I am happy to look into the matter and come back to her.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to her place. She correctly identified my look of alarm at the fact that a Westminster health spokeswoman had come into a debate on Northern Ireland matters. She will be aware that I played no role whatever in the passing of the health and social care Act, so I must confess to a certain degree of ignorance of some of the matters she raised. Again, I am happy to look into them for her.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I was making a generic point for Ministers to take away that, where these things emerge, I suspect it would be useful if there were some wider discussions, at least with the Front-Benchers involved with the relevant Bills. It is somewhat frustrating three-quarters of the way through a Bill to suddenly be told that amendments cannot happen, but I am absolutely not asking the noble Lord to deal with that on its own. We respect devolved authority and think it is really important, but we all have to learn how to work together. In this Bill, for once, it was the Westminster side that was left out until after other things had happened.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Like her and many others in this Committee, I am a strong supporter of devolution across the United Kingdom and wish to see it function smoothly, efficiently and harmoniously across all parts of our country. I am very happy to have a look at what she suggested.
My noble friend Lord Lexden asked again about the problems in the health service. On the measures that might be necessary, I talked about the limitations on Ministers in the current scenario we face. Without straying into devolved policy areas, there are probably some quite radical measures and actions that need to be taken to deal with the situation that would be cross-cutting in the Executive, would require executive approval and would need to be quite bold, but which simply cannot happen within the current constraints, without a properly functioning Executive.
My noble friend is absolutely right: things are in a pretty poor state in Northern Ireland and this just underlines the need for the devolved Government to be back up and running as soon as possible. Although I do not necessarily share the reasons, I completely understand why the institutions are not up and running. That is why, without wishing to stray too much into other policy areas, the Government—including under the new Prime Minister, I am sure—are committed to resolving the issues which are preventing the establishment of the devolved Government that we all wish to see up and running. On that note, I commend the order to the Committee.
House of Lords
Deaths of Members and a Former Member
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, on 25 July, the noble Earl, Lord Home, on 22 August and the noble Lord, Lord Radice, on 25 August, following his retirement on 1 August. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the families and friends of the noble Lords.
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should also like to notify the House of the retirements with effect from 22 July of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for their much-valued service to the House.
European Court of Human Rights
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the work of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, successive Governments have long expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the Court of Human Rights and its ability to manage a significant case load, but we welcome the important and ongoing efforts made since the entry into force of protocol 14 to the convention in 2010 and the further reforms which followed the Interlaken declaration and the UK-led Brighton conference. These have helped to ensure that the court focuses on the highest priority cases before it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I can understand why the Minister is in a bit of limbo at the moment, given what is happening beyond this Chamber, but I remind him that on three occasions at that Dispatch Box he said not only that will we remain a member of the European Court of Human Rights but that we will continue to play a leading role, yet outside this Chamber, when he was making those statements, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman, who are going to have quite an influence over the next few months, said they wanted to withdraw. So what is the Government’s position now in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights? Will the noble and learned Lord have courage, particularly following the excellent report of the Law Society today, and reaffirm our position that we will remain in the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
While I am on my feet—in view of the political situation, I fully understand why noble Lords want to have a little bit of amusement at my expense—I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who has posed this Question, for his work at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That Assembly plays a very important role in the convention, and the UK plays a very important part in the Assembly. I particularly commend the noble Lord for his work on sport and human rights and his recent report looking at the protection of underage players against risks of abuse and other matters. I thank the noble Lord for his Question.
Lord Beith (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to use the Bill introduced in the other House to limit the ability of citizens to use the convention on human rights to safeguard their position against an over-mighty state? Does that not sit very oddly with the victor of the Conservative Party leadership contest quite often asserting her dislike of an over-mighty state? Is this not one of the main protections against it?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It is a protection and will remain a protection. The rights in the convention will continue to be respected and enforced by the courts of the United Kingdom as before.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, if we were to withdraw from the convention, we would have to withdraw from the Council of Europe and global Britain would be even less global?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am afraid your Lordship’s question does not arise, since we are not withdrawing from the convention or indeed from the Council of Europe.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the Brighton declaration, which was agreed by all state parties to the convention in 2012 under the UK chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, was a clear demonstration of our leadership of that organisation. That declaration set out plans to both reform the convention and improve the effectiveness of the Strasbourg court. Is my noble and learned friend the Minister able to update us as to how the Government are building on that legacy?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
We remain a leading force for human rights in the Council of Europe; I will give two examples in response to my noble friend’s question. We are supporting the development of a binding convention to protect the profession of lawyer and the right to practise the profession without prejudice or restraint, and we advocated among other member states for greater awareness of the convention rights among all state parties. This led to a new recommendation in September 2021 on the dissemination of the convention and other relevant texts. In addition, we will shortly participate in the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Human Rights, which will start a review of the system for the selection and election of judges to that court.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, on 14 July in response to the Human Rights Act debate tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the Minister said he had plans to visit each of the devolved legislatures shortly to narrow the differences between the UK Government and those legislatures. Has he had those meetings, and how did they go in terms of narrowing the differences?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the position is that those meetings have not yet taken place. It proved quite difficult to arrange them in the Recess and in the light of the impending change of government. I am due to see the Welsh Government on the 19th of this month, and provisional dates for Scotland and Northern Ireland have been arranged for before the end of September.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Can my noble and learned friend confirm that, when Her Majesty’s Government have knowledge of a case that is relevant, any evidence that Her Majesty’s Government have is automatically offered, rather than partially offered or perhaps sometimes no evidence offered at all?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am sorry, but I am not sure I entirely follow my noble friend’s question.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I am seeking clarification that Her Majesty’s Government, when they know there is a case that is relevant to a citizen or party in the UK, automatically bring forth any evidence that Her Majesty’s Government have.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I think the answer to that question is in the affirmative. The UK Government follow carefully any case that concerns UK citizens under the convention.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Does the Minister, as a jurist of some distinction, agree that dialogue between domestic courts and international ones is incredibly important, and that is what is enshrined in the Human Rights Act?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness; I entirely agree with the importance of dialogue.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, is this not the time for people to come together instead of separating from each other, especially when we see what is happening in Ukraine and so on? This is our opportunity to unite people, not divide them. I hope the new Cabinet and the new Prime Minister will bear that in mind.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I entirely understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Strasbourg court in Al-Skeini v United Kingdom made a fundamental and damaging error and acted inconsistently with the Vienna convention in holding that the procedural duty under Article 2 of the convention has extraterritorial effect? Has that not damaged the court’s standing in this country and abroad?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the Al-Skeini judgment has raised various problems, and part of the Bill that will shortly be before your Lordships is intended to deal with the question of the extraterritorial ambit of the convention.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on the day of the publication of the Bill of Rights Bill, the Minister, writing for ConservativeHome, described it as a “modern framework” for human rights. In Clause 24(3), the Bill instructs judges not to have regard to any interim measure issued by the European Court of Human Rights. Would the Minister like to explain to President Zelensky how that is consistent with a modern framework when, in the case of Ukraine v Russia, he successfully gained an interim measure against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights to constrain it from using military force against civilians?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The position of interim measures under the convention, and in the jurisprudence of the European Court and its rules of procedure, is a matter of great delicacy that at the moment is in effect being scrutinised in the Rwanda proceedings currently before the High Court in this country. I think it inappropriate to go further, but the provision in the Bill to which the noble Lord has referred is, in the Government’s view, entirely in accordance with the convention.
Water Companies: Borrowings
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, as of 31 March this year, water companies have reported total borrowing of £57.6 billion. Privatisation of the water sector has delivered around £170 billion of investment through private finance and this country would not have seen that level of investment if the water industry was in public ownership. Holding a licence to provide an essential public service of this sort is a privilege. Governments and regulators have high expectations of water companies and of the financial behaviours of their owners and investors.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, surely the Government have to reform the privatised water system. Despite a huge hike in pumping raw sewage into rivers and off beaches, abject failures to fix chronic and widespread leakages amid hosepipe bans and a total failure to reduce discharges from storm overflows, annual bonuses paid to water company executives rose by 20% in 2021. Since privatisation, customers’ bills have shot up by 40% and the companies have paid out £72 billion in dividends. Yet in Wales, 45% of rivers are of good ecological status, compared with 14% in England. Wales also secured 45 Blue Flag beaches and marinas last year, proportionately many more than England. Will Ministers replace the broken England model with the Welsh not-for-dividend one, which also means that returns going to shareholders are invested in infrastructure and capital is raised at a lower rate?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I cited figures in relation to investment by the sector, so I will not repeat them. But I make the point that, as a consequence of the Environment Act, which this House, along with the other place, brought into law just a few months ago, companies are now required to be transparent in a way that they never had to be before about how executive bonuses and dividends are linked to services for customers. Ofwat is still going through the process but will have the power, as a consequence of the Environment Act, to tie the licensing system to the performance of companies in relation to that link between pay and performance. That is a first; it would not have happened were it not for the Environment Act.
In relation to storm overflows, I am sure the question will come up again but the noble Lord exaggerates the course of action over the last few years. I will not for a second pretend that we do not have a problem with sewage flowing into our waters but the situation is getting better, not worse.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is simply an objective fact that we are the first Government specifically to tackle sewage overflows in the way that we have. We are the first Government to set a legal requirement on water companies to tackle significantly storm overflows. That has never been there before—not before Brexit or before we joined the European Union—and is a new development. We are taking stronger action than any Government in the history of this country.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Is there any truth in the report that at least two water companies have needed cash injections and that the Government’s recent sewage reduction plan was a result of those companies’ poor credit ratings?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I cannot answer questions on the two companies but will ask the Minister responsible for this area and get back to the noble Baroness. The reason we took the steps we took in the Environment Act was to improve the environment. This is an issue that everyone cares about; it does not matter where they live or which part of the political spectrum they occupy. Everyone wants our waters to be clean and we are taking the strongest possible action to make them so.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government and to this House for the changes that were made to improve the situation on sewage, but does my noble friend think that the current system is delivering enough freshwater reservoirs for the future across the UK?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is a good question and a number of steps are being taken at the moment. As part of the commitment that the water companies have made on investment, the numbers for which I provided earlier, we are seeing a lot of work being done between them to invest in schemes that will transfer water between areas of need and areas of plenty. We have already seen water transferred from the Lake District to the Manchester area, and from Wales to the Liverpool area. Work is under way at the moment by Anglian Water to transport water—from an investment of around £400 million—which, once completed, will mean an entirely new network longer than any motorway in the UK. That investment is happening and will continue to do so.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister not being somewhat complacent? Beaches across the country have been unusable in this hot weather. Should the noble Lord not be worried about that?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am deeply worried about it. As I said, I do not pretend for a second that we do not have a problem with pollution; we do. Incidentally, this is not a UK problem but one that affects countries across the European Union. But I also said, rightly, that this Government are the first to take these steps. There is now a legal requirement for those companies to take action; that did not exist before. Our plan will require water companies to deliver the largest ever infrastructure programme, with £56 billion of capital investment over 25 years. If it is followed through, the plan will protect biodiversity, the ecology of our rivers and seas and the public health of our water users for generations to come. As I said, we now have the tools to do this, but of course it is for future Governments, including this one, to ensure that they are used to their maximum.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government make great play of being on the side of the people in their opinions, as opposed to the dreadful establishment. From opinion polls over last few months, it is very clear that the popular will is in favour of reversing privatisation. Do the Government intend to stand against the people’s will on this or to go along with it against the establishment?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
We very much share the overwhelming view of the population of this country that more action needs to be taken to protect not just the health of our waters but the resilience of supply. This goes back to the question asked by my noble friend. But we do not believe that nationalisation is the answer: it would place an enormous financial burden on the taxpayer and would not deliver anything like the level of investment that we have seen in recent years.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Will the Minister now respond specifically to the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Hain: why is the record in Wales so much better than the one in England?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am not convinced that the record in Wales is significantly better than the one here. A report today, which I am surprised has not been brought up yet, showed a worrying increase in pollution in areas of this country. But, in every case that has been reported, to my knowledge, that is a consequence of our having put record investment into monitoring in a way that we never did before. There were problems that were not captured but they are now, reflecting a significant increase of the problem and greater justification for the actions that we know we need to take. But I do not think that we should pretend that a problem is new because we have just discovered it; it has been there for a long time.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, is it not a fact that, between 1997 and 2010, the then Labour Government decided not to change the way the water authorities or boards were managed because of the record levels of investment going into the industry, as my noble friend pointed out? He told us what has been going in since privatisation, but has he any figures for the level of investment when the water boards were still under the control of the Treasury?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. Although I do not have the numbers at the tips of my fingers, it is very clear that the record levels of investment would not have happened had the sector not been privatised. We would not see anything like that level of investment if we were to renationalise the sector. Of course we care about the manner in which executives are paid, incentivised and all the rest of it, but that is why we are now able, as a consequence of the Act that noble Lords voted through, to require total transparency through Ofwat for the first time, in a way that has been lacking until now.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, data that has, rather appropriately, been leaked shows that water companies’ replacement of water and wastewater pipes stands at an astonishingly low average of 0.05%, with even the best performers replacing only 0.2% of their network every year. Does the Minister believe that we should be replacing our pipe network slightly quicker than what works out to be once every 2,000 years? With a growing proportion of our pipes failing, and with many over 100 years old, just how bad can water wastage and sewage spillage become?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have to admit that I am not familiar with the leak that the noble Baroness describes, but there are certainly problems with leaks, and not just in government. We have a serious need for investment in the pipe network, which has been made a lot worse by record heat this summer. As noble Lords will know, the heat causes the ground to shift, which imposes significant stress on pipes. A record number of pipes now need to be fixed, which requires investment. But there is a clear obligation, which is associated with very severe penalties for companies not investing in tackling this problem. The Government have been clear that this will remain a priority.
Integrated Care Boards
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are monitoring and assessing the transition of Clinical Commissioning Groups to Integrated Care Boards; and how the success and impact of the new structure will be evaluated and reported to Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Integrated care boards took over the role of commission and secondary care services from clinical commissioning groups on 1 July 2022. NHS England formally oversees these ICBs, and it has a legal duty to assess annually the performance of each ICB and to publish its findings. CQC system assessments will also provide an independent assurance to the public and Parliament. The success and impact of these new arrangements will be measured by a DHSC-commissioned evaluation completed by academics.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, there are key factors to providing successful health and social care services that are outside the control of integrated care boards but very much within the control of the Government, including workforce supply and investment in social care capacity. Could the Minister tell the House how the impact of government provision will be measured and, where necessary, what action will be taken to put this right so that ICBs are actually able to deliver quality joined-up services for local people?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be aware, a lot of the work at the local level will be done by the ICBs, in partnership with others, under the ICS system. On the Government’s role on workforce, the department commissioned Health Education England to produce a report to look at the long-term strategic drivers to support long-term workforce planning. This work is nearing its final stages. We have also commissioned NHS England and NHS Improvement to develop a long-term workforce plan for the next 15 years. In addition, as the noble Baroness will know, Section 41 of the Health and Care Act 2022 gives the Secretary of State a duty to publish a report at least every five years.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the importance of civil society to these care boards is realised? It is often local charities that really know what is going on in a community, and it is really important that they are involved going forward.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend makes a really important point on this: if you look at the structure at the local level, you will see the ICBs, but they are in partnership with civil society organisations and others to form the ICP. The integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships together comprise the integrated care system locally. When looking at local health needs and the health of populations, particularly in deprived areas, it is really important that we work with local charities and civil society organisations; they are quite often trusted more by local people than professionals.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I know the Minister agrees that the NHS depends very heavily on efficient and effective social care services being available to it. Could the Minister tell the House whether he is satisfied that, throughout the country, local social care services will be involved in these new arrangements from the outset and as equal partners?
Lord Kamall (Con)
During the debate on the Health and Care Bill, which became the Health and Care Act, one of the things on which we agreed across the House was that each integrated care board should have the appropriate mix of skills. I think that was thanks to an amendment by the Liberal Democrats. This particular issue shows that we need to ensure that we are considering all the important aspects of health. One of the things that will be very important is the parity of mental health with physical health. All these issues will be considered at the local partnership level.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, one of the key elements of ensuring there is a good transition is the procurement process. Last month, three CCGs were fined for using considerable organisational bias to ensure that their contracts went to a preferred company. The fine must be paid by the ICB, and the staff from the CCG are now in the ICB. What are the Government going to do to ensure that this sort of practice is monitored and ruled out by the new bodies as they get under way?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I hope the noble Baroness will remember that, during the debate on the Health and Care Bill, there were concerns about private sector bias, as it were, in giving contracts. We agreed to an amendment suggesting that there should be no conflict of interest. I am afraid I am not aware of the specific cases that the noble Baroness raises, but I will look into them and write to her.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that yet another reorganisation of the management structure of the NHS is irrelevant to the latest problem facing the NHS, which is the dramatic loss of staff? We are losing thousands every month. That is where we should be focusing our efforts—does he not agree?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the challenges that we all face, and that the system as a whole faces, is that, even though we have more doctors and nurses than ever before, demand is outstripping the supply of healthcare workers. One reason for that is that there are far more conditions that would not have been considered years ago. Therefore, the Government, in partnership with the NHS, are looking at particular issues—for example, retention of the workforce, where they are worried about their pensions, and making social care an attractive vocation, with training and skills, as well as looking to recruit people, as we did after the war. As I often remind noble Lords, it was people from the Commonwealth who saved our health service after the war, and when we do not have the skills locally we will look to recruit people from abroad.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I understand from a senior ICB medical member that doctors expect general practice to be in the position that dentistry is in today in a bit of time. In other words, access to a GP will depend on the ability to pay. That is incredibly serious—it is the end of the NHS as we have known it, free at the point of delivery and need. Will the Minister take back to his colleagues the absolutely essential point that the Government must ask the ICBs to prioritise the assessment of general practice in their areas and to develop a strategy to ensure that general practice continues to be free at the point of need?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes the point about general practice. One thing that we are looking at, which will probably come up in the debate later in the week on the future of primary care, is the whole issue of what GPs do. There are many things they do that they do not have to do—these could be done by local partners, practice nurses, physiotherapists or social prescribing, and so on. In addition, Ministers and the NHS have been in conversation with GPs’ representatives, looking at these particular issues.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend update the House on the scheme for bringing in overseas workers to fill the gaps in social care that have opened up so seriously over the last year or two? There have been suggestions that the salary level—which currently does not allow sufficient numbers of care workers to come into the UK, when they are desperately needed—might be lowered. Is there any update for the House on that?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. The last I was aware of—and I shall look at it and write to my noble friend—was that, under the visa scheme, we were looking to bring in people from overseas to fill those vacancies. We have historically done that; as I said, after the war we looked to people from the Commonwealth, who came and saved our public services. Clearly, when we are unable to recruit enough people locally, we have to look at those issues and at whether it is something to do with the education system, and whether we can encourage them to come forward. But where there are gaps we will have to look more widely to our partners around the world.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister took the Bill through the House, he argued that a restructuring was necessary to integrate services, yet outside every acute hospital dozens of ambulances are stacked up every day, often waiting for hours with patients inside, because we have a disintegrated system. Can he show me what the integrated care boards are doing today to end that dreadful practice?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One priority of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—I think he is still the Secretary of State—has been to look at the ambulance system. On a wall in his office, he has all the various things; he has talked to various partners and he has brought people together to see what the problems are, why we are unable to unload patients into hospitals, what the blockages are and how we can address this from a systemic view.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the recent Civitas report put the UK second from bottom in patient outcomes in key areas of cardiovascular disease, cancer and a reduction in life expectancy. Can the Minister say what role commissioning should play in improving patient outcomes?
Lord Kamall (Con)
On patient outcomes, the noble Lord is quite right: we need to look at the statistics—where we are doing well and where we are not doing so well—and then focus efforts at not only the national level but the local ICB level, to make sure there is the appropriate commissioning. Indeed, one responsibility of the local integrated care board is to look at what services are needed in the local area and make sure that they are commissioned.
Four-Day Working Week
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the benefits of a four-day working week as standard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have assessed the costs and benefits of flexible working, but not specifically a four-day week. We do not believe that there can be a one-size-fits-all approach to work arrangements. That is why, rather than telling people and businesses how to work, we put individual agency and choice at the heart of our approach to flexible working. In this way, individuals and employers can work out the best arrangements for their particular circumstances.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for this Answer, although I regret its emphaticness. I know the difficulty of any Minister giving assurances at the present time, but can the Minister assure me at least that the Government will look carefully at the results of the large, significant, global trial in which Britain is taking a large part? That is the trial being taken though by the 4 Day Week Global partnership with Autonomy and the UK campaign, which will be assessed by academics, including from Oxford and Cambridge. There are scores of different companies taking part. Will the Minister say that the Government will look at these results?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, of course. As I said, we are committed to flexible working: indeed, we gave people the right to request flexible working in legislation. So we are committed to the principle, but the circumstances will of course vary from individual to individual and from organisation to organisation. What is good for one sector is not good for another—but of course we will keep these things under review.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, that is all well and good, but Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said that he wanted to crack down on flexitime, and he has also been very hard on working from home. I agree with the Minister’s point that it should be up to individual employers to assess the benefits of flexible working and, indeed, working from home. The Government are the employer of hundreds of thousands of people, so what is their assessment of flexible working and working from home when it comes to operational effectiveness, skills and recruitment and employee well-being? What data is being gathered and when can we see it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The right to request flexible working applies as much in the public sector as in the private sector. Civil servants already have very good working conditions and many do work flexibly—there are, for instance, many job-share arrangements in my department. So we think it is a good thing, but it very much depends on the circumstances of individual organisations.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does the Minister acknowledge that a reduction in the working week has been a trend overall—although there have been hiccups—in people’s working experience over the last 100 years? The previous generation would normally have worked a five-and-a-half-day week, not a five-day week. Is not the problem at present that those people who are lucky enough to be able to work from home are, in effect, having their working week shortened in any case, because they no longer have to spend time travelling to work? Is it not therefore important—in fact, essential—that, if there is to be any reduction in the working week, it applies as well to those people who cannot work from home, who are often in heavy, demanding and physical jobs? They are the ones who need to see their working week reduced.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. Of course, there has been a general reduction over decades, and if that continues it is a good thing. But it depends on the individual circumstances and on the industry—the noble Lord made that important point. However, even during the pandemic, there was a maximum of only about 48% of people who were ever working from home, because many other people in essential industries and other service industries could not.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that are a number of mandated four-day weeks? We obviously have a number of bank holidays per year and there is an inequality between the nations as to the number of bank holidays that workers get. Can my noble friend undertake to look at those bank holidays? The schools have gone back today and the next bank holiday is in fact Christmas Day. For many workers who have a statutory holiday entitlement plus the bank holidays—not including them—this could be of real benefit to them.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good observation. Of course, there have been a number of bank holidays recently and we keep these things under review. I do not think there are any immediate plans to introduce any additional ones, but I am sure it is something that the new PM will want to look at.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord of course will be aware that many four-day week working pilots are going on across the world, including one involving 3,500 workers here. The pandemic has proved, I think, that flexible working works and is an effective way of ensuring that we maintain levels of productivity, so will the Government commit not just to carrying out a review of the pilot but, when that pilot is complete, to publishing their own findings and then reviewing their policy? This is a very important policy direction for this country and it could unlock greater levels of productivity, which we are much in need of the moment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course we will take any lessons that are learned through the different pilot studies that are taking place. I think I disagree with the noble Lord that the pandemic proved that flexible working is the norm: it worked in some areas and some industries, but of course the Government did pay huge numbers of people to stay at home during the furlough scheme, which is not something we could ever carry on doing. Of course, it can work in some industries: a number of private sector companies have adopted it and, great, if it works for their particular circumstances and their particular employees, good for them—but it does not work for every industry.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is it not fantasy economics to pretend that most employers can afford to pay people the same amount of money for working fewer hours? The truth is that there is no simple answer, no quick fix, to dealing with the weakness of our economy: it requires hard work, serious policies to improve productivity and investment in education and skills. We have to invest in technology, innovation and green industries, so that we can create good new jobs, particularly in places such as the West Midlands that have lost their traditional industries and struggle to find new ones. There is no easy answer to this, whether it is reducing hours and pretending to pay people the same money or, for example, the universal basic income.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think I was agreeing with the noble Lord right up to his last sentence. Yes, of course there are no simple answers, and it can work for one industry and not for others; I really doubt that a universal basic income is the answer to this, though.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the Minister’s work in assessing the benefits of flexible working and four-day working weeks, and all the many outputs from the pandemic in terms of much good work and much good production as a result of working from home, will he consider talking to ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations and seeking a view on best practice in other countries such as New Zealand, which has stated that there is much to be gained from a four-day week?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, we have regular discussions with Ministers in the devolved Administrations: in fact, I spoke to one only on Friday. So, yes, of course we will learn any lessons that other countries can show us—but, as I said, there are no easy answers to this. It is a complicated area and can work in one sector but not in others.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Question talks specifically about four days a week, not about working from home. Bizarrely, this may have the effect of increasing productivity, only because productivity in this country is measured as output per hour. So, when the Government consider the devastating effect a four-day week would have, can the definition of “productivity” be refined to take account of the fact that it is total GDP we are interested in, not output per hour?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Again, my noble friend makes an interesting point. Of course, there are many different ways of defining it. He is right to point out that productivity is the key to this. If there is evidence that people will work smarter and harder during the time they are at work, of course that would be a good thing and it would help to bring it about.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has quite rightly stressed the importance of businesses being able to decide this sort of thing for themselves—what is right for them. So can he give the House an assurance that, under this Government, there will be no return to a three-day week, whatever happens in the energy crisis?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, we have no plans for a four-day week; we certainly do not have any plans for a three-day week.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is all very well to say that the negotiation of working time should be between individuals and businesses, and I understand the Minister’s logic in saying so, but the reality is that employers have overwhelming power in relation to individuals. Is it not necessary to allow trade unions to speak on their behalf, and should the ministry not be encouraging collective bargaining on these issues?
Lord Callanan (Con)
In this country, we believe in freedom of choice. People are free to join a trade union if they wish and, as I have remarked before, only a minority have chosen to do so.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships have heard from many noble Lords that working four days is not a good idea. I would like to hear some more detail from the Minister. Would it be worthwhile to have four working days in the week?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I did not really catch what the noble Lord said. If he was asking whether we will look at flexible working provisions, of course we will. We have responded to the consultation and introduced the right for employees to ask for flexible working. However, flexible working is a lot more than just a four-day week; it can involve a whole range of different flexibilities in the workplace.
Public Service (Integrity and Ethics) Bill [HL]
Monday 5th September 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Service (Integrity and Ethics) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Public Service (Integrity and Ethics) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the order of commitment of 27 June committing the bill to a Grand Committee be discharged and the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that the instruction to the Grand Committee of 27 June shall also be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.
Energy Bill [HL]
Monday 5th September 2022
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 39-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (5 Sep 2022)
Lord Lennie
“Part A1Purpose and strategy and policy statementPurpose (1) The principal purpose of this Act is—(a) to increase the resilience and reliability of energy systems across the United Kingdom,(b) to support the delivery of the United Kingdom’s climate change commitments, and(c) to reform the United Kingdom’s energy system while minimising costs to consumers and protecting them from unfair pricing. (2) In performing functions under this Act, the relevant persons and bodies must have regard to—(a) the principal purpose set out in subsection (1),(b) the Secretary of State’s duties under sections 1 and 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (carbon targets and budgets) and international obligations contained within Article 2 of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,(c) the desirability of reducing costs to consumers and alleviating fuel poverty, and(d) the desirability of securing a diverse and viable long-term energy supply. (3) In this section “the relevant persons and bodies” means—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) any public authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other new clauses before Clause 1, add a new Part setting out the purpose of the Bill and a requirement for a Strategy and Policy Statement in line with this Act.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 1 to 4 and 245, along with other new clauses before Clause 1, add a new part setting out the purpose of the Bill and a requirement for a strategy and policy statement in line with the purpose of the Act.
The context for this is threefold. First is the cost of living crisis: the energy cap has risen to £3,549 a year for an average household, and National Energy Action, of which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is chair, predicts that the number of households in fuel poverty will rise to 8.9 million.
The second is net zero: the Conservative leadership candidates—including Liz Truss, the new Prime Minister—ran away from this during the recent campaign. The High Court found that the net-zero climate strategy is inadequate, and the Climate Change Committee found that credible plans existed for only 39% of emissions, citing “major policy failures” and scant evidence of delivery. The 2021 International Energy Agency report found that the current commitments will not achieve net zero on schedule as they fall well short of what is needed to reach net zero by 2050.
The third is energy security: gas prices are expected to surge to record highs this week after the Nord Stream pipeline shut down. They could reach 800p a therm, and on Friday of last week they were 320p. European prices have risen by nearly 400% over the past year already, and the UK relies on gas for approximately 40% of its power generation—even more on the coldest days when demand increases and wind generation is low. The 2017 BEIS report included a scenario of the complete cut-off of Russian gas and concluded that the UK could see significant unmet demand if the cut was prolonged and continental European countries paid whatever was necessary to keep gas flowing. In the most extreme scenario, this could result in 28% of demand being unmet and lead to cut-offs or rotations of supply.
The Bill, as we said at Second Reading, is a pick and mix of things thrown together; it lacks ambition and an overarching theme designed to tackle these issues. There is no reason to believe that the current energy crisis will not happen again as the impact of global warming is a long-term issue.
Consequently, our amendments would, first, set out a purpose for the Bill by increasing resilience and reliability of energy systems across the UK; support the delivery of the UK’s climate change commitments; and reform the energy system. Secondly, they would bind the Secretary of State and the public authorities to these purposes, to our international commitments on climate change, and to the desirability of reducing costs and alleviating fuel poverty and securing a diverse and viable long-term energy supply. They would require the Secretary of State to designate a statement as a strategy and policy statement with regards to the purpose of the Act and require the Secretary of State to review both the strategy and the policy on a five-yearly basis. This would, in turn, force successive Governments into long term thinking, widen the impact and ambition of the Bill to address both short- and long-term issues, and help to ensure that, for the future, action does not come either too late or too little to solve a crisis.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, adds a new clause requiring an assessment of the cost of achieving net zero and contrasting this with achieving net zero by later dates. Not achieving net zero by 2050 would be a breach of our international agreements and would be hugely damaging to health, livelihoods and human security, as well as our reputation on the global stage. The cost feasibility of not acting by 2050 and leaving net zero until 2065 or 2080 would be incomparable.
Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, makes energy security the primary objective of the Bill, and while we agree with the importance of this objective, we would point to the wider focus our amendments require of the Bill. Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, focuses on increasing the resilience and reliability of energy systems, supporting the UK’s climate change commitments, and reform of the UK energy system while minimising costs to consumers—protecting them from unfair pricing—and requires the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on these matters. This links in well with our amendments.
Amendment 231 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probes the intentions behind the Government’s proposal to alter the current pricing system of wholesale electricity based of the marginal cost of the last source of supply. I would be interested to see what lies behind the Government’s rationale for this change. Amendment 242 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, sets out a national electrification and power plan; this links in with opposition thinking.
According to McKinsey, renewables could produce more than half of the world’s electricity by 2035 at lower prices than fossil fuel generation. On 18 May 2022, the EU presented the REPowerEU plan to end its dependence on Russian fossil fuels and tackle the climate crisis through energy savings, diversification of energy supply and accelerated rollout replacement of fossil fuels in homes, industry and power generation by renewable energy sources. The EU plan includes a massive scaling up and speeding up of renewables—solar, heat pumps, hydrogen, biomethane—which is not present in the Bill, and the EU plan suggests that replacing coal, oil and natural gas in industrial processes will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen security and competitiveness. Energy savings, efficiency, fuel substitution, electrification and an enhanced uptake of renewable hydrogen, biogas and biomethane could save up to 35 bcm of natural gas by 2030 on top of what is predicted under the Fit for 55 proposals. The UK must not be left behind. We must scale up our ambition. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 5 in my name, and thank the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and my noble friend Lord Frost for their support, and to speak to Amendment 231, also in my name. Before doing so, I should say that since I joined your Lordships’ House, my entry in the register of interests has shown my membership of the advisory board of Stirling Infrastructure Partners, a relatively new corporate advisory boutique. Stirling Infrastructure seeks business with a wide array of major corporations, some engaged in the energy field, and it struck me after speaking at Second Reading that I should perhaps have specifically drawn the House’s attention to my registered interest at that point. I have not received any remuneration during my time on the advisory board, and I have since then terminated the interest.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for bringing forward Amendments 1 to 4 as a matter of general principle, because they are right that a Bill which seeks to articulate and implement our energy strategy, particularly our energy security strategy, should have a preamble that is strategic in character and should provide a setting so that we know where the Bill is heading and what it is trying to achieve. My difficulty with their amendments is that they are rather general in character and not entirely strategic. I hesitate to say this, conscious as I am that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, may choose to speak, but simply aiming to win the war is not a strategy. A strategy requires something on resources, a plan and a general conception of how you are going to do it. If we are to achieve net zero, there are certain knotty issues that the Government need to be clear about so that we understand exactly what their strategy is at the level of detail appropriate to strategy. I, for one, am rather confused about the whole thing.
The purpose of my Amendment 5, which I have to admit is drafted in a rather convoluted way, for today’s debate is to elicit from my noble friend on the Front Bench some answers to three particular knotty questions. The first is the cost of net zero by 2050. One would have thought that we knew what the cost was going to be, but my understanding is that the only estimate the Government have had available to rely on was produced by the Climate Change Committee, which estimates that it will be in the order of 1% of GDP a year.
I do not have an objection to dedicating government expenditure on the basis of a certain percentage of GDP. If the Government want to say that they will spend 2% or some other percentage of GDP on defence, or they will spend 0.7% or 0.5% on international aid, for example, that is perfectly legitimate. But, of course, the figure of 1% a year from the Climate Change Committee is not of that character. We are pledging to spend not 1% a year but whatever it takes to deliver net zero by 2050, and 1% a year is an estimate. Moreover, it is an estimate that relies to a high degree on certain built-in assumptions, particularly that things are going to get cheaper—that the various inputs will fall in price over time. While that might be true of some, there is no reason to think it is going to be true of all. Part of the purpose of this amendment is therefore to call for the Government to commission an independent assessment of the cost of meeting net zero by 2050.
Then, we come to the question of affordability. Achieving it by a certain date—the date set in statute—doubtless has one cost attached to it. This amendment also calls on the Government to consider as part of that assessment what it would cost to achieve it. Would it be cheaper—more affordable—especially in the current crisis we are facing, if the terminal date were not 2050 but later? I put in two particular dates but if the Government choose others, I would be happy to go with those. The issue is the principle of whether achieving net zero over a longer period would be more affordable for the people of this country.
That is the first thing this amendment is trying to elicit the Government’s views on: do they have a reliable cost for achieving net zero by 2050, and would it be affordable if we took longer over it? As I said at Second Reading, bearing in mind that this country contributes a very small fraction of global emissions, the idea that achieving it by 2065 or 2050 will save the planet is simply self-delusion. We are doing this principally for exemplary purposes, rather than because of its practical effect.
Secondly, I do not wish to cause the slightest difficulty or embarrassment for my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I find the Government’s existing strategy, particularly the energy security strategy, the 10-point plan and so forth, rather weak in terms of strategic content and cost assessment. What are they going to cost? Also, implementation dates are largely lacking. We also need to know the relative contribution that each of the Government’s proposed measures will make to achieving net zero. Some might be very significant and others not, but we do not understand that from the documentation. That is the second purpose of this amendment. It is an important strategic question and I hope my noble friend will be able to say something about it.
The third point concerns the crucial issue, which I raised at Second Reading, of the intermittency of renewable sources. What do you do when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining? An obvious source to use to make up for that at the moment is gas, and that is largely what we do. Will we continue to use gas? That is one option. At Second Reading I quoted Professor Sir Dieter Helm saying that that makes the gas expensive in itself, because switching it on and off all the time is very inefficient and increases costs. However, is that the strategy? When I said that at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew my attention to a recent report from a Finnish university that said that intermittency can be dealt with without recourse to gas. Afterwards, she kindly gave me a link to it, and I have studied it. The solution suggested—it is not unique to that university; it is fairly widespread—is that intermittency should be dealt with by way of battery power. When the wind is blowing and you do not need the electricity, you charge up the batteries, and when it stops blowing—it is the same for solar—you take the electricity out. That seems plausible at one level, and maybe it is the solution the Government are coming to; there is stuff about batteries in the Bill. However, it raises questions about the environmental consequences of extracting the minerals needed for the batteries, and about their disposal, siting and so forth. Can the Government tell us what role they see for batteries—if it is to be batteries; maybe it is not—in dealing with intermittency?
The third suggestion I have heard is that pumped water should be used. This involves using surplus electricity to pump water up so that, when you need it, it falls down again. I believe that some installations do that—indeed, one of them is hidden inside a mountain in Snowdonia—and that a couple are to be built in Scotland shortly. My understanding is that they produce very little power. They are an interesting idea. Is it the Government’s intention to roll them out at scale? What is the cost? Where are they to be sited? These are the things on which we should have some indication before we give the Government these powers. I note that there is stuff in the Bill on exactly this.
Finally, I have heard that we should use surplus power to produce hydrogen, but that assumes that there is a distribution network to take the hydrogen where it is needed when the wind is not blowing. So there are serious potential solutions to this problem. All of them have costs, both financial and environmental. Which do the Government prefer?
I have spoken quite long enough so I will come to Amendment 231 in my name, which asks a question that has been on many people’s lips over the past few weeks: how do we price wholesale electricity? At the moment, as I think noble Lords are aware, the price paid to generators is the price of the highest input needed to achieve the demand that exists in the system in a particular half-hour period. In recent weeks and months, that has become gas. Whatever they use to produce electricity—be it wind, solar or whatever—everybody is receiving the same price as for gas.
To be perfectly clear, though, not everybody is receiving the same price because many of those producers will have entered into a contract for the difference—a swap arrangement—with a government-owned company. Effectively, this means that they have a guaranteed price, and it does not matter what the price is in the pool. At the moment, this is something that the European Union is looking aggressively at in terms of whether it should be changed, whether we should have a different system and whether there should be two separate pools, with one for carbon and one for renewables.
These are all things that I would like to hear the Minister say something on. I sympathise with him because today is the last day of the current Administration. Tomorrow, there will be a new Prime Minister. It may be that the Minister does not have the answers to all these questions at his fingertips in the way we would all like to hear at the moment, so an answer in due course as Committee goes on would be extremely welcome.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 6 in this group; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for his reference to it. It is intended as a probing amendment. I like to think that it is short and perfectly formed; I am grateful to the clerks for their assistance in drafting it. I remind the Committee that I am the president of National Energy Action. As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, referred to, there are worries about households that have already fallen into fuel poverty and the strong likelihood that, by October this year or January next year, 1.5 million more households may be at risk.
Some further background to this amendment is my concern that most of the talk in the White Paper and the British energy security strategy from April, most of the talk in the recent leadership election campaign and most of the concentration of the press and media seem to focus on household fuel bills and the price cap relating to them. We must not lose sight of the impact of fuel and energy costs on small, medium and large businesses. Many have recently cited the instance of launderettes, which may not be big employers but serve a particularly useful function and are obviously highly intensive users of energy.
However, there are many others. In what was previously the Vale of York constituency, there is the York brick company, which has kilns to make its clay bricks on the go for probably two-thirds of each day—often over weekends, I imagine, if it is trying to complete an order. If we lose many such small and medium-sized companies, this especially will have a grave impact on the UK economy going forward.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Before we continue, I remind noble Lords that the Companion asks noble Lords to make their speeches directly relevant to the amendments they are proposing and—please—to keep those comments as short as they possibly can. Thank you.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7 and 242. I declare my interests as a project director working for Atkins, which is in the energy industry, and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, who I have worked with to develop these amendments.
Amendment 7 has similar objectives to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. I concur with his comments on the necessity of clearly setting out the purpose of the Bill and legislating for a strategy and policy statement on its implementation. Amendment 7 brings out two specific aspects that are further detailed in Amendment 242. These are the importance of a plan for delivering against the 2035 target to decarbonise our electricity system and for the electrification of energy use in the UK.
The reason that electrification is so important stems from the second law of thermodynamics. As my favourite physicist, Richard Feynman, said in his superb analysis of the “Challenger” disaster in 1986, “Nature cannot be fooled”. Whatever options we come up with for decarbonising our energy system, and whatever laws and policies we make, we run up against fundamental constraints from the laws of thermodynamics. For example, using hydrogen to fuel road transport will always be much less efficient and use far more energy than electrification, no matter what technical advances are made in hydrogen production. Similarly, using electricity to heat homes via a heat pump will always be more efficient than producing hydrogen for the same purpose. This is not to say that hydrogen production should not be pursued as a matter of urgency, as it will be vital in some areas, but its use should be focused on areas that are absolutely necessary. The efficiency gains and the reductions in primary energy use from electrification mean that this is a vital metric to consider as our energy system evolves.
The enabler of all of this is a decarbonised electricity system. We have a world-leading target to decarbonise our electricity system by 2035, but I worry about delivery. Atkins has undertaken a calculation of the rate of new capacity required to hit the 2035 target. This is not anything complex: it simply divides the capacity in the BEIS scenarios by 12 and a half years, allowing for an estimate of the capacity that will be decommissioned over that timeframe.
As I stated at Second Reading, this calculation results in a minimum of an average of 12 gigawatts of annual installed capacity being needed every year between now and 2035 to hit that target, so the next question is, with a baseline of 12 gigawatts, what have we managed in recent years? In 2019 we managed 2.8 gigawatts of new installed capacity. In 2020 we managed 1.1 gigawatts and in 2021 we managed 1.6. If we go on like this, it is very hard to see how we will meet the 2035 target. The upshot is that to replace ageing power plants and ensure that enough generation is built to meet peak demand requirements, the UK needs to build a minimum of 159 gigawatts of new generating capacity by 2035—the equivalent of building the UK’s entire electricity generation system one and a half times over in slightly more than 12 years. It is not only generating capacity but all the grid infrastructure to support it, as well as energy storage and data management.
This says to me that there is a significant risk that the Government will not be able to meet their 2035 target. I work on the coalface, as it were—I am not sure that is the best analogy. The industry has a long way to go to gear up for this pace of delivery, so alongside the 2035 target we urgently need a strategy for delivery. This reflects one of the priority recommendations from the CCC’s 2022 progress report: we need a delivery plan to provide visibility and confidence for private sector investors, to reduce costs and to build up supply chains. There is a key gap here in comparison to other sectors. We have the Heat and Buildings Strategy and the transport decarbonisation plan, but we do not have a plan for electricity decarbonisation, despite it being so important as an enabler for those other plans. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in summing up, state that the Government will bring forward such a delivery plan for electricity system decarbonisation.
Amendment 242 details our approach to legislating for this strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, pointed out to me that we already have a toolkit to approach this via the Energy Act 2013—the mechanism of a decarbonisation target range and decarbonisation orders. If we take these existing powers and modify them, we can set a range for carbon intensity of electricity production in the UK each year and targets for electrification of the energy system. The report must also include the expected volumes of installed capacity and energy produced by electricity energy source for each calendar year to 2035. This rigorous approach will deliver the required strategy and plan to give industry and investors a clear road map to 2035, which, lest we forget, is only slightly more than 12 years away.
There is a great opportunity in this Bill for the Government to legislate for a strategy to give industry and investors the confidence they need to reduce costs and build up supply chains for 2035, significantly reducing delivery risk, with efficiency and minimising primary energy consumption at the forefront. I strongly support the Government in their ambitions for 2035 and the target that they have set, but there is much to do in a short time, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity to ensure that there will be a clear plan for delivery to ensure the success of their ambitions.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I stand to support the rather convoluted, as was stated, Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Sadly, we have shied away from a national energy strategy for some decades. As head of the National Security Forum in 2009, I pushed to produce a national energy strategy but was stopped and shot down in flames by the Cabinet Office—and indeed the Cabinet—as the Government were unwilling to identify all the various things that were needed to achieve that.
Now we are moving slowly towards a policy, but the devil is in the detail and broad, sweeping statements of commitment based on no solid evidence of cost and impact are highly dangerous. The aim of this amendment is to quantify the cost and risk of achievement and to monitor and assess performance as the plans move forward. Too often there is a willingness to move ahead hoping for the best rather than forensically analysing what is, can be and has been achieved and what the true costs are—both financial and in terms of their impact—on other policies and commitments.
I feel particularly strongly about analysing the shortfalls in electricity generated by renewable sources. Our nation has a clear demand for a constant base loading of electrical supply and needs to manage intermittency of supply from wind and solar. I am clear that only nuclear power can ensure that need in a clean way.
I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s views on this requirement to monitor and quantify the measures being enacted.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Amendment 5, on which my noble friend Lord Moylan made an extremely interesting speech, as were the speeches just made by the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord West. I declare my interest in energy matters as an adviser to Mitsubishi Corporation—one of the world’s largest producers of heat pumps, as well as of all connectors and the switching stations associated with them, both here and overseas—and the Kuwait Investment Office, with which the linkage, through its oil and gas production, is obvious.
I am afraid this sounds suspiciously like a Second Reading debate rather than a Committee debate. That is perhaps inevitable, given that we are in the midst of a first-class energy crisis—the biggest certainly in my active lifetime. Naturally, your Lordships are taking any opportunity—as we are entitled to do—to relate remarks on this enormous Bill to the very difficult dilemmas that the nation now faces, with no obvious way out, a cacophony of new views about what should be done, an absence of views about the international dimension, which I will mention in a moment, and a general bewilderment that, somehow or other, we will have to borrow a great deal more money to prevent real suffering, collapse and bankruptcy across a large part of the enterprise and small business sector, and so on.
I am not going to support Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 because they do not add much to the purposes, or indeed deficiencies, of the Bill. If they did, I would say let us support them, but that is not what they do.
I want to comment in passing on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s remarks on pump storage. He mentioned the Dinorwig installation in north Wales. I had the honour and pleasure of authorising not the original installation itself but the expansion in the early 1980s. One interesting fact for your Lordships is that it was capable then of delivering within 12 minutes 2 gigawatts into the system. The remarkable fact is that it never needs to work at all to be an enormous addition to our generating system and an enormous saving. Why? It is because the fact of what it can do enables the rest of the power system and all the power stations to operate at slightly higher capacities, with lower safety margins, than they otherwise would—in the knowledge that this extra is always there. So we have the extraordinary situation of a vast installation that never need actually operate to make substantial savings. That is one of the anomalies of the national energy system that we have to familiarise ourselves with.
As for the amendments—to a Bill that, frankly, does not leave me totally happy anyway—first, I am unhappy about the lack of any address in the amendments, let alone in the Bill, to the international dimension; at most, they very slightly address it. I admit there is a section on interconnectors, and that is very important. In fact, the interconnector element in our future diversity of supply is going to increase substantially; I think the Bill mentions 18 gigawatts of interconnectors. I understand that Morocco is thinking of adding an enormous 3 gigawatts of clean energy—solar energy using linked cabling from Morocco all the way to the UK—and there will be many similar sources. They all raise very complicated issues since they have to be managed under direct current, because you cannot put alternative current underwater; they have to have amazingly extensive energy transformations from direct current back to the AC that we can use inside our system.
The truth is that the resilience and security of our system is going to depend not less but more on the international environment, international supply and the sorts of issues that have been raised by the horrors of Ukraine and Russia’s determination to distort to the maximum the entire energy system of western Europe—and that includes us physically. All these issues need addressing in intense detail, but I do not see that detail mobilised in the Bill.
Secondly, the amendments talk, as does the Bill, about our climate commitments. Obviously our climate commitment in law, in the Climate Change Act, is to achieve net zero by 2050, but what actually are our climate commitments? I would like to hear from the Minister what new thinking is going on in this respect. Surely the aim of our endeavours in our climate commitments is to limit global emissions and greenhouse gases. The question that we have to ask ourselves, again and again, as we struggle towards net zero, is not only whether we can afford it—and many people say it is going to cost a lot of money—but whether, when we have got there, it will have any effective impact on curbing the growth of global emissions, getting to the Paris targets and halting greenhouse gases. There seems to be an assumption that the greenhouse gases will stop at the white cliffs of Dover if we can achieve net zero. It does not work like that. I am afraid the world is integrated, in the sense that greenhouse gases are increasing very rapidly, and our efforts and contribution need to be rethought again and again in order to make a serious impact on that.
Achieving net zero by 2050 with clean power and electricity requires a multiplication by about seven or eight times of our existing clean power sector—that is, wind, solar and now of course nuclear, which is recognised by the European Union as part of the ESG group and therefore clean energy. That needs to be multiplied by six or seven times, including a vast increase in wind power and solar power, as well as in our nuclear power. That would mean several new nuclear power stations, but they are not being built and are not going to be. No one is planning on building them. We are building one now but it is in considerable difficulties. The ex-Prime Minister said in his outgoing speech that he wanted to build a lot more, but that would be 10 or 15 years away, and the chances of the system working and doing so efficiently, if it is a replication of Hinkley C, are very slight indeed.
All that is just to get to net zero. Beyond that, we must have legislation—and understanding in that legislation—to achieve a genuine contribution to climate change curbing. That is not going to be done. Adaptation is going to be needed on a massive scale to prevent really bad heat in summer, really cold winters and enormous flooding that will affect us as well as many others. That is the element that is not in the Bill, and the amendments would not add very much to it.
As to minimising costs, which the amendment mentions—it is also mentioned in the Bill itself and in the explanatory documents for it—how is this to be done? We will not minimise costs by trying to build, very rapidly, these enormously expensive new, large-scale nuclear stations. We will not minimise costs unless we remain totally integrated into the world energy supply system or unless we deal, day by day, on a sensitive basis, with our Norwegian suppliers of natural gas and electricity. If we take our mind off that for a moment, that gas will probably go elsewhere, as is happening now as Germany tries to fill up its strategic gas storage tanks, as are many other countries. All this is creating not stability, resilience or security but the opposite.
I therefore ask the Minister that when he turns down this amendment, as he no doubt will—he is quite right to do so, because it is unnecessary and adds nothing—he gives us a little assurance that in this new and changing situation, this long-term future which we have to build on and in which, by failing to build on that of 40 years ago, we have now plunged ourselves into this terrible crisis, these things are being addressed and will be taken account of. Perhaps as we go through the Bill clause by clause, we will hear something from him about how the new situation is to be addressed. I do not think this amendment does it; nor, frankly, does the Bill.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I must declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd. By the Government’s own admission, the Bill introduces 26 separate measures, based roughly on three pillars, which aim to give the Bill a modicum of coherence. Many of the amendments in this group, however, seem also to be intended to serve as a kind of preamble to the Bill, which, as my noble friend Lord Moylan and others have said, would improve it.
Amendment 1, as eloquently spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, seeks to add a principal purpose to the Bill. Amendment 7, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, aims to do the same thing. However, these amendments would add not one principal purpose but three. Furthermore, I consider that principal purposes (a) and (b) in Amendment 1 are in conflict with each other, in the sense that while delivery of the country’s climate change commitments is obviously highly desirable, it conflicts with purpose (a) in that resilience and reliability are not served, at least in the short term, by abandoning natural gas as a source of energy with unnecessary haste. Actually, purpose (b) is also in conflict with purpose (c), because it is hard to argue that maintenance of the climate levy helps to minimise costs to consumers or protects them from unfair pricing.
I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister not to accept this amendment, or indeed Amendments 2, 3 and 4 in this group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. I understand why they want to introduce a requirement for a strategy and policy statement in line with the Bill, but I regret that the Bill does not cover the whole of the country’s energy strategy or policy. Furthermore, these amendments give a higher priority to meeting climate change commitments than they do to developing reliable sources of energy, which protect the consumer against the risks of intermittency.
That is why I support Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Frost, and the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. This amendment recognises that the Government must have regard to the Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, the Net Zero Strategy, the British Energy Security Strategy and all the other strategies; but that, crucially, they need to compensate for the huge reliance on wind and solar energy contained in those strategies by ensuring that we will have electric power to replace that generated by renewable sources, which are subject to intermittency.
As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out, it is necessary for the Government and the public to understand how much achieving the objectives of net zero by 2050 will actually cost. The Government have been, and continue to be, far too cautious in their policy towards nuclear power, but Amendment 5 will require the Government to support nuclear to a far greater extent than they have done so far, because nuclear is completely reliable and not subject to intermittency. One of the points in the 10-point plan covers the delivery of new and advanced nuclear power, while the subsequently published strategies increasingly recognise its greater importance.
Much has been made of the Prime Minister’s commitment in May that we will build one new nuclear power station every year, instead of one every decade. But he did not clarify whether he was talking about a new power station such as Hinkley Point C, with two large reactors each generating 1.6 gigawatts of electricity, or perhaps a bank of NuScale reactors, producing 77 megawatts, or of U-Battery reactors delivering 4 megawatts each. Could the Minister clarify how much new nuclear capacity the Government expect to commission every decade or year?
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 7, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading; I wrote to the Minister, and I am grateful for his detailed response to some of my points. I will endeavour to be brief, as this is Committee, and will simply explain why we consider that Amendments 7 and 242, together, bridge the divide that is evident between the two sides of the House, as witnessed in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was absolutely right that you cannot simply declare that you want to win a war; you need to have tactics and a strategy for winning it. Our Amendment 7, complemented by Amendment 242, provides that strategy, which is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, eloquently articulated, fundamentally underpinned by physics. Energy is a question of physics and, if we understand that, we will know that we are not struggling towards net zero but in fact doing very well on that path.
The clarity with which I now see industry communicating on this issue is far greater than it has been over the last decade. It is saying: “Electrify everything that can be electrified and use our abundant resources of clean electricity to decarbonise.” That is how you square the three principal objectives of energy policy: affordability, cleanliness, and resilience and security. That pathway is so clear now that the Bill could be hugely enhanced by having this set out at the front.
I support the Government’s intentions. They seek to address the trilemma of those three objectives, which are fundamental to winning this war against climate change and against the energy crisis that we currently face. That very energy crisis is an interesting reason why we are powering towards net zero faster than ever before: it is absolutely clear that the volatility of gas and oil underpins it, and we cannot forget that. What is the Government’s current policy? It is to reduce our reliance on those volatile commodities, which would serve everyone’s needs: it would help us reduce bills and would give the consumer a reliable source of energy.
The Bill has many measures which we will come on to debate that will help us along that path. But it lacks an overarching statement of objective. We now need to revisit the debates we had on the Energy Act 2013 about the need for a decarbonisation target to provide clarity over this direction of travel. We all sat there—many noble Lords here today were there—and had debates on why knowing our way towards that target was needed for investor and stakeholder confidence. It is now very clear that it is needed because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out, simple mathematics shows that we still have a lot of technology that needs to be put into place to become operational, and we need a plan that monitors progress towards that.
Subsequently, we have added an extra dimension to this: electrification. As I said, physics tells us that electrification is fundamentally more efficient; you will get six to seven times more usable energy from an electricity-based system than if you rely on fossil fuels or hydrogen. Six to seven times fewer wind turbines will be needed to provide the same benefit in terms of heat or transport. That should be of interest to everybody; it saves costs and helps make the system more secure.
So I hope that the Minister will look at our amendment carefully. It adds an extra dimension to this Bill, which will give it so much clarity so that everybody will have a clear sense of the path that we are on. As I have said, the UK should be very proud of the efforts it has taken to date. We are not as exposed to the energy crisis as other countries, because of investments we have made over the last two decades and because we have taken seriously this objective of making our system more resilient and fit for the future. There is an international dimension—I am sure we will come on to talk about this in other parts of the Bill—but it is absolutely clear that the thing that we can do best at the moment is continue on the path of decarbonising our electricity system using technologies that locate cheap power on our shores, to rid ourselves of the insecurity and volatility of gas prices and to move forward to an efficient system that converts primary energy into heat, transport and work. If we can do that, we will show the world how it should be done: do not pick winners but instead create a system that is sensible and will provide the right guardrails for capital investment so that money will flow and we will all benefit. I look forward to the Minister’s response to our amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and although we do not always agree on absolutely everything, I reckon that I agree with about 99.5% of her speech.
First, I declare my interest as chair and director of Aldustria Ltd, an energy storage company; I will try to avoid too much discussion of that area. On these amendments, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for having opened our debate today. I very much agree with the principle of what the Opposition Front Bench is trying to achieve here. What this Bill does not have—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, put it very well indeed—is great focus or coherence. It would be good to start trying to improve that through a type of preamble that puts context, including strategic context, at the beginning of the Bill. I hope that we can refine that more on Report; it may not be perfect, but perhaps we can find a way of doing that between us.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the pricing of electricity and how that works. As he says, our European colleagues are looking at that very strongly now. There must be a better way of doing this; it cannot make sense to the public that we charge and price our main energy sources on the marginal cost of the last producer. Clearly, that does not make sense, and it does not do the reputation of the fossil fuel industry any good either. Yes, they might use their money to give back to shareholders—hopefully they will use it for different types of investment and diversification—but it besmirches the whole sector, and we need to find a way around that.
Where I would disagree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is around trying to game or look at alternative dates for net zero. It seems to me that in September 1939 the Cabinet probably did not look at whether to declare war on Germany this month or two years later or four years later. We may criticise Neville Chamberlain for all sorts of things in retrospect, but I guess that is not one of them. It was an absolute threat to our future security, and we made a decision. If we think of the costs to this country, and to us and consumers, of our right stand on Ukraine, I guess that we have not done those calculations either—because we know that Putin’s war has to fail and that, for European security and our long-term security, we in the western world need to pursue the tactics that we have.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her amendments, particularly in mentioning rural aspects of oil—my own household is on oil, and we are not covered by a price cap—and in particular business. In all the media coverage that we have had on this very real energy crisis over the past months, it is funny how business has very much taken second place to households and consumers. Clearly, households and consumers are ultimately the most important, but business is completely fundamental to our economic performance and being able to solve this crisis in the long term.
I am not absolutely sure about energy from waste plants. Clearly, it does not make sense to export it, but the real challenge there is in starting to raise recycling again, or even AD in terms of other parts of household waste. I was so impressed by the forensic look by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, at investment need and the scale of the challenge, and also at how we need to measure that and put proper planning into how we meet it.
The one other area that I would like to mention comes back to 2013 and the then Energy Bill, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. At that time, one big thing that we discussed was the energy trilemma of security, cost and decarbonisation. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, brought that back up again. But what this crisis, and the almost a decade between these two Bills, has shown, is that it is no longer a trilemma—they all work in exactly the same direction. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, as we know—it is why we have the huge price increases that we do. Our security is reinforced by having much more renewable generation on our own seas and our own land—and, as a result, we have lower costs and a decarbonised energy system as well. We have moved on since that time.
We need to have a focus in this Bill, and I support the amendments. We need to move on in this debate, but I am absolutely sure that we will need that coherence when we get to Report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, has spoiled a lot of my fun today, because I was going to tell the Government exactly what they needed to do if they were going to produce an Energy Bill that deals with the crises that we are facing. We are facing three immense crises at the moment, and one of them is, of course, the climate crisis. There are strong whiffs of climate denialism in your Lordships’ House, which I find absolutely staggering, considering that the science is so very clear on it. However, it is a bit last century, that sort of attitude, so I understand why it might exist here in your Lordships’ House. But we have those crises—the climate emergency, the ecological crisis and the cost of living crisis—and this Energy Bill is so topical. It is exactly the sort of thing that we need to bring forward so that we can deal with all these crises, and I guess make life better for millions of people in Britain and the rest of the world.
I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. He made the point that this does not do the job. Also, I am very sympathetic to Labour’s initial amendments. I understand why they are in there, but it reads a lot more like the sort of issues that a Labour Government would bring forward—hopefully not too long in the future.
I am concerned that our time is going to be wasted on this Bill, because we have a new Prime Minister—a climate-wrecking ideologue who will make it incredibly difficult for us to get the sort of issues into this Bill that we need. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and other noble Lords also mentioned nuclear. We have to get real on the fact that nuclear is not the answer. Nuclear power stations take a long time to come online. There will be all sorts of problems even getting them started, so they are not the answer. We have to think faster than that; they just will not work.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I will speak very briefly to the amendments. I have amendments of my own later in the Bill on energy demand reduction and the regulator’s responsibilities.
I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. It is important that this Bill is specific about the implementation of the aspirations that we hear from government. We have not had enough detail about the plans to implement the strategies, and we have not had enough detail in the strategy. For that reason, I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. He raises important issues about putting flesh on the bones of the aspirations, but I disagree with him about changing the timetable. I also disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on the question of whether, because our contribution to global emissions is low, we should go ahead with the contribution we can make in innovation and leadership, which completely ratchets up the effect of this country’s own policies on a global scale.
One serious point I want to make about the noble Lord’s amendment is that I am extremely worried about the suggestion that the Secretary of State should commission and publish “an independent assessment” of the costs, the implementation dates and the risks of the net zero strategy. We have the Climate Change Committee, which is admired for its work throughout the world. It is an important and respected body and it is independent of government. It would be ridiculous to try to get different independent advice: if we go down that road, we are in “anyone’s view is the best view” territory. We have an independent adviser for government. We have the Office for Budget Responsibility; we have lots of people who can comment on the advice it gives, but it would be quite wrong to put in this legislation anything that undermined its position.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
Let me say first what a pleasure it is to open for the Government in today’s discussions: I am sure we will have lots more as we go through the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lennie, Lord Ravensdale and Lord West, the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Worthington, and my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Moylan and Lady McIntosh, for their amendments, which seek to address the purpose and strategic aims of the Bill and of course the Government’s energy policy more generally. That allowed us to have a debate with more of the flavour of a Second Reading debate, rather than addressing the specifics of the Bill, but that is understandable given the nature of the amendments.
I turn first to Amendments 1, 6 and 7 from the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baronesses, Lady Blake and Lady Worthington, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. These amendments all seek to address the fundamental purpose of the Bill. While they are well-intentioned, it is my strong contention that these amendments are not necessary as the Bill already has a clear purpose. Provisions in the Bill as drafted not only have regard to the outcomes those noble Lords seek, but they are actually designed with those outcomes in mind. For example, a number of measures in the Bill will contribute to the resilience of the UK’s energy system—most obviously, those powers related to the ensuring the security of the core fuel sector. I am happy to give the assurance that my noble friend Lady McIntosh sought today: that energy security is of paramount importance to this Government.
Amendment 245 would give effect to Clause 1 once the Act is passed and, for the reasons I described, I do not believe that it is necessary. On Amendment 5, from my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Frost, and the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, relating to energy strategy statements, I reassure them that the Energy Bill is to a significant extent an expression of the Government’s strategic intent as set out in the 10-point plan, the energy White Paper, the net-zero strategy and the various sector-specific policy papers we have published. Furthermore, government policy evolves over time and strategies do not always neatly replace others. Some aspects may remain government policy, and some are updated in response to a changing landscape—of course, we have seen that very recently with the Ukrainian invasion. I submit that, rather than prescribing policy intent in primary legislation, it makes more sense to allow Ministers to exercise discretion in these matters and respond to a changing policy environment and international environment.
I move on to the requirement to publish a strategy
“for managing intermittency of electricity supply”.
Intermittency is an important issue, but the National Grid Electricity System Operator is responsible for balancing electricity supply and demand, because while production is intermittent, so is demand. The Government remain confident that they have all the tools needed to operate the electricity system reliably. We can call on a wide range of technology types to do this, some of which were mentioned in the debate today, including emergency gas-fired generation, interconnectors and, crucially, demand-side responses such as insulation, retrofit measures, et cetera.
The capacity market is the Government’s main mechanism for ensuring the security of electricity supply. It has done a great job and we have already secured the majority of Great Britain’s capacity needs to meet future peak electricity demand out to 2025-26. The Government have also committed to ensuring a flexible system which involves the use of a wide range of technologies—again, a number of them were mentioned in the debate today—including battery storage and pumped storage, which I was really interested to hear my noble friend Lord Howell talk about. In my electrical engineering degree many years ago, we studied that particular development; for those who have not been able to see it, it is an incredible feat of engineering.
This amendment also has a requirement to commission assessments of the 10-point plan and of the costs of achieving net zero. My noble friend Lord Moylan raised concerns that progressing towards net zero is a “constraint” to achieving affordable and abundant energy in the UK. I reassure him that, as we transform the energy system, the Government are committed to pursuing the most cost-effective solutions, which, at the moment, are offshore and onshore wind. Ensuring security of supply and decarbonisation, and affordability to the consumer and the Exchequer, are of critical importance. While there will be costs, the costs of inaction in this sector, as we have seen through the invasion of Ukraine, are much greater. Had we not acted over the last decade or so to secure the second-largest supply of offshore wind in the world, the costs we would be facing now would be much greater and our security of supply would be at much greater peril.
As set out in the Net Zero Strategy, we estimate that the net cost to achieving net zero, excluding air quality and emissions-savings benefits, will be the equivalent of 1% to 2% of GDP in 2050. That strategy was informed by the Treasury’s 2021 Net Zero Review, which looked at the potential costs and benefits to businesses and consumers of the transition to a net-zero economy.
Furthermore, several mechanisms already exist to analyse the path towards net zero, as mentioned by my noble friend. For example, the Government’s approach to net zero is already subject to independent scrutiny by the Climate Change Committee, whose 2022 progress report included an analysis of the economic impact of decarbonisation. Much of this work already takes place.
I turn to Amendments 2, 3 and 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. The Energy Act 2013 introduced the power for the designation of a strategy and policy statement that sets out the Government’s strategic priorities for energy policy, the roles and responsibilities of those implementing such a policy and the policy outcomes to be achieved. The Government have committed to laying a strategy and policy statement for energy policy later this year and a statement at the earliest appropriate time. Designation of a strategy and policy statement will ultimately be a decision for Parliament, not the Secretary of State. Therefore, I submit that these amendments are duplicative and unnecessary.
I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for submitting Amendment 231. He raises an important point; splitting the wholesale market into two—namely, creating one market for variable renewables and another for firm generation—is already being considered as part of the review of electricity market arrangements, or REMA. An initial consultation, which included exactly this proposal, was published in July. Splitting the market is one of many options being considered within REMA. My department is currently assessing the viability of implementing a split market and the potential costs and benefits associated with doing so.
Based on stakeholder responses to the consultation and based on further policy developments, we will publish a second consultation in 2023 to set out any feasible options in more detail. Legislative proposals on how to implement recommended reforms will then follow. Adding a clause into the Bill that commits the Secretary of State to publishing legislative proposals on splitting the market by a specific point in time would, I submit, prejudge the outcomes of both the consultation and the review.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, did I hear my noble friend say 2023? Did I hear that correctly?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, it is a complicated area that requires proper and detailed policy analysis, but that work is under way, and we will do so.
Splitting the wholesale market would a necessitate a fundamental and irreversible design of our electricity market arrangements, and without the appropriate consideration of the potential costs and any potential benefits and without sufficient stakeholder input, it could well lead to higher bills for consumers, and it would create an investment hiatus which would jeopardise our ambitions for decarbonising the power sector by 2035—which is exactly the point I was making to my noble friend. So, this is an important issue, but it is one that needs to be looked at thoroughly, properly and professionally. I hope that my noble friend is assured that the issue is being closely examined and will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the fact that—and this has been mooted as a potential solution in the short term during these unprecedented times where we see such high prices and so many people suffering—there is surely a logic to take a power now, to use it in extremis and then to continue with the longer-term conversation? I think the nation wants to see some action quite quickly and we have an Energy Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not think it is important to do that at this stage; we have published the consultation, we are closely analysing responses, as the noble Baroness will understand. It is a difficult area, it is a complicated area, there are a number of potential ramifications, and we think it is worthy of consideration. If we took a power now, that might have a very destabilising effect on the market and on the amount of investment that is flowing into many of the sectors, so the Government’s position at the moment is that we do not think that is necessary or desirable.
I reassure noble Lords that the addition of electrification to the Energy Bill is also unnecessary. The net-zero strategy sets out the Government’s view on how electrification can enable cost-effective decarbonisation in transport, in heating and in industry—to that extent, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and the points that she made—along with our approach to deliver reliable, affordable and low-carbon power. The energy security strategy accelerated, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, our ambitions for the deployment of renewables for nuclear and for hydrogen. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will never compromise our security of supply: that remains our primary consideration. But our understanding of what the future energy system will look like and the level of the demand that we will need to meet through electrification will essentially and inevitably evolve over time. So, we are not targeting a particular solution, but we rely on competition to spur investment in the different technologies and new ways of working, and new technologies such as more efficient batteries et cetera are coming onstream every day. We will closely take all these matters under consideration. We take the view that the Government’s role is to ensure the market framework is there and that encourages effective competition and, at the same time, delivers a secure and reliable system.
Finally, let me thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Teverson, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Hayman, for their valuable contributions to the debate. I assure my noble friend Lord Howell that we are working internationally with the US, with the EU and with our other partners to produce a secure and reliable energy system together. In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, I am sure he will be pleased to hear that through the £385 million advanced nuclear funds, we are providing funding to support research and development for precisely the small modular reactor designs that the noble Viscount wishes to see, and we are progressing plans to build an advanced modular reactor demonstration by the early 2030s at the latest. Therefore, with the reassurances that I have been able to provide, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise for not thanking the Minister for meeting us earlier today; that was helpful. To answer one or two points, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked about what Boris Johnson said when he was Prime Minister—up to yesterday, or today. He raised questions about power stations being built and the figure of one a year for however many years necessary, and not being sure what power stations there were. The PM was never really good on detail and I think this proves that point. That does require some clarification.
The bigger point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the Minister was in relation to the preambles. They asked: why these preambles? They are a combination, if you like, of the preambles to the climate change and sustainability Act and the Energy Act 2013, as the Minister pointed out. They seek to give some definition, some guidance, to what the Bill is intended to achieve, as opposed to its rather rambling, ongoing, imprecise nature. It is not so much that the Bill is objectionable; it is just not adequate to achieve what it intends.
We will look at this before Report. With those few comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires there to be an actual impact or likelihood of an impact on the consumers whose interests are being protected, whilst retaining discretion for the Secretary of State and the economic regulator to exercise their judgement. This would enable Ofgem to better justify and evidence decisions enabling strategic anticipatory investment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is my responsibility and pleasure to move Amendment 8 and to speak to Amendments 9, 14 and 16 in the unavoidable absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, who will be with us from Wednesday onwards. She sends her apologies but I am pleased to speak on her behalf, and my own, and to thank the Carbon Capture and Storage Association for its excellent briefing about this issue and the implications involved and the help it has given us with drafting these amendments.
I have two points before I go on to the detail of the amendments. As others have said, the UK has one of the largest potential carbon dioxide storage capacities in Europe. This is a very important issue that we are dealing with today, and it should not be underplayed and underestimated. It extends throughout the whole United Kingdom—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Also, as I understand it, it will support 50,000 jobs—a not insignificant number, given the current situation.
Turning first to Amendments 8 and 9, these deal with the importance of a net-zero principal duty to enable rapid network expansion. If we in the UK are to meet our emission reduction targets, carbon capture and storage will need to be rolled out rapidly across the UK during the rest of this decade. To capture and store 30 million tonnes a year by 2030, as the Net Zero Strategy says, we will need to go from nothing to building significant CO2 infrastructure in a short space of time. It is therefore vital that the regime set out in the Bill enables initial oversizing of CO2 pipelines, increasing their size, which will allow for the subsequent rapid network expansion to connect more capture sites to the growing suite of storage sites.
The National Infrastructure Commission’s 2019 regulation review, Strategic Investment and Public Confidence, recommended that the economic regulators’ duties be updated to facilitate long-term investment in networks. It recommended implementing updated duties that will enable network operators to deliver the best results for the public by building and investing in networks that are resilient and fit to deliver net zero while also providing value to current and future users of those networks.
The Government should be commended—it is unusual for me to commend them—for proposing that the duties of the economic regulators include consideration of the needs of existing and future users, but this seems a missed opportunity to include a duty to deliver net zero by 2050, to help the regulators to effectively balance these two equally important factors.
It should be noted, however, that outside the regulators’ core duties, the Bill includes a further requirement for the regulator to support the Secretary of State in having regard to the Climate Change Act 2008, and the new CCUS strategy and policy statement should go some way to addressing this. However, in practice, these mechanisms are not as strong as the regulators’ own duties.
This amendment is therefore essential to give the regulator the necessary powers to make decisions that enable the required strategic anticipatory investment on the network. Ofgem will need to be empowered to make well-justified decisions that balance the interests of current and future transport and storage network users with delivering net zero.
That deals with Amendments 8 and 9. I now come to Amendments 14 and 16, which would ensure that all types of permanent storage are included. Of course, geological storage is not the only type of permanent storage of CO2. This can also be achieved by types of usage where the carbon dioxide is used in a way that it is chemically bound in a product and not intended to re-enter the atmosphere. As currently written, this clause allows only for geological storage, so this amendment is intended to recognise that there are other methods of permanent storage. However, it is important to qualify in this drafting that only carbon capture and usage where it is intended to be permanent—and therefore subject to monitoring and verification—can qualify for this.
It is worth noting that in other areas of the Bill a wider definition of storage is used, and the question could be asked: why are there different definitions for each clause of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could explain that in his reply. This amendment aligns with Clause 63(8), where the Bill defines “storage” as
“any storage with a view to the permanent containment of carbon dioxide.”
Would it therefore be possible to have a common definition of storage used throughout the Bill?
I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to these amendments and I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 14 and reiterate the question of why there may be inconsistent definitions of storage in the Bill.
In my time exploring carbon capture and storage over the years, I have become somewhat cynical about its ability to scale. The sheer cost of it and the presence of alternatives that may be cheaper and more secure mean that its role will be relatively limited. I am sure that it will play a role, but only if we enable it to be pursued in its widest possible senses. It is absolutely the case that you can store large volumes of carbon dioxide underground; we have aquifers and other underground storage facilities that could be used for this, including in the North Sea and on land, and we should explore those where they make sense. However, there are other mechanisms through which you can enable the use of other stored forms of carbon. Novel techniques are coming to market now involving plasma torches, which, applied to natural gas streams, deliver pure streams of hydrogen plus black carbon. That black carbon can then be used as a manufacturing commodity. Therefore, it would be foolish of us not to include that as a potential option. Similarly, CO2 is used as a binding agent in the production of building materials. In fact, currently the CO2 has to be bought at an extortionate rate, so using pure waste streams of CO2 for the production of building materials will again be a permanent form of storage and it should be supported in the Bill. I fully support this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I want briefly to reinforce the comments that have already been made. I wish to speak particularly in favour of Amendment 9, on the duty to assist in delivering net zero, and to Amendments 14, 15, 16 and 19; as has been argued clearly, having a consistent definition of storage throughout the Bill makes total sense.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I am very sceptical about the claims made about carbon capture and storage. Often, we see it used as a “get out of jail free” card: “We’ve got all the numbers and they don’t add up. We’ll just throw in a figure for carbon capture and storage to allow us to continue as we are”. That is clearly unviable. None the less, it makes a lot of sense to grab carbon emissions wherever they occur and use them in a constructive way.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 10. First, let me say that I very much agree with the drift of the debate so far, in that carbon capture, usage and storage has got a lot more real in the past few years—I give the Government credit as well—in terms of clusters and using carbon capture, primarily for industrial processes. What we should not be using it for is gas power stations that are CS-ready and which through carbon capture become much less efficient in their energy production. Clearly, we should be substituting gas and not using it in that way. The same absolutely goes for usage, where possible. I am sure that a lot of fizzy drinks and other such things use it as well.
In my Amendment 10, I am concerned that there should be in the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State. We should have transparency in the sector. What we are trying to do here is stop cross-subsidy between networks and network users. In many ways, this is a probing amendment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reaction on how we can keep these networks and markets transparent so that we can assess users, sectors and networks in their own right and avoid transfer charging or subsidy from one to the other without understanding whether there is a case for it.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, I want briefly to speak in support of my noble friends’ Amendments 8 and 9, which touch on some important issues that we ought to debate in this House.
To their credit, the Government have brought forward legislation that imposes significant duties on the Secretary of State and the economic regulator. I am sure that we all welcome those duties. However, when it comes to parts of the Bill that create general overriding obligations and purposes, it is important for the legislation to be drafted correctly and coherently, otherwise we create a rod for our own backs—not just for this Government but for future Governments as well. There is always a general case to be made for as much clarity as possible around how those duties and responsibilities are defined. My noble friends’ amendments will certainly help to do that.
I have a specific point to raise with the Minister, and I hope that he will be in a position to respond to it. Having looked at Clause 1 as a whole, the provisions that concern me the most are those in Clause 1(3). One of the duties that we are imposing on the Secretary of State and the regulator is to promote at all times a culture of competition between providers in this sector.
I want to raise a concern with the Minister. Carbon capture, storage and utilisation are huge process engineering challenges for British industry to rise to. I welcome very much the direction of travel that the Government have set out for testing and developing business models for CCUS projects; it is an incredibly important step. My only concern is that, although I am generally a very strong supporter of competition in markets, we can take that ideology too far and apply it in a context which probably will not secure the objectives that we have in mind. Over the next few years, I want to see a mobilisation of British industry, particularly the engineering companies in this country, so that they can come together and work on these projects. It will take that sort of collaborative approach, rather than an approach based purely on competition. If we can pursue that path, it will deliver more of a result over a shorter period than pursuing a purely orthodox, competition-based approach would.
I know that there is no specific amendment tabled to Clause 1(3) today, but I want to put a marker down because this is a general issue of principle. The question is simply this: how are we best placed to mobilise all of the amazing engineering resources that we will need in this country to meet our carbon capture, utilisation and storage targets if it is to be driven purely by competition as opposed to collaboration? If we pursue purely the competitive approach, I suspect that quite a lot of the jobs that the Government have talked about in the Explanatory Memorandum will not come to UK companies; they will go to Finland, Poland, Germany and other countries that are slightly further ahead of us in developing and applying some of the technologies that we will need. There is a general issue here that needs to be raised.
I should have declared an interest at the beginning of my remarks. I am the chairman of Energy UK, which represents the energy companies in the UK, and of Make UK, which represents all the engineering companies.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 11,12 and 13 in my name would all strengthen the relationship between Ministers and the economic regulator by insisting that the Secretary of State and the economic regulator are bound by the listed regulatory principles and the need to contribute to achieving sustainable development rather than just having regard to them. Further, they would oblige a Minister to be bound by their duties as a Minister, as opposed to just having regard for them. They would also require the economic regulator to be bound by the need to assist the Secretary of State, compliant with its duties and targets. It is not sufficient to have regard to these matters; it is important to be bound by them. Can the Minister say what “have regard to” means if not to be bound by them?
Amendments 15 and 16 espouse that the Bill does not specifically include carbon capture usage. To add to the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, in January 2021, the major US oil company Chevron announced that it had made investments in the San Jose-based corporation Blue Planet Systems—then a start-up—which manufactures and develops carbon aggregates and carbon capture technology intended to reduce the carbon intensity of industrial operations. Blue Planet Systems manufactures carbon-based building aggregate from flue-gas-captured CO2. These amendments aim to encourage the use of captured carbon as opposed to its storage.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this short debate. Addressing the amendments in turn, I will start with Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who is very conciliatory today—I am suspicious; something has happened to him over the summer, but I am sure that we will get the old noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, back before we get much further into the debate.
This amendment seeks to amend the principal objective applying to the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority in respect of consumer protections. Under the current drafting of this principal objective, it is for the Secretary of State or the economic regulator to protect the interests of consumers who they consider may be affected by regulatory decisions. This drafting is intended to ensure that the economic regulator and Secretary of State have discretion as to the consumer impacts that are taken into account. While the noble Lord’s and the noble Baroness’s amendment is intended to ensure that only actual or likely impacts are taken into account, we consider that the existing drafting already provides for this. Therefore, I submit that the amendment is unnecessary.
I turn next to Amendment 9, which is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, joined on this occasion by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The amendment as drafted would place an additional principal objective on the Secretary of State and the economic regulator to assist in the delivery of the net-zero objective. I know that we have had this discussion on a number of Bills, but I will reiterate that, under the Climate Change Act 2008, the Secretary of State is already bound by law to ensure that the targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are met.
Under Clause 1(6), the economic regulator is required to have regard to the need to assist the Secretary of State in complying with his duties to achieve carbon emissions reduction targets and to have regard to these targets in each of the devolved Administrations. I therefore submit that the economic regulator is already required to take these net-zero targets into account in its regulatory determinations.
Next, I turn to Amendment 10, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This amendment seeks to ensure that cross-subsidy of carbon dioxide transport and storage activities, from users of other networks, is avoided. Clause 1 of the Bill establishes the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority as the economic regulator of carbon dioxide transport and storage. It also establishes the principal objectives and general duties for the Secretary of State and the economic regulator in the exercise of their respective functions in relation to the economic regulation of carbon dioxide transport and storage.
The principal objectives in Clause 1 include protecting the interests of current and future users of the network and those of consumers. In relation to the regulation of gas and electricity, the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority remain bound by the principal objectives to, respectively, protect the interests of current and future consumers in relation to gas conveyed through pipes, and in relation to electricity conveyed by distribution systems. Different principal objectives are appropriate to reflect that the objectives for carbon dioxide transport and storage networks are different from those of the gas and electricity networks.
Under the provisions in the Bill, the economic regulator should be able to take into account, in its decision-making in relation to CO2 transport and storage activities, any impacts on users of gas and electricity networks that may arise from those decisions. I hope that the noble Lord is sufficiently reassured on this point.
I move on to Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. This seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority are bound by the principles of regulatory best practice and the need to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Clause 1 sets out the principal objectives and general duties of the Secretary of State and the economic regulator. The principal objectives are complemented by statutory duties on the Secretary of State and the economic regulator to have regard to certain matters. This includes having regard to principles of regulatory best practice and the need to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. To have regard to these matters means that the Secretary of State or the economic regulator, as the case may be, must give genuine attention and thought to these matters.
In a complex sector with varying objectives that can sometimes conflict, it is important that the regulator’s duties strike the right balance between setting out all relevant issues and considerations, while giving some necessary discretion to the regulator to balance those considerations in its decision-making process and to have sufficient authority and independence in that decision-making. I hope that explains the point for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie.
The formulation of the statutory duty as proposed by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in our view risks compromising what is quite a delicate balance. The greater the number of statutory duties, and the more binding their nature, the more difficult the act of balancing the different, possibly conflicting, duties becomes. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance.
Amendments 12 and 13, again from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, also seek to amend the statutory duties applying to the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to ensure that the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 are a binding consideration in regulatory determinations. In relation to Amendment 12, as I have already set out, under the Climate Change Act the Secretary of State is already bound by law to ensure that the targets to reduce emissions are met. We therefore do not consider that this amendment is necessary.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I have a point of clarification. Are the definitions different because regulation over transportation is not needed or is the Minister saying, “We have picked a winner. It is going to be storage through this mechanism and we are not interested in the innovation that is coming through in these other sources of permanent storage.”? If it is the latter, I would find that very hard to understand in a Bill that is seeking to support new technologies.
I think it is the case—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned it—that there is a company in the UK already doing this, with limited support from government. It can scale. It is not a silver bullet by any means but there is not a single operational carbon capture and storage facility in the UK apart from that one, and yet the Bill does not seem interested in supporting it. I would like to understand: if the Government is interested in supporting new technologies, can we make that as broad as possible?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Bill is intended to establish an economic means of support for geological formation. Of course, I commend the company referred to by the noble Baroness, which is managing to find ways of—I hope—permanently storing carbon dioxide in a form other than geological formation; indeed, there are other potential support mechanisms that could be deployed towards that. There is lots of research and development funding through UKRI and there is a whole range of other advanced technologies that we are supporting. In this case, in relation to economic regulation, the market mechanism that we want to set up on CCUS is dedicated principally towards geological long-term storage; we think that is the area that needs support under this system. That would provide the vast majority of storage that we can envisage at the moment but, of course, we are always willing to consider other methods. If this company is proving to be a success, that is great and I would be very happy to look at alternative ways of supporting it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I hope the Minister does not think I have gone soft—heaven forbid. It may be that I am not putting my foot on the pedal at the moment because of the reshuffle that is under way. I would like to see the Minister back so that we can re-engage in our usual hostilities, which we both enjoy. His reply has been very full but it needs careful consideration, looking at what he said in more detail in Hansard and discussing it among ourselves; I will discuss it with my noble friend Lady Liddell. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has made some very good points that need to be taken account of. I hope that the Minister will continue discussions with the Carbon Capture and Storage Association about the points that it has been making. In view of the further discussions that might take place, I am willing to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the existing regulatory regime, namely the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010, which provides for the granting of geological storage licences by the Oil and Gas Authority (now the North Sea Transition Authority). This amendment would enable private operators to develop merchant models to transport and store carbon dioxide in the longer term. This will also enable cross-border transport and geological storage of carbon dioxide to develop in time, without having to rely on exemptions being granted to allow private networks to develop.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is me again. In moving Amendment 17, I shall speak also to Amendments 18, 20 and 26.
Amendment 17 would create a licensing regime fit for the future because it would ensure that there was the necessary consistency with the existing regulatory regime—the granting of geological storage licences by the Oil and Gas Authority, now the North Sea Transition Authority, under the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010—and that it did not operate in isolation.
The amendment would future-proof the regulatory system by enabling private operators to develop merchant models to transport and store carbon dioxide in the longer term. That would enable cross-border transport and geological storage of carbon dioxide to develop in time without having to rely on exemptions being granted to allow private networks to develop.
Designing a new licensing regime to develop successful at-scale transport and storage networks for CCUS is challenging, and the industry welcomes the Government’s rapid work to develop that in the Bill. As we have seen in other regulated industries, the first licences awarded are likely to be very different from those awarded a few years down the line, and the economics of the technology and market drivers will change too. Ofgem, as the economic regulator, will therefore need to amend and refine licences as necessary and collaborate with other regulators, such as the NSTA, which is already able to award licences to operators to store CO2 under the Energy Act 2008.
If a merchant arrangement developed where a CO2 store was run privately outside of the regulated network, would that not be something to encourage, provided that the safety of the CO2 stored was regulated as it is presently by the NSTA? It would be sensible for the legislative framework to be sufficiently flexible to facilitate that.
The United Kingdom has significant geological assets, with one-third of Europe’s entire offshore CO2 storage potential. That is equal to that of all the other EU states combined; in Europe, only Norway has more. This enormous potential to offer CO2 storage services to European and other countries presents the opportunity for the UK to become a global leader in CCUS, as it should be, and accelerate the global efforts to prevent CO2 emissions. The legislative framework should avoid any future barriers to cross-border transportation of CO2.
Amendment 18 would ensure that all types of permanent storage were included in the Bill. As with Amendments 14 and 16, I repeat that geological storage is not the only type of permanent storage of CO2. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, it can also be achieved by types of usage where the carbon dioxide is chemically bound in a product and not intended to re-enter the atmosphere. The Bill as it is currently written allows only for geological storage, so the amendment is intended to recognise that there are other methods of permanent storage. However, it is important to qualify in this drafting that it applies only to carbon capture and usage where it is intended to be permanent and therefore subject to monitoring and verification.
Amendment 20 specifically includes other modes of transporting carbon dioxide, such as shipping. The pipeline will be the primary form of transporting CO2 but other modes of transport, including ship and rail, are already being developed in the UK and in other jurisdictions. The Bill must therefore be designed in such a way as to not limit future modes of CO2 transportation. CO2 transport by ship is almost certain to be part of the Scottish and south Wales clusters—the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is here today—and subsequent phases of other CCUS clusters.
The amendment would ensure that transportation by ship and all other means of transport were included in the Bill rather than leaving their inclusion to regulations. That would send a strong and positive signal to the investment community that there were no barriers to the UK’s development as a global CO2 shipping hub.
Amendment 26 is a point of clarification to ensure that if a licence termination event has arisen, the Secretary of State has the discretion to revoke the licence, as opposed to the current wording, which suggests that it would happen automatically. New regimes need a wee bit of flexibility, particularly when they are bedding down. The right—rather than the obligation—to terminate is a useful formulation when facing first-of-a-kind situations. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 23 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie—who, of course, by the nature of these structures has not yet spoken on it—and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds. I attached my name only to Amendment 23 but Amendments 27 and 35 form something of a package; they all express concern about requiring regulation so that licences must be only
“granted to fit and proper persons”.
As I was contemplating these amendments, I thought of the Oral Question earlier today in which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb took part, which looked at the situation we have now with the water companies in the UK. There is an obvious parallel with the crucial nature of the water companies and their fit and proper behaviour—and, without reopening that debate, their use of resources et cetera. If we are to go forward with carbon capture and storage at scale, it is obviously crucial that it is absolutely trustworthy and reliable, including in financial terms. We are talking about long-term investments for which we need real stability and certainty. The other parallel that occurred to me in contemplating this group was what happened with carbon offsetting—a phrase that has a bad odour in many parts of the world where we have seen a great deal of cowboy behaviour and many problems occurring.
Putting in this explicit “fit and proper persons” test, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, explained, is drawn from the National Security and Investment Act, is a very good parallel. If we are to securely store this carbon for the long term, in a manner that means the state does not have to step in to try to clean up a mess left by a private company, this is one way of attempting to ensure that that happens.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to contribute on this set of amendments. I add my admiration and support for my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who has stepped into the breach admirably in the unfortunate absence of my noble friend Lady Liddell. I very much look forward to her return. I also add my thanks to the Minister for giving us time today to discuss this very important Bill; I think all of us recognise its significance at this time. Without reopening the debate from Second Reading, it is clear to us all that there are gaps. We need to take the opportunity to fill those gaps, given the state of crisis that the country is entering.
I want to speak to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lennie, starting with Amendments 21 and 22. They seek to make it clear that a licence can be granted for transportation or storage, or both if wanted, but that a licence need not be granted for everything. The activities that Clause 7 relates to are
“(a) operating a site for the disposal of carbon dioxide by way of geological storage; (b) providing a service of transporting carbon dioxide by a licensable means of transportation”.
We have to acknowledge the importance of this section of the Bill. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee has referred to all of this area as a necessity, not an option, particularly as we move forward and technologies improve. As drafted, the Bill provides a single licence for both but, given that they are separate activities, we see no reason why individual licences could not be provided for each activity—even if it may be the case that most of the persons carrying out these activities carry out both.
A broad portfolio of technologies is needed to achieve deep emissions reductions, practically and cost effectively; carbon capture and storage is just one of them. In the International Energy Agency’s sustainable development scenario, in which
“global CO2 emissions from the energy sector fall to zero on a net basis by 2070”
carbon capture and storage
“accounts for nearly 15% of the cumulative reduction in emissions, compared with the Stated Policies Scenario. The contribution grows over time as the technology improves, costs fall and cheaper abatement options in some sectors are exhausted. In 2070, 10.4 Gt of CO2 is captured from across the energy sector”.
This would provide more flexibility for a developing market, with the intention of driving down price within it.
We have already heard just how expensive carbon capture is and how, despite its importance for achieving clean energy, it has been rather slow to take off. According to the IEA, there were only around 20 commercial operations worldwide midway through last year. Commentators often cite carbon capture as being too expensive and unable to compete with wind and solar, given their falling costs over the last decade, but to dismiss the technology on cost grounds would be to ignore its unique strengths, its competitiveness in key sectors and its potential to enter the mainstream of low-carbon solutions. I am pleased that the Government have not done this. However, as we have made clear, we feel that not enough attention has been given to solar and onshore wind, in particular. It is important that we take whatever steps we can to make the market as attractive as possible and encourage licensing from fit and proper persons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has already spoken to the next set of amendments, particularly Amendment 23. We feel that the phrase “fit and proper”, having already had a usage in the National Security and Investment Act, is something that we should take very seriously. The aim of these amendments is to put the responsibility on the Secretary of State to personally deem the individual fit and proper.
Perhaps the greatest concern that we have to acknowledge is the environmental risk associated with long-term storage of captured CO2, as any gradual or catastrophic leakage would likely negate the initial environmental benefits of capturing and storing CO2 emissions. It is worth itemising those key risks, just so that we have them on record. First, there are technical hazards: we know that the construction of plants needed to capture and process CO2 can be complex. Whether for new facilities or retrofitting and enabling the separation of CO2 from other gases, there are inherent technical exposures in the CO2 separation process relating to the compression and cooling of gases flying through pipes and the use of chemical solvents, for instance.
Secondly, on fire and explosion, as we know, there are lifting, handling and accidental damage risks at carbon capture plants, as is the case at any construction site. When carbon-capture technology is retrofitted to operate in industrial plants or facilities in typically high-hazard locations such as power stations, the risk of accidental damage and subsequent fire and explosion risks to existing assets might be enhanced. As I have stated, the risk of leakage must clearly be the subject of much consideration as we go forward.
Business interruption is another risk that we have to acknowledge in the failure to meet the carbon goals as they are laid out. Pure carbon dioxide gas can be compressed so that it reaches its dense and supercritical phase. In some cases, it can instead be cooled, which transforms it into a liquid state. Mechanical failures or breakdowns affecting this stage of the process could lead to lengthy business interruptions for clients. If the captured CO2 cannot be transported, this may affect the emissions targets and carbon credits committed to by clients. Therefore, the need to look at all proper precautions is absolutely vital, and the persons tasked with doing this need to have the confidence of the whole sector.
Amendment 24, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lennie, would make regulations related to carbon dioxide transport and storage licence applications subject to the affirmative procedure. Surely it is sensible that Parliament has a full say in any regulations to ensure that licensing is done both to encourage carbon capture and storage and to ensure that it is properly safeguarded.
We have to see this in the context of an enormous possibility to create significant numbers of jobs—the estimate is 50,000 by as soon as 2030—across industry, power, transport and storage networks. It is absolutely essential that the confidence is there and that all the people who will be engaged in the work we intend to do are properly protected wherever possible.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments considers the licensing of carbon dioxide transport and storage, and I thank everyone for their contributions. I will speak to Amendment 25, in my name, which relates to the definition of “decommissioning costs”. Carbon dioxide transport and storage licence holders will be expected to establish decommissioning funds for each of their transport and storage networks. These funds will accrue money over the operational life of the network to pay for the expected offshore decommissioning and post-closure costs associated with the network.
As originally drafted, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about the provision of security for decommissioning in relation to carbon storage installations. This is to ensure that regulations could require relevant persons to provide security for costs that reflect the full range of decommissioning obligations that arise in relation to carbon transportation and storage activities.
Regulations will provide the framework for how the decommissioning funds are to ensure that the funding is secure and available when it is required to pay for the decommissioning and post-closure obligations. The costs are likely to be those associated with the obligations that the licence holder will have under the permit, which could include costs associated with preparatory works between closure and the commencement of decommissioning activities and post-closure monitoring.
As noble Lords will be aware, a series of amendments has been tabled relating to the financing of the decommissioning of carbon storage assets, and I look forward to the forthcoming debate on those amendments. Should our amendments be accepted to apply these decommissioning fund powers to the new defined term “decommissioning costs”, explained in Amendment 70, the previous definition of “decommissioning and legacy costs” becomes redundant and should therefore be omitted from Clause 11.
I will move on to the amendments tabled by noble Lords in this group. Amendment 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, seeks to amend the scope of the prohibition on operating a CO2 transport and storage network without an economically regulated licence. Although there is an existing framework for the licensing of carbon dioxide storage activities, established under the Energy Act 2008, that Act provides for technical regulation to ensure the secure geological storage of carbon dioxide. It therefore does not provide any powers in relation to economic regulation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Perhaps I may come back to Amendment 27 and the associated amendments about a “fit and proper person”. Throughout his response, the Minister referred to the granting and awarding of licences at the initial point. However, Amendment 27 is concerned in particular with the transferring of licences. I drew a parallel with our water companies. Most of those have been through multiple ownerships, including hedge funds and companies based in overseas tax havens, et cetera. These companies have a similar nature and have been operated through continual financial transactions and financialisation. Could the Minister comment, either now or in writing, on how the Government see that ongoing process? Okay, you have checked out the person and granted a licence, but then, in a year or two’s time, the company might be bought by someone else and then again by someone else, including companies that may be very unclear. How will the Government keep control?
Lord Callanan (Con)
If the licence is transferred to another body, it will also have to be approved under the same process. You cannot just wake up in the morning and decide to transfer your legal obligations to somebody else who is not an appropriate, fit and proper person. So, of course, that will be taken into consideration.
I must say that the noble Baroness is wrong to provide the parallel with the existing water companies. I do not think that anybody is arguing that people who hold those licences are not fit and proper to do the job. There is a legitimate argument about levels of investment and how that money is being spent, et cetera. However, no one is arguing about their competence; the noble Baroness is trying to draw a very bad parallel there.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for not understanding some of this, because it has raised a number of questions in my mind. If the CO2 is put, say, under the sea—as we have been talking about—who actually owns the CO2 once it has gone there? Who is liable for it and who has the legal right to the storage area itself? Given that most of these are created from the oil and gas that has been extracted, does that belong to the lease of the fossil fuel company that extracted them and does that last for ever? I do not understand how this works and where the liabilities land.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, if an organisation says, “I don’t want to do this any more”, there is no obligation for anybody else to take it on—so there will be a legal limbo. Perhaps the Minister could explain how this licensing works within that context. It seems to me that the Crown Estate will come into this somewhere, but maybe the Minister could enlighten me. I apologise again, because I should know the answer to all of these questions.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to confirm the legal detail of the system to the noble Lord in writing, but my understanding is that the operator of the site would bear the responsibility. That is precisely why we have built in the relative decommissioning costs. The fund will have to be established and the operator will have to show that the ability is there to decommission the relevant pipe work, et cetera. I assume that that assurance and other long-term effects will also be built into that condition, but I will be very happy to confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I say first of all that I agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Blake said in her excellent speech, particularly that she is looking forward to the return of my noble friend Lady Liddell—so am I. After all, on this issue she is the master and I am the apprentice, as has been fairly obvious today.
The Minister has again given us a very detailed and helpful reply. However, what worries me slightly is that I still think it strange that those involved in the commercial operation of this—the CCSA members and the CCSA itself—have different interpretations of the draft of the Bill from the officials advising the Minister. I hope that, between now and Report, there can be some discussions to see whether all those in the industry accept the Minister’s explanations today. Otherwise, we can look forward to further amendments on Report. In the meantime, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 72, line 25.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to correct a misspelling of SEPA’s name.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, noble Lords will be glad to hear that this is my last contribution today. I hope fervently that the Minister will at last accept one amendment that I have proposed—Amendment 28, which I now move. In reference to SEPA, the Bill says “Environmental”, but in fact that is a typographical error and it should say “Environment”. We should get the name of SEPA right. If the Minister does not accept that, I shall be astonished, disappointed and upset in every way.
Amendments 29 to 31 and 37 are more substantial. They deal with the protection of commercially sensitive information. It is important to establish a framework for the licence holder to seek to protect commercially sensitive information, which may be monitored, gathered or requested by the regulator. Amendment 29 seeks to allow CO2 transport and storage licence holders to raise concerns regarding protecting potentially commercially sensitive information to be shared with the regulator. It is of particular importance given the long list of persons included in Clause 26(2), as well as the unspecified group of persons under Clause 26(2)(m), which refers to
“any other person the economic regulator considers appropriate who has powers or duties conferred by or by virtue of primary legislation which the economic regulator considers relevant to the exercise of the economic regulator’s functions relating to the regulation of licensable activities.”
That is a big catch-all clause.
Amendment 30, along with Amendment 28, relates to information held by the regulator and seeks to establish a framework for the licence holder to seek to protect commercially sensitive information, which may be monitored, gathered or requested by the regulator or the Secretary of State. The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State will be able to determine that commercially sensitive information can be excepted from the duty to disclose under the power of the Secretary of State to require information in Clause 27.
Amendment 31 mirrors the same protection on information required by the regulator as outlined for the Secretary of State in the legislation, with regard to the licensing of CO2 transport and storage networks. In addition, a new subsection is proposed to establish a framework for the licence holder to protect its commercially sensitive information, as proposed in the previous amendments.
Amendment 32 is relevant to the regulator’s duty to carry out an impact assessment. It ensures that the regulator must act reasonably when determining that it is not necessary to carry out an impact assessment due to reasons of impracticability or inappropriateness. This is important, as a definition of “urgently” is not provided—nor of “impracticability” or “inappropriateness”. Naturally, there would be a presumption that the regulator would act reasonably. However, inclusion of the word here should provide comfort in this regard.
Amendment 37 seeks to establish a framework for the licence holder to seek to protect commercially sensitive information. As I have previously stated, that is of particular importance, given the long list of persons included in the clause to which I referred earlier. I beg to move Amendment 28.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I hate to disappoint him on any occasion, so I shall say something unprecedented, which, as far as I am aware, has never been said in this House before: on this specific and limited occasion, the noble Lord is right on this point. I can say with the full force of the Government behind me that we are prepared to accept his Amendment 28, and I thank the noble Lord for pointing out this typographical error.
I move on to the noble Lord’s more substantial amendments, Amendment 29 to 31 and 37, for which I thank him and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell. These amendments aim to set out further detail on the economic licence for the transport and storage of carbon dioxide. In particular, they concern the protection of a licence holder’s commercially sensitive information from certain disclosure requirements contained in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. These provisions, as drafted, enable the Secretary of State and the economic regulator to access information that is necessary for the conduct of their functions. It may be appropriate in some cases for the economic regulator to provide such information to relevant regulatory bodies or entities on which powers or duties have been conferred by legislation, such as the counterparty to the emitter contracts, or to obtain relevant information from those entities to ensure that decision-making is robust and takes into account all relevant considerations. Meanwhile, provision has been made in Clauses 26 and 27 to confirm that appropriate data protection requirements would continue to apply.
The noble Lord can be reassured, I hope, that these provisions were not drafted to facilitate any widespread publication of commercially sensitive information but to enable robust, informed decision-making. Further, the powers limit information requests to those which the economic regulator or Secretary of State consider necessary to facilitate the proper exercise of their functions.
Amendment 32, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, seeks to ensure that the economic regulator must reasonably consider whether the urgency of a matter makes it impracticable or inappropriate to carry out and publish an impact assessment for major proposals, or to make a statement as to why it is unnecessary for it to do so. Under current drafting of the Bill, it is where the economic regulator is minded to pursue a proposal which could have a significant impact on licence holders, persons engaged in activities associated with licensable activities, or on the general public or the environment. In such instances, the economic regulator is required to carry out and publish an assessment of the likely impact of implementing the proposal, or to confirm that it considers it unnecessary to carry out an assessment, with the reasons being given for this conclusion. This requirement does not apply if it appears to the economic regulator that it would be impractical or inappropriate, given the urgency of the matter to which the proposal relates.
In some situations, the urgency of the proposal would make it impractical for the economic regulator either to conduct the impact assessment before implementing a proposal or to publish a statement explaining why an assessment would be unnecessary. We think that it is important that the economic regulator is empowered to act swiftly without the need to produce such documentation in the unlikely event that that need arises.
I hope that I have been able to offer sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord in respect of the requirement for the economic regulator to conduct an impact assessment where required before implementing a major proposal, except in the limited situation of potential urgency or emergency. Therefore, with the reassurances that I have provided him, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw or not press all his amendments, except for Amendment 28, which we accept.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting and agreeing to Amendment 28. I can assure him that I will not let that go to my head, but I will keep on trying with other amendments. I listened carefully to his explanation in relation to the other amendments. I understand what he is saying and I think it is right, so I will not pursue them.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 30, line 28, and New Schedule (Enforcement of obligations of licence holders) provide for the enforcement of obligations of licence holders and accordingly omit the powers in clause 32 to make corresponding provision by regulations.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 33 I will also speak to Amendments 34 and 36 standing in my name. These amendments seek to amend Clause 32, concerning the enforcement of obligations of licence holders in the carbon dioxide transport and storage sector.
Clause 32, as drafted at introduction, establishes a delegated power for the Secretary of State to make, by regulations, the conditions of a carbon dioxide transport and storage licence enforceable by the economic regulator. In particular, this clause as originally drafted stipulates that regulations may provide that both the conditions within licences and notices served on the licence holder to provide information to the economic regulator may be enforced in the manner provided for in Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989. However, Amendments 33, 34 and 36 would instead provide for the necessary enforcement measures in the Bill.
The powers available to the economic regulator to enforce licensable carbon dioxide transport and storage activities are intended to align broadly with enforcement powers in the gas and electricity sectors. However, in our view, setting out these powers in the primary legislation, which establishes the new economic regulation and licensing framework for carbon dioxide transport and storage, provides greater clarity for both the regulator and those who are to be regulated. This will remove any potential for debate regarding the different principal objectives and general duties that the economic regulator would be subject to when exercising these powers and the territorial extent of such powers.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that this further clarity and separation will serve to effectively enable the economic regulator to take appropriate action against any breach of the CO2 transport and storage licence conditions and in the event of non-compliance with information requests. Appropriate enforcement powers are essential to ensure that the licensing framework operates as intended, to ensure that licence conditions are adhered to and to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. This amendment to provide the economic regulator with complete powers for enforcement would therefore further secure its ability to support the establishment of the UK’s CCUS industry. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome very much that we have moved on to the area of enforcement because, if there is one thing that is true in anything to do with the environment, we make legislation—very effectively, often—but our enforcement does not work, because of either lack of will or lack of resources.
I would like assurance from the Minister, if possible, that the regulator will be resourced enough—I would be interested to know what conversations have taken place over this—to make sure that enforcement does take place. Of course, for enforcement to happen, particularly in physical facilities, there needs to be inspection. I would be interested in understanding who will be inspecting and what the resource level is likely to be.
I come back to a very good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, on safety, which was not answered by the Minister earlier. CO2, although not toxic like carbon monoxide, is a gas that, if exposed, can be suffocating. I would like to understand how enforcement on subsea storage facilities can take place.
Enforcement is good, but my questions are these: how will it be resourced, what is the programme for it and can it happen sufficiently to ensure safety?
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments appear to correct an oversight in the Bill. If noble Lords are confused then so am I. I am not entirely sure what the Minister was saying, but it appears to me that there was a stage missing in the original drafting of this Bill and the attempt now is to put in that stage—which is, in effect, a final warning to licence holders to act in specific ways in order to become compliant. If that is right, then I understand it and I do not oppose it, but I want to make sure that I understand correctly what the Government are trying to do. If I am right then, other than to point out the original omission, we do not oppose these measures; we just want clarification of what is being put into the Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to provide the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asks for. It was simply a matter where, originally, we intended to take a power to do this through secondary legislation but, as we got to a later stage of drafting on the Bill, we thought that it would be more appropriate to put it in primary legislation. That is normally something that the House asks us to do. We were, on this occasion, trying to pre-empt some of the points that may be made by Peers to say that we should not do so much under powers and secondary legislation and should put it in the Bill—that is in fact what we are doing.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on resourcing, it is very early days—we have not even set up the regulator yet—so I cannot give him any specific figures on what resourcing the regulator will have. The Treasury will no doubt want to have considerable input into this, but we will want to make sure that it is appropriately resourced and that we have the appropriate technical abilities, technical inspectors and so on to make sure that this activity is appropriately licensed and enforced and, of course, is safe for operators, personnel and the public.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 30, line 25.
Lord Callanan
“ScheduleEnforcement of obligations of licence holdersOrders for securing compliance with certain provisions
(1) Where the economic regulator is satisfied that a licence holder is contravening, or is likely to contravene, any relevant condition or requirement, the economic regulator must make an order (a “final order”) containing such provision as appears to the economic regulator to be necessary for the purpose of securing compliance with that condition or requirement (but this sub-paragraph does not apply if the economic regulator is required to by sub-paragraph (2) to make a provisional order in respect of the contravention or likely contravention).(2) Where it appears to the economic regulator—(a) that a licence holder is contravening, or is likely to contravene, any relevant condition or requirement, and(b) that it is appropriate to make an order under this sub-paragraph,the economic regulator must (instead of taking steps towards the making of final order) make an order (a “provisional order”) containing such provision as appears to the economic regulator to be necessary for the purpose of securing compliance with that condition or requirement.(3) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b) whether it is appropriate to make a provisional order, the economic regulator must have regard, in particular, to the extent to which any person is likely to sustain loss or damage in consequence of anything that is likely to be done (or omitted to be done) in contravention of the relevant condition or requirement before a final order may be made.(4) The economic regulator must confirm a provisional order, with or without modifications, if—(a) the economic regulator is satisfied that the licence holder is contravening, or is likely to contravene, any relevant condition or requirement, and(b) the provision made by the order (with any modifications) is necessary for the purpose of securing compliance with that condition or requirement.(5) If a provisional order is not previously confirmed under sub-paragraph (4), it is to cease to have effect at the end of such period (not exceeding three months) as is determined by or under the order.(6) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) are subject to sub-paragraphs (7) to (9) and paragraph 2. (7) The economic regulator—(a) must, before making a final order or making or confirming a provisional order, consider whether it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998 (see section 37);(b) must not make a final order, or make or confirm a provisional order, if the economic regulator considers that it would be more appropriate to proceed under that Act.(8) The economic regulator may not make a final order or make or confirm a provisional order if the economic regulator is satisfied that the duties imposed on the economic regulator by section 1 preclude the making or, as the case may be, the confirmation of the order.(9) The economic regulator is not required to make a final order or make or confirm a provisional order if it is satisfied—(a) that the licence holder has agreed to take and is taking all such steps as appear to the economic regulator to be for the time being appropriate for the purpose of securing or facilitating compliance with the condition or requirement in question, or(b) that the contraventions were, or the apprehended contraventions are, of a trivial nature.(10) Where the economic regulator decides that it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998 or is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (8) and (9), the economic regulator must—(a) give notice to the licence holder that the economic regulator has so decided or is so satisfied, and(b) publish a copy of the notice in such manner as the economic regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them.(11) A final or provisional order—(a) must require the licence holder (according to the circumstances of the case) to do, or not to do, such things as are specified in the order or are of a description so specified,(b) must take effect at such time as is determined by or under the order, which must be the earliest practicable time, and(c) may be revoked at any time by the economic regulator.(12) In this Schedule—“final order” means an order under sub-paragraph (1);“provisional order” means an order under sub-paragraph (2);“relevant condition” , in relation to a licence holder, means any condition of any licence (as defined in section 7) held by that person;“relevant requirement” , in relation to a licence holder, means any requirement imposed on the licence holder by or under this Part.Procedural requirements
2 (1) Before making a final order or confirming a provisional order, the economic regulator must give notice—(a) stating that the economic regulator proposes to make or confirm the order and setting out its effect,(b) stating—(i) the relevant condition or requirement,(ii) the acts or omissions which, in the economic regulator’s opinion, constitute or would constitute contraventions of it, and (iii) the other facts which, in the economic regulator’s opinion, justify the making or confirmation of the order, and(c) specifying the time (which must not be less than 21 days from the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections to the proposed order or confirmation of the order may be made,and must consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.(2) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) is given—(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the economic regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them, and(b) by sending a copy of the notice, and a copy of the proposed order or of the order proposed to be confirmed, to the licence holder.(3) The economic regulator must not make a final order with modifications, or confirm a provisional order with modifications, except with the consent of the licence holder or after complying with the requirements of sub-paragraph (4).(4) The requirements are that the economic regulator must—(a) give to the licence holder such notice as the economic regulator considers necessary of the economic regulator’s proposal to make or confirm the order with modifications,(b) specify the time (which must not be less than 21 days from the date of the service of the notice) within which representations or objections to the proposed modifications may be made, and(c) consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.(5) Where the economic regulator decides to proceed under the Competition Act 1998 in a case falling within paragraph 1(7)(b), the economic regulator must—(a) inform the licence holder concerned of that decision, and(b) publish the notice in a manner that the economic regulator thinks appropriate for bringing the notice to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the decision.(6) Before revoking a final order or a provisional order which has been confirmed, the economic regulator must give notice—(a) stating that the economic regulator proposes to revoke the order and setting out its effect, and(b) specifying the time (which must not be less than 28 days) from the date of publication of the notice within which representations or objections to the proposed revocation may be made,and must consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.(7) A notice under sub-paragraph (6) is given—(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the economic regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them, and(b) by sending a copy of the notice to the licence holder.(8) As soon as practicable after a final order is made or a provisional order is made or confirmed, the economic regulator must— (a) serve a copy of the order on the licence holder, and(b) publish such a copy in such manner as the economic regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the order to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.Validity and effect of orders
(1) If the licence holder is aggrieved by a final or provisional order and wishes to question its validity on the ground that the making or confirmation of it was not within the powers of paragraph 1, or that any of the requirements of paragraph 2 have not been complied with in relation to it, the licence holder may within 42 days from the date of service on the licence holder of a copy of the order make an application to the court under this paragraph.(2) On any such application the court, if satisfied that the making or confirmation of the order was not within those powers or that the interests of the licence holder have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with those requirements, may quash the order or any provision of the order.(3) Except as provided by this paragraph, the validity of a final or provisional order may not be questioned by any legal proceedings whatever.(4) The obligation to comply with a final or provisional order is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of it.(5) Where a duty is owed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) to any person any breach of the duty which causes that person to sustain loss or damage is to be actionable at the suit or instance of that person.(6) In any proceedings brought against any person in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5), it is a defence for the person to prove that they took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid contravening the order.(7) Without prejudice to any right which any person may have by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) to bring civil proceedings in respect of any contravention or apprehended contravention of a final or provisional order, compliance with any such order is to be enforceable by civil proceedings by the economic regulator for an injunction or interdict or for any other appropriate relief.(8) In this paragraph “the court” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the High Court;(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session.Penalties
(1) Where the economic regulator is satisfied that a licence holder has contravened or is contravening any relevant condition or requirement, the economic regulator may, subject to paragraph 6, impose on the licence holder a penalty of such amount as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.(2) Before imposing a penalty on a licence holder under sub-paragraph (1), the economic regulator must consider whether it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998.(3) The economic regulator must not impose a penalty on a licence holder under sub-paragraph (1) if it considers that it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998.(4) Before imposing a penalty on a licence holder under sub-paragraph (1) the economic regulator must give notice—(a) stating that it proposes to impose a penalty and the amount of the penalty proposed to be imposed,(b) setting out the relevant condition or requirement, (c) specifying the acts or omissions which, in the opinion of the economic regulator, constitute the contravention in question and the other facts which, in the opinion of the economic regulator, justify the imposition of a penalty and the amount of the penalty proposed, and(d) specifying the period (which must not be less than 21 days from the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed penalty may be made,and must consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.(5) Before varying any proposal stated in a notice under sub-paragraph (4)(a) the economic regulator must give notice—(a) setting out the proposed variation and the reasons for it, and(b) specifying the period (which must be at least 21 days from the date of publication of the notice) within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed variation may be made,and must consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.(6) As soon as practicable after imposing a penalty, the economic regulator must give notice—(a) stating that it has imposed a penalty on the licence holder and its amount,(b) setting out the relevant condition or requirement in question,(c) specifying the acts or omissions which, in the opinion of the economic regulator, constitute the contravention in question and the other facts which, in the opinion of the economic regulator, justify the imposition of the penalty and its amount, and(d) specifying a date, no earlier than the end of the period of 42 days from the date of service of the notice on the licence holder, by which the penalty is required to be paid.(7) The licence holder may, within 21 days of the date of service on the licence holder of a notice under sub-paragraph (6), make an application to the economic regulator for it to specify different dates by which different portions of the penalty are to be paid.(8) Any notice required to be given under this paragraph must be given—(a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the economic regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them, and(b) by serving a copy of the notice on the licence holder.(9) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 10 (maximum amount of penalty that may be imposed).(10) Any sums received by the economic regulator by way of penalty under this paragraph must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.Statement of policy with respect to penalties
5 (1) The economic regulator must prepare and publish a statement of policy with respect to the imposition of penalties and the determination of their amount.(2) In deciding whether to impose a penalty, and in determining the amount of any penalty, in respect of a contravention the economic regulator must have regard to its statement of policy most recently published at the time when the contravention occurred. (3) The economic regulator may revise its statement of policy and where it does so must publish the revised statement.(4) Publication under this paragraph must be in such manner as the economic regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters contained in the statement of policy to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them.(5) The economic regulator must undertake such consultation as it considers appropriate when preparing or revising its statement of policy.Time limits on the imposition of penalties
6 (1) Where no final or provisional order has been made in relation to a contravention, the economic regulator may not impose a penalty in respect of the contravention later than the end of the period of five years from the time of the contravention, unless before the end of that period—(a) the notice under paragraph 4(4) relating to the penalty is served on the licence holder under paragraph 4(8), or(b) a notice under section 29(2)(b) is served on the licence holder which specifies that the notice is served in connection with a concern on the part of the economic regulator that the licence holder may be contravening, or may have contravened, a relevant condition or requirement.(2) Where a final or provisional order has been made in relation to a contravention, the economic regulator may not impose a penalty in respect of the contravention unless the notice relating to the penalty under paragraph 4(4) was served on the licence holder under paragraph 4(8)—(a) within three months from the confirmation of the provisional order or the making of the final order, or(b) where the provisional order is not confirmed, within six months from the making of the provisional order.Interest and payment of instalments
7 (1) If the whole or any part of a penalty is not paid by the date by which it is required to be paid, the unpaid balance from time to time is to carry interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.(2) If an application is made under paragraph 4(7) in relation to a penalty, the penalty is not required to be paid until the application has been determined.(3) If the economic regulator grants an application under that sub-paragraph in relation to a penalty but any portion of the penalty is not paid by the date specified in relation to it by the economic regulator under that sub-paragraph, the economic regulator may where it considers it appropriate require so much of the penalty as has not already been paid to be paid immediately.Appeals against penalties
8 (1) If the licence holder on whom a penalty is imposed is aggrieved by—(a) the imposition of the penalty,(b) the amount of the penalty, or(c) the date by which the penalty is required to be paid, or the different dates by which different portions of the penalty are required to be paid,the licence holder may make an application to the court under this paragraph.(2) An application under sub-paragraph (1) must be made— (a) within 42 days from the date of service on the licence holder of a notice under paragraph 4(6), or(b) where the application relates to a decision of the economic regulator on an application by the licence holder under paragraph 4(7), within 42 days from the date the licence holder is notified of the decision.(3) On any such application, where the court considers it appropriate to do so in all the circumstances of the case and is satisfied of one or more of the grounds falling within sub-paragraph (4), the court—(a) may quash the penalty,(b) may substitute a penalty of such lesser amount as the court considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, or(c) in the case of an application under sub-paragraph (1)(c), may substitute for the date or dates imposed by the economic regulator an alternative date or dates.(4) The grounds falling within this sub-paragraph are—(a) that the imposition of the penalty was not within the power of the economic regulator under paragraph 4,(b) that any of the requirements of sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) or (8) of paragraph 4 have not been complied with in relation to the imposition of the penalty and the interests of the licence holder have been substantially prejudiced by the non-compliance, or(c) that it was unreasonable of the economic regulator to require the penalty imposed, or any portion of it, to be paid by the date or dates by which it was required to be paid.(5) If an application is made under this paragraph in relation to a penalty, the penalty is not required to be paid until the application has been determined.(6) Where the court substitutes a penalty of a lesser amount it may require the payment of interest on the substituted penalty at such rate, and from such date, as it considers just and equitable.(7) Where the court specifies, as a date by which the penalty or a portion of the penalty is to be paid, a date before the determination of the application under this paragraph it may require the payment of interest on the penalty, or portion, from that date at such rate as it considers just and equitable.(8) Except as provided by this paragraph, the validity of a penalty is not to be questioned by any legal proceedings whatever.(9) In this paragraph “the court” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court, and(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session.Recovery of penalties
9 Where a penalty imposed under paragraph 4(1), or any portion of it, has not been paid by the date on which it is required to be paid and—(a) no application relating to the penalty has been made under paragraph 8 during the period within which such an application can be made, or(b) an application has been made under that paragraph and determined,the economic regulator may recover from the licence holder, as a civil debt due to it, any of the penalty and any interest which has not been paid.Maximum amount of penalty
10 (1) The maximum amount of penalty that may be imposed on a licence holder in respect of a contravention may not exceed 10 per cent of the licence holder's turnover.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for how a person's turnover is to be determined for the purposes of this paragraph.(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) are subject to the affirmative procedure.(4) In this paragraph “penalty” means a penalty imposed on a licence holder under paragraph 4.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 30, line 25.
Lord Teverson
“(1A) When making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must also publish an explanation of how revenue support mechanisms deliver in line with the CCUS Strategy and Policy Statement and the overall Strategy and Policy Statement, and how milestones relate to net zero pathways set out by the Climate Change Committee.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that policy processes are aligned with the Government’s Strategy and Policy Statement.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I asked specifically that all these amendments be grouped together because they have one aim: to make sure that there is a coherence between policy measures and the net zero pathway that is the Government’s own aim. Of course, the Government have undertaken to produce a government strategy and policy statement and the Bill requires a statement focusing on CCUS to be produced as well. However, our contention is that there is no current requirement for policy and infrastructure planning processes to be based on a consistent set of assumptions about the future. That means, in practice, that two projects could get a green light despite being justified by incompatible visions of system need, ensuring that one would ultimately be left stranded. Of course, that does not lead to confidence in this area. So there could be incompatible visions.
For instance, hydrogen electrification visions of the future involve very different supporting infrastructure, and a lack of coherence could create expensive infrastructure which, at the end of the day, is unusable or redundant. The strategy provides an opportunity to set out the latest set of assumptions, projections and decision methodology and I am sure that is what the Government want to do to underpin their policy, to which other processes should align. What we are really trying to do in these amendments is to make sure, practically, that the actions that arise from the Bill are coherent and tie in with the policy statements of the Government. It seems absolutely straightforward to me: it is that missing link, if you like, that pushes together intent in these various areas and makes sure that the strategy is coherent in its delivery. It is as simple as that and I hope the Government and the Minister will look favourably on that approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I do not have an enormous amount to add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I highlight again the significance of linking strategy and policy: that is crucial. We will discuss in future debates the issues around the role of the ISOP and its independence, and, particularly in the context of this afternoon’s debate, look at long-term thinking, making sure that we get all the checks and balances in place. We are in a very fast-moving environment and need to make sure that we are absolutely on top of all the changes that are taking place. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, highlighted the risk of lack of coherence: we need to make sure that everything is nailed down, line by line, and I am sure we will have further discussion on these areas as we go through different aspects of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s conclusions on this group of amendments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments, beginning with Amendments 38 and 112. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may designate a CCUS strategy and policy statement to set out the strategic priorities of the Government in formulating their CCUS policy. This would also need to take account of any statement designated under Section 131 of the Energy Act 2013. The Secretary of State must carry out their functions under this part in the manner they consider is best to further deliver the policy outcomes set out in the statement. In addition, parliamentarians will have the opportunity to consider any draft CCUS strategy and policy statement before it can be designated, as is provided for by Clause 91(10). Setting out in a strategic policy statement possible scenarios for policy change would start to introduce considerable uncertainty for both investors and the regulator which would, in my view, hamper the stability of the sector.
Amendment 120 to Clause 98 would require that, when making regulations establishing or adjusting a low-carbon heat scheme, the Secretary of State must publish a statement demonstrating how the scheme would deliver in line with both the carbon capture usage and storage strategy and policy statement and any overall strategy and policy statement provided for by the Energy Act 2013. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord in his principle that policy-making should be aligned with the broader strategy and the latest science: that is why all policy on heat and building decarbonisation is and will continue to be developed in line with wider government energy and decarbonisation strategy. As we said in a recent government response to a consultation, the plan to introduce, for instance, the market-based low-carbon heat scheme is aligned with the aim to expand the deployment of heat pumps towards 600,000 installations per year by 2028. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord, and therefore do not believe that requiring another series of publications each time new regulations are made is ultimately necessary. I therefore hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Turning to Amendment 128, Clauses 108 and 109 will enable the safe and effective delivery of a village-scale hydrogen heating trial to gather vital evidence to help make decisions on the potential role of hydrogen in heat decarbonisation. I reassure the noble Lord that trial development is already following the latest science. This amendment would delay the introduction of new regulations which are focused on the protection of consumers until two strategy and policy statements are published. The exact contents of these documents would also need to be properly consulted on before they are issued.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and reassurances. Obviously, I am fairly disappointed with the overall reply. On the principles of coherence and delivery, I will read what he has said and think about coming back to this issue on Report. I thank him for going through the Government’s feelings on this issue in detail and may respond fully later during the passage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Ukraine Update
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Ben Wallace, with reference to Ukraine. The Statement is as follows:
“Since the House rose last, I wanted to update members of progress in Ukraine and UK support to date with it. On 29 August, Ukraine embarked on a counteroffensive in the south of the country around the city of Kherson on the west bank of the Dnipro river. As part of the shaping fires, Ukraine had inflicted serious damage on a range of river crossings with the aim of restricting Russian logistical support. This has had some considerable success. I can report to the House that the Ukrainian forces have made real progress, assaulting on three axes, and especially on the advance to the south of the city of Kryvyi Rih. The grinding fight in the Donbass continues, but with Russia making few substantive gains in the east over the last two months. Since June, Ukraine has struck more than 350 Russian command posts, ammo dumps, supply depots and other high-value targets far back from the front line. Many of these have been with longer-range weaponry supplied by international partners, including the United Kingdom.
As of today, the Ukrainian army is engaging with Russian forces using both artillery and brigade-level operations. It is making real gains but, understandably, as we have seen elsewhere in this conflict the fighting is close and hard, and Ukraine is suffering losses associated with an attacking force. My thoughts and the Government’s thoughts are obviously with the men and women of the brave Ukrainian forces, who are fighting to uphold our values as well as theirs and defend their land.
However, Russia continues to lose significant equipment and personnel. It is estimated to date that over 25,000 Russian soldiers have lost their lives and in all—including those killed, casualties, the captured or the now-reported tens of thousands of deserters—over 80,000 are dead or injured or in these other categories. This will have a long-lasting impact on Russia’s army and its future combat-effectiveness.
Russia has yet to achieve any of its strategic objectives. We are now on day 194 of what was envisaged in total to be a month-long campaign. I know members will be worried about reports about the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is the biggest nuclear power station in Europe. On Friday 1 September, the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency visited the plant accompanied by Russian media. No other international media were allowed to attend. Under the IAEA an inspection was carried out and it has left a team behind. It has already draw attention to the ‘violation of its physical integrity’ and the United Nations remains gravely concerned about the dangerous situation in and around the plant. We will continue to monitor it and ensure that we engage with Ukrainian partners to also ensure that no one’s safety is put at risk.
Earlier in the month Turkey, Russia and United Nations came to an agreement on grain exports from Ukraine: the so-called Black Sea initiative was put in place. This has now seen over 2 million tonnes of grain exported, with another 100 ships waiting to embark grain from Ukraine’s ports. I want to place on record the Government’s thanks to both the United Nations and the Turkish authorities for facilitating this: it was no mean feat. We have offered the Turkish military any support it requires but, to date, the Turkish Government have not requested any support, but we do stand ready to do so.
The United Kingdom continues to gift military aid to help the Ukrainian armed forces resist the illegal invasion. Since the end of July, when this House rose, we have gifted a further three GMLRS M270 platforms and accompanying missiles. We are now working on an additional package of support. The total funding committed to this support is £2.3 billion.
In June, I recognised that training is as important as military hardware, which is why we have embarked on establishing a network of training camps in the UK to train 10,000 Ukrainians. This was accompanied by specialist armed training across a number of countries in Europe. So far, we have trained 4,700, and I am delighted that over the summer we were joined by forces from Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Lithuania, Canada, Holland and New Zealand, who are all now in place alongside British military personnel delivering that training. The training cycle is now in its third iteration and, after lessons learned, we have now extended it to a five-week syllabus. We are already seeing this make a difference to the combat effectiveness of Ukraine, and we are evolving the course and feedback to make sure that the experiences do exactly what the Ukrainians need.
But support for Ukraine goes beyond the here and now. Being able to plan for the medium and long term requires international funding. So, at the beginning of August at the invitation of our Danish friends in the Danish Government, I co-chaired with them a conference in Copenhagen. So far, we have amassed pledges of up to €420 million of support, including those to be delivered through an international fund for Ukraine. We are working through the governance of this fund with our international partners, and we hope to add to it when I present more details this week to the Ukraine defence contact group convened by the United States in Germany on Thursday. This fund will be used to hopefully support a range of measures, including ammunition production, to ensure that there is a sustainable supply over the long term in Ukraine.
I place on record my appreciation to the Prime Minister for his enduring support for Ukraine throughout this process, without which a lot of this would not have been possible. I am grateful, too, for all the support of the parties across this House for the action we have taken. This allows us to lead on the world stage with a determination and focus on all the things that are right about Ukraine’s defence from an illegal invasion and on the fact that we share such common values of freedom, respect for sovereignty and the international rule of law. I hope all of us in this House do so—I know from experience that we do. This Government’s commitment to Ukraine remains unwavering and is enduring, and I commend this Statement to the House.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Government today on the situation in Ukraine. It gives us the opportunity to restate, as my right honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary did earlier in the other place, our united and continued support for the government effort to help Ukraine stand up to Russian aggression. It is a fundamental principle that we are standing for together with Ukraine—namely, that aggressors cannot be allowed to redraw international boundaries or borders by force.
On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I reiterate that we stand ready to work—again, as my right honourable friend the shadow Defence Secretary said in the other place—with the new Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary. We hope he keeps his post, and that the noble Baroness the Minister does so too. We will do all we can together to support Ukraine, because its fight is our fight.
The Statement today says that a network of training camps has been established across the UK with the aim of training 10,000 Ukrainians, which we support. Can the Minister say what the timeframe for this training is? Do the Government plan to increase the numbers we can and will train? Will the training be extended beyond the basic soldiering skills which are currently covered?
We welcome the continued military aid being given to Ukraine in terms of equipment, in particular the extra-long-range missiles and unmanned air systems. Are we able to meet the demand for these weapons with our NATO allies? Are we also able to replenish the domestic stockpiles that we have, and has the replacement of the NLAWs now started? Further, is the provision of this equipment designed to help the Ukrainians hold current ground or take back territory from the Russians? In other words, what strategy underpins our provision of this military equipment?
Western and NATO unity is essential in the face of Russian aggression. Critical to the maintenance of this unity is the ability of Governments to communicate the threat to their populations effectively given the difficulties their country faces. How do the Government intend to do this? Does the Minister agree that we are entering a critical new stage, with the conflict potentially at a new point? With Ukraine hitting ammunition dumps, airfields in Russian territory and command posts, Putin appears to be under increasing military pressure, and there are reports that he may well step up efforts to persuade the West to lean on Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire and to negotiations. What will we do to counter such activities, and can the Minister give us an update on NATO, European and western unity in the face of this?
What are the Government doing to explain that the energy crisis and supply chain disruption that we have seen are not a result of Russia’s war but an essential part of it? What will we do to help people through this cost of living crisis, and is the MoD talking to the Home Secretary about the continuation of the Homes for Ukraine scheme? How successful have we been with Turkey in ensuring that the additional 100 ships that the Minister mentioned which are waiting to leave Ukraine and ports in the Baltic Sea can leave? Can the Minister give us any update on when that might occur?
The Defence Secretary now appears to be using arguments that we have been making, saying at the end of the Tory leadership campaign that there are plans to update the integrated defence review, reconsider the shape of the Armed Forces and increase defence spending as a result of events in Europe. In the light of that and the lessons of the Ukraine conflict, when can we expect the stopping of the cuts to Army numbers of 10,000? That would be a great start to any independent review. Can the Minister give us any insight into when the update of the integrated review may take place?
Finally, notwithstanding the points and questions that I and others have made, we all want Ukraine with our support to succeed. It is testament to its determination, heroic bravery and determination that, with the help of the UK and our allies, it has withstood Russian aggression for over six months. Russia needs to know that we too are in this for the long haul if necessary, and together we will not waver from standing beside Ukraine in defence of the principles of freedom and democracy.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement.
Since we rose for the Summer Recess, the Ukrainian army has had some very significant successes and appears to be making extremely good use of the resources which we and our allies are providing it with.
We on these Benches, like the Opposition, remain supportive of the stance which the Government have taken in supporting the Ukrainian Government, and we welcome the initiatives that the Secretary of State has outlined in the Statement. I have just a few questions.
First, on Zaporizhzhia, the UN is quoted in the Statement as being concerned about the dangerous situation which still obtains there. In the light of that—presumably the UK Government agree with that assessment—what scenario planning has been undertaken to look at the potential fallout, literally, of a major nuclear release at Zaporizhzhia, which is by no means impossible?
On the gifting of military equipment, there will come a point—in some areas, we have probably reached it—when we have gifted all the equipment we have or cannot gift any more without our own capabilities being too far eroded. Can the Minister confirm that new orders are being placed to replace donated stock and/or produce new equipment which we can then simply gift directly from the factory to the Ukrainian army?
Training is one of the most commendable aspects of the work we have done, not least because we have been able to add a considerable amount of capacity at a very modest cost. I echo the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the future plans for this scheme in terms of both the number of soldiers involved and its scope. Is any training involving the Ukrainian air force and navy currently being undertaken or planned?
I want to ask about the scope of the international support fund. Is it limited, as I suspect it is, to arms and military supplies or does it extend to the concept of a broader Marshall plan for the reconstruction of Ukraine? We are going to need that at some point; I just wonder whether this initiative will form the nucleus of such a broader scheme.
It was reported in the FT today that the EU is to hold a summit of European states next month to build regional co-operation in the face of Russian aggression, and that the UK has been invited to participate. Can the Minister tell us whether the UK has indeed received such an invitation and, if so, whether it has responded to it? If the answer to the latter part of the question is no, I ask the Minister to urge her colleagues—not least the new Prime Minister—that it is crucial that the UK is represented at any such event so that we can both demonstrate the maximum degree of European unity on the issue and ensure that the UK exercises the maximum influence on the co-ordinated European response.
Finally, I want to ask a couple of questions about refugees. I accept that they may be beyond the Minister’s immediate remit but perhaps she could write to me if she cannot answer them. First, what is the Government’s plan for further support for Ukrainian refugees here once we have passed the six-month point? Secondly, how long do the Government envisage the scheme being open? At what point do they envisage themselves saying that the situation in Ukraine is stable enough for the scheme to end? Thirdly, what plans do the Government have to expand the support that British universities are giving to students from Ukraine, particularly in technical subjects such as medicine where, again, as with the basic military training, a small amount of expenditure could yield significant results for Ukraine’s future prospects?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Newby, for the tenor of their introductory remarks, which was welcome; I particularly thank them for their kind remarks in relation to me. As I have said before—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State echoed this today in the other place—the force and cogency with which the UK has been able to assist Ukraine have been helped enormously by political unanimity in Westminster. It has sent a very strong message, not just to friends and allies but to Mr Putin, that in the UK there is absolutely united resolve at the political level to deal with and address this evil, and not just to talk about it but to put our money where our mouth is and provide substantive help. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their positive comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the issue of training and the timeframe, as was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Although we have planned with an initial training programme of 10,000 Ukrainian personnel, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated today in the other place that this support will, frankly, be provided for as long as it is needed. I think we all understand that this training is having a hugely positive impact on both the morale and the capacity and capability of the Ukrainian armed forces to deal with this threat within their country. We are under no illusions about the support that we can give on the training front, and so we accept that we are not putting a timeframe on it. We will rely on Ukraine to tell us what it needs and how many people it can present for training. We can have all the capacity and capability, but we need the Ukrainian armed forces to present people for training.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about numbers. The Statement referred to the numbers that we have been training and hope to train. My understanding is that we plan to provide up to 1,050 UK service personnel to facilitate the training of the Ukrainian armed forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the matter of whether we can meet the demand for weapons and asked what we are doing about replacement. These are very pertinent questions. We have been meeting demand. Again, we are liaising daily with the Ukrainian Government. As the noble Lord will be aware, we had significant stockpiles, some of which contained weapons that were not in the first flush of youth, but that did not mean that they were not still effective and useful. We have been able to draw on these stockpiles. The pertinent question then is whether we come to a point of replacement. The answer is twofold. Yes, we do, but we have made sure that at no time have we compromised the UK’s ability to defend itself and address its own national security needs, and we have been in regular consultation with industry and signalled that we anticipate approaching it with orders and that they should be getting their houses in order to ensure that they are able to deal with the supply of whatever that request may be.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about our strategy for supporting Ukraine. We all acknowledge that the character of the conflict has changed since it started, many months ago. It has perhaps moved on from being purely defensive to us now seeing Ukraine with an appetite to be offensive in trying to recover territory. Our strategy is that we constantly liaise with the Ukrainian Government, as we do with our military allies and partners, to assess what we can do to support Ukraine in what it thinks it needs at this time in the conflict. It is quite difficult to say with any precision what we might be doing at the end of this month or at the end of November because it depends on the fluidity of the conflict. As for the resolve, the commitment and the determination of the United Kingdom and our friends and allies to support Ukraine, let there be no doubt that it is rock-solid.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about NATO and European unity, which I would say is positive and strong. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked particularly about the EU summit, which I will come to. We have had a very good relationship with the EU, which has been cemented by the universal recognition that, when you are confronted with a threat such as Russia’s illegal invasion of a sovereign country, nobody is safe. Everybody understands the mutuality of that threat and the need to stand shoulder to shoulder and agree on how to address that threat and how to support Ukraine in resisting this illegal invasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, very articulately encapsulated that the energy crisis is caused by Putin. That is a message that must repeatedly be got out. The problems that we are all confronted by, not just in this country but across the globe, on energy prices, inflation and escalating food prices have been created by Putin.
We are doing everything we can to help to mitigate the effects of that, and that is partly what we are doing to assist Ukraine. President Putin is now finding that his war in Ukraine is a very expensive, distracting and damaging exercise for him and his country. That is partly to do with what we and our allies and partners are doing to support Ukraine, the effect of sanctions and the miscalculation that he made about the reaction to this invasion. He thought that this was some kind of little local incursion that he could make into a country that he took a fancy to, and he had absolutely no realisation of the global impact of his illegal activity. We are doing everything we can to help.
I cannot pre-empt what the new Prime Minister may wish to announce in relation to trying to alleviate the very corrosive impact of these prices on ordinary families in the United Kingdom, but all the indications are that the Prime Minister intends to make an announcement. I anticipate that the Government will come forward with specific plans to provide help.
There was another question about when the grain ships will leave. I do not have specific information about that, other than what is already in the Statement. Again, that is a fluid situation. When the ships can get in and be loaded, they will leave.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked specifically about the integrated review and the cuts to the Army. I repeat what my right honourable friend said in the other place: the integrated review, which we all know is a substantial piece of work, absolutely correctly identified the main threat—it is Russia. It has been confirmed sharply that the integrated review was right in that analysis.
On the cuts to the Army, as the Secretary of State has repeatedly indicated, it is always a difficult question within defence, when you look at the overall capability, to determine what you will do with money if you get it or get more of it. He summed it up very neatly today when he said that, if you get more resource, you need to look at how to make the Armed Forces less vulnerable. There may be a variety of ways to do that.
I would like to echo the final sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who said that it is absolutely critical that all of us who are minded to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, whether as political parties of the UK or nation states who are partners and friends, stand firm. The noble Lord is absolutely correct. That must happen, and we must not allow a cigarette paper to filter between us.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhia. The inspection has been very recent, and we are awaiting further information. It will then be easier to make an assessment of the situation and what response, if any, should be made.
On the reconstruction of Ukraine, we all wish we had a crystal ball. We do not know what lies ahead, but we know that there is a concerted view that Ukraine will need help with that reconstruction. It is premature to discuss it now, but we will certainly look at it when the time is appropriate.
I am unable to answer whether the United Kingdom has been invited to the EU summit about rebuilding Ukraine—it is a bit wide of my remit. I can certainly make inquiries and write to the noble Lord.
Finally, the noble Lord had a number of questions about refugees. Again, these are outwith my particular ministerial remit, but I have made of note of them. I shall look at Hansard and see if we can provide some response.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness gave a wonderful summary of where the Government have got to. I want to look at the grain export issue. I congratulate the Government on what they are doing in helping to open up the Black Sea. The noble Baroness will know that I have been involved in an international task force to improve the volume of grain exported by rail, but the Black Sea is the answer.
I met some friends from Romania in the summer. They said that so many mines were being washed up in the Black Sea, at Constanţa and the coast nearby—Russian ones that have lost their tether—that people are forbidden to go into the sea. Are the Government or their allies doing anything to minesweep a channel? We do not want any of these ships—and the more there are the better—to hit mines and be damaged.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
That is a very important question. As the noble Lord will be aware, we do not have Royal Navy deployment in the Black Sea, but I understand that we have been amenable to providing training on countermine measures and have offered support to Turkey if Turkey would find that helpful. As the noble Lord will be aware, Turkey has deployed the Montreux convention and therefore there is very restricted activity. However, I reassure the noble Lord that if help is required by Turkey and advice and help are sought from the UK, we will look at that very sympathetically.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Secondly, I was delighted by the supportive stance taken by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Newby. I think it is right that in his final day of office the Prime Minister should be acknowledged for his robust support and swift response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and his leadership of the western world in the strong and continued response and resistance to the Russian invasion. Can the Minister tell the House how effective she thinks the sanctions on the Russian regime are? Are they effective or not?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We understand that the sanctions imposed by the UK and our international partners are having deep and damaging consequences for Putin’s ability to wage war. We have sanctioned more than 1,100 individuals and 100 entities and, with our allies, have frozen around £275 billion-worth of assets. That includes oligarchs worth £117 billion. We have also announced new sanctions on Kremlin-imposed officials in the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics. Russia’s GDP is expected to contract by 3.5% to 8.5% in 2022, but that is compared to a pre-invasion forecast of 2.8% growth. By 2026, Russia’s economy is expected to be 16% smaller versus the pre-invasion trend estimated by the International Monetary Fund. There is evidence that it is hitting Putin hard. Much more problematic is to know whether the message is reaching ordinary Russian people. There is evidence to suggest that, sadly, they are now beginning to experience the hardship of the consequences of Putin’s illegal war. It may be that with that, coupled with the tragic deaths of and injuries to the loved ones and relatives of many people and families in Russia, they may now be beginning to pose the question: what is this about and why are we doing it?
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, looking slightly beyond now and the immediate future, what assessment have the Government made of the fact that on 25 August, the day after Putin’s chief of defence acknowledged that the Russian military campaign had stalled, President Putin signed a decree, which will come into effect on 1 January 2023, increasing the size of his country’s combat forces by 137,000 people? That brings Russian combat personnel to 1.15 million people. If we take into account that Ukraine has set itself the target of a 1 million-strong military, what are the implications for the strategic stability of the part of the world that we are a key part of? What assessment have the Government made of this significant development?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It may be that Putin passes a law or makes a decree, but we have seen that the mass and volume of his armed forces numbers have not delivered for him the military triumph that he clearly anticipated was within his grasp when he embarked upon this illegal war. As the noble Lord will be aware, various reasons are hypothesised for that: many of these troops were untrained, many were provided with equipment not fit for purpose, and there seems to have been an absence of overall strategic command. So there are inherent weaknesses within the fundamental operational capacity of the Russian military. That has become evident as Ukraine has embarked on its activity to defend the country and seek to call Putin to account.
The noble Lord is right that these levels of activity are alarming but we must not be distracted and we must never lose sight of the fact that something wrong, illegal and dangerous has happened; somehow, we and our like-minded friends and allies have to respond to that by helping Ukraine. The gift that Putin would wish for is to think that anyone is getting bored or fed up or is now taking this all for granted. We are not—this country is not doing that, and neither are our European and NATO partners. We are resolved to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and do whatever it takes to assist in bringing this illegal invasion to an end.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, sanctions, as we know, are a very blunt instrument and, indeed, a double-edged sword—they harm those imposing the sanctions as well as those subject to them—but, as my noble friend said, they appear to be working in Russia; they are certainly reducing economic activity and, God willing, they will have a significant effect on the Russian economy. However, we hear from some of our European allies that they are less than enthused by the sanctions. In particular, Senor Salvini, who may easily be in government in Italy before the end of this month, yesterday called for an end to sanctions. Can my noble friend reassure me that our European allies will continue to be steadfast in backing continuing sanctions as part of the great unity that we wish to continue to see?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
In the course of responding to the conflict in Ukraine we have been encouraged by the attitude and decisions of our friends within the EU. Very constructive measures have been taken and there has been a manifest level of co-operation and recognition of what I said earlier—that this is a threat that affects us all. It may be that an individual political leader in an individual European country has reservations about sanctions. It is for the other countries, whether inside or outwith the EU, to explain that the evidence is there that sanctions work and are beginning to bite Putin where it matters. That is a very powerful argument to advance.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading the Statement, not least because the situation in Ukraine has such direct relevance to the energy crisis being faced by millions of people in Britain today. I have two brief questions: first, in relation to longer-range missiles and the Minister’s own reference to offensive operations, are the Government confident that these cannot be fired either deliberately or accidentally into the territory of Russia itself? Secondly, in respect of the International Atomic Energy Agency visit, I am sure the Minister will agree that it has an extremely important job of work to do, but can the United Kingdom use its position as a permanent member of the Security Council to ensure that a report on the situation at that nuclear plant is available and discussed at the Security Council because it has such relevance to the global community?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
If I may, I will take the noble Viscount’s second question first. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, we are in the early days of understanding what the inspection has gleaned. I think there will be a recognition by the United Nations that there is universal interest in understanding what has happened at that plant. Therefore, again, it is somewhat outwith my ministerial sphere of responsibility, but I would be very surprised if the FCDO is not actively engaging with the United Nations to understand more about the inspection and what might ultimately be disclosed on that front.
In relation to the supply of weapons by the UK to Ukraine and what they are used for, we have made it clear that they must be used in conformity with international law. That includes using them within Ukraine for the defence of the country. Defending the country and using the weapons within Ukraine may be offensive in nature because that may be aimed at activity engaged in by Russian forces but still within Ukraine, but we require that Ukraine operates within international humanitarian law and international law, and that is understood.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I was glad to hear that the Statement gave quite a bit of space to the very important agreement on the export of Ukrainian grain and oilseeds. This is the first sign of a slight concession on the part of Russia. It is also of extreme importance to some of the poorest people in the Middle East and north Africa, including some of those living in refugee camps or displaced people.
Can the Minister confirm the figure given in the Statement of 2 million tonnes already exported and apparently having reached their destinations? Of course this is only a small proportion of the total foodstuffs in store in Ukraine—maybe 10%—so it is still extremely important. Can she tell us anything about the current 2022 harvest in Ukraine? How badly has it been affected by the fighting? Is it being successfully stored?
I repeat what I have mentioned previously: we should not just settle and plan for a long drawn-out war. Anything that can be done to shorten it must be done. Are the Government therefore working to make the maximum use of the possible and available channels of communication, including through our diplomatic staff in Russia?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
On the specific question about the 2 million tonnes of grain, I do not have information as to where that has gone or which countries have received it. I can undertake to make inquiries and if an answer is forthcoming, I shall write to the noble Lord.
He is quite right that the consequence of all this is impacting desperately on the poorer countries of the world. It may be a considerable time before there is a manifest expansion of the grain exports that would both provide food to sources that need it and reduce the price and cost of the food supply. That may take a little time.
In the meantime, we as a country have produced £372 million pounds for the countries most impacted by rising global food prices, which was announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in June. The UK and partners also secured the largest ever World Bank financial commitment of $170 billion for low-income countries around the world. That is supporting countries facing economic hardship as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
On the final point, this war is going, I am afraid, to be a protracted affair. At the end of the day, how it unfolds and what the consequences are will very much depend on Ukraine’s decisions about what Ukraine wants to do. That is not for others to interfere in. They must come to their own view, when they think they can, as to what options are available to them.
On the final question about communications with Russia, it is very difficult to maintain diplomatic relations with a country which has behaved as appallingly as Russia has. What I can say to the noble Lord is that at defence level, MoD maintains communication with the Russian MoD to try to ensure that we understand the escalation and implications of any military activity. At that level there is engagement, but I am afraid that diplomatic engagement in the current situation is almost impossible to contemplate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I return to the section of the Statement referring to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, particularly the final part of that section which says that we will
“engage with Ukrainians to ensure no one’s safety is put at risk”.
Given that Reuters was reporting a couple of hours ago that the Ukrainian energy authority has just confirmed reports from the weekend that the sixth reactor has again been disconnected from the grid, due to the destruction of power lines, I do not really believe that the Government can say that they can ensure that no one’s safety will be put at risk. None the less, the Statement talks about engaging with the Ukrainians on this issue. Can the noble Baroness assure me that all possible diplomatic pressures are being used on the Russians to seek to push towards the demilitarisation and safe restoration of that area? In light of the fact that Ukraine is distributing iodine tablets to its population around the nuclear plant, are the Government working with the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiological and Nuclear Emergencies to ensure that international preparations, should the worst happen, are at the absolute highest level they could possibly be?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Again, I say to the noble Baroness that is somewhat out of my ministerial sphere but I am very sympathetic to her concerns. The Statement said that we will do our best to monitor what is happening; we will certainly engage with Ukrainian partners to understand what is going on. As I said to the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Hylton, it is now very much a matter for the International Atomic Energy Authority to consider what it has found and what its recommendations are. It would be sensible for this country to work with other partners within the United Nations on that front. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, pointed out, these are serious issues. At the end of the day, we will work better in co-operation with the United Nations in trying to understand what is happening.